Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Hiding the decline/data "trick"

Changed data' to decline/data as hiding the decline is the primary quote. (Data has also been hidden, but that is little known.) DLH (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Recommend a section on Hiding the data trick" as a major issue arising from these CRU emails. See How “The Trick” was pulled offDLH (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's a reliable source for sure. We'll get right on it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

But "any eco-related scare for which the prescription would result in a massive transfer of power to the political class is bogus" applied to AGW is at least doubly wrong, hence right! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the widespread MSM discussion of "Mike's Nature trick," it's odd that the only discussion of that "trick" in the Wikipedia article is drawn verbatim from the RealClimate site's damage control effort. If the publications of right-wing pundits and the "denier" blogs (many of them created and maintained by credentialed climatologists who had been frozen out of the referee'd professional journals by way of the CRU correspondents' co-option of the peer review process) are not "reliable sources," how is it that the CRU correspondents' own principal advocacy site has become acceptably "reliable"? 71.125.155.89 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the article eventually needs such a section, but I think it is premature at the moment. I gather that the "trick" is a reference to the need to conjoin instrument based temperature records with dendrology based temperature records. This is a legitimate need, and it is plausible that the mechanism for doing so is both appropriate and described as a "trick". However, it would be nice to see reliable sources discussing this in a NPOV before adding the material. The blogs I've read so far are breathless and biased, and "conclusive" without even a pretense of examining all issues.--SPhilbrickT 19:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve McIntyre was the IPCC reviewer who explicitly warned the IPCC “don’t cover up the divergence”. See the IPCC documentation: Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18) Boris - if you have a better site showing the graphs before / after please provide it. This issue of "hiding the decline" is iconic, core to both the scientific and political controversy, and is most widely known. It needs a major section to describe the development from Brifa 2000 which was cited in the caption to IPCC Fig 2.21, to Jone's email, and the subsequent recent disclosure of the full data that Brifa had deleted in his 2000 figure, and the programmer's commenting dealing with such deletion after 1960 - in the Harry Readme file. Obviously there would be quotes from protagonists, antagonists, and reviewers. The link I gave has the best graphics I have found.DLH (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What specific data were contained in ESR's plot? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Watts forgets to mention that the divergence is described in specifics at page 472-473 in Chapter 6 of the AR4 WG1 report. They also specifically note the 1960 cut-off-point. I find it very very hard to call something a "cover-up" when it is described in detail in both the report (and of course also in Briffa et al.(2001), which the AR4 cites) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mann claimed: “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, grafted the thermometer record onto any reconstruction.” In “A good way to deal with a problem” McIntyre notes: “However, although the “real” Briffa reconstruction goes down after 1960, the series in the diagram attributed to “Briffa (1999)” goes up. The decline in the Briffa reconstruction is not shown; it is hidden.” However, in: How “The Trick” was pulled off McIntyre notes: “There is no mention in the IPCC report of the deletion of Briffa reconstruction data after 1960. Nor is there any mention of the deletion in the IPCC reference (Briffa 2000) nor, for that matter, in the article cited by Gavin Schmidt (Briffa et al 1998). These articles report the divergence, but do not delete it. (Briffa et al 2001 does delete the post-1960 values.)”DLH (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the statement by McI that "There is no mention in the IPCC report of the deletion of Briffa reconstruction data after 1960" is quite simply wrong, please check page 473 like i asked...(i quote (emph. mine)):

Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a).

A thing like this is one reason amongst others that blog postings aren't reliable sources on Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Right! Blogs are not acceptable, neither are ad hominems--rndhyd.68.180.38.25 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that does not fly. You would then have to delete ALL RealClimate references. The whole CRU emails explosion was led by WattsUpWithThat, with a 350% increase in traffic, followed by a 500% increase at climateaudit.org and similar tripling at realclimate.org and climatedepot.com. MSM came in very late. McIntyre was an IPCC reviewer and his objections were documented at IPCC. etc.DLH (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Note McIntyre explicitly distinguishes in his comments between (Brifa 1999), (Bifra 2000) and Bifra(2001). See the original posts.DLH (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Boris - Thanks for the ref. "hiding the decline" is a direct quote from Jone's email, not whether we think it is hidden or not. As you note, the IPCC WG1 Ch 6 p 472-473 states: ““Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades” . . . “In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’was a uniquely recent phenomenon” That IPCC statement vs McIntyre is the heart of the statistical or scientific issue -(i.e. is this cherry picking or legitimate?) These are statements that need to be quoted or summarized together with select graphs.DLH (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See above: IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence” IPCC Reviewer McIntyre statement.DLH (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All of this is original research, and none of it is covered in reliable sources. Therefore it doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand how you read that. All the material is published/posted by others, none of my posts. I was listing materials to summarize.DLH (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Are blogs acceptable or unacceptable sources of information for Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LVAustrian (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that the skeptical spin on "Mike's nature trick" and "Hide the decline" aren't really making much serious talk. And if you're arguing that we should take them seriously because, despite this, some blogs mention them, well this isn't going to work. If on the other hand you had a reputable blog giving an opinion of a blog owner whose opinion independently would merit comment, then it might end up in Wikipedia. --TS 02:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the real "problem" is that "the heart of the statistical or scientific issue" isn't relevant to this article; all that is relevant is what the words refer to, not various parties' views about the referent, and no reliable source questions that those words refer to what climate scientists say they refer to. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

---

• Our section on "Hide the decline" presently ends with the RC rebuttal, arguably a WP:primary source. I propose to rebut this with Climate Audit's “A good way to deal with a problem” (quoting Gavin Schmidt), and "Still hiding the decline" the best rebuttals I've seen online.

Samples: "While they’ve [Phil Jones & CRU] used the actual Briffa reconstruction after 1960 in making their smooth, even now, they deleted values after 1960 so that the full measure of the decline of the Briffa reconstruction is hidden." (2nd CA source)

"The decline in the Briffa reconstruction is not shown; it is hidden. Gavin Schmidt of real climate says that this is “a good way to deal with a problem”. I disagree (and recorded this disagreement in a related context in connection with IPCC AR4 as discussed elsewhere.) (1st CA source)

Perhaps we should quote McIntyre's IPCC review remarks (and Briffa's comments rejecting same) as well -- public records.

Ordinarily we prefer citing secondary sources. However, it seems to me that rebutting a primary (RC) with another primary (CA) would be appropriate. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a secondary source (Michael Mann reported in a US newspaper) for the claim that the "decline" discussed concerned a decline in tree ring metrics. --TS 04:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Or why not cut to the chase and and demand that all sources are "peer reviewed by the scientists" - the "scientists" being the small group of politicos writing the emails. And what is more, realclimate is simply the mouth piece for these self-reviewing "climate scientists", so when it comes down to it, their views are only the veiws of yet another bunch of bloggers anyway - the only difference is they get paid to produce their blogs! So, can we please stop this crap about who is saying what (remember wikipedia is only really another blog!) and use the normal criteria of whether enough people are reporting something to make it notable. Isonomia (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mu. --TS 10:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Protected page edit request

{{editprotected}} (awaiting consensus from discussion below before submitting)

Proposed edit

Please could you insert the following (minus the quote box)as the third paragraph in the Reactions to the incident section - i.e. as a new paragraph after the text "talks at the December, 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit." and before the text "The American Association for the Advancement of Science has". If inserting it near the top of that section (warranted, I believe, as an investigation by the United Nations seems more noteworthy than reactions from most other bodies) isn't acceptable please place it at the bottom of that section instead. It's unlikely to be controversial as it's a factual statement that mirrors the text used in multiple references. Brumski (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations announced an investigation by its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change into claims that the CRU manipulated data to favour the conclusion that human activity is driving global warming, saying that the claims were serious and they wanted them investigated.

References

(to enable them to display correctly in the proposed edit above)

Discussion

The references lead to something called www.ft.com? but I agree that reactions from the UN should go into the article, as discussed before. Before requesting that the page be modified it's better to wait a little so others have a chance to comment to see if there is consensus.
—Apis (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had linked both references to the same Financial Times story. I've corrected the Mail on Sunday reference so that it now links to the correct article on their site and added another reference from The Guardian. I've placed the editprotected template back as it only suggests discussion "If the proposed edit might be controversial". Given that the proposed edit is a simple factual statement, is a direct mirror of the phrasing used in multiple highly respected mainstream news sources and that you and others agree it should be in the article it seems impossible for the proposed addition to be controversial. In addition, the reviewing admin will assess it's controversy value before adding it and will refuse to add it if it is or can be controversial. Allow them to reject the proposed edit if you think it isn't warranted. Brumski (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please gain consensus before using the edit protected template. Restore when consensus exists on exact wording. -Atmoz (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you both (and anyone else) please state what is controversial about the requested edit, what your objections to it are and what needs changing to accommodate those objections? Brumski (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion under "stagnation" above. Adding what RP said is fine; adding the FT's misrepresentation of it isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see the controversy now, thanks for that. The 4 well known WP:RS that I provided and an additional 2 that I have added say the following - is that not sufficient? "The UN panel on climate change is to investigate claims that UK scientists manipulated global warming data to support a theory that it is man-made" Mail On Sunday. "The head of the UN's climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated" BBC. "The United Nations climate change panel is to investigate claims that scientists at the University of East Anglia in the UK manipulated data to support the case that human activity is driving global warming" Financial Times. "Claims that scientists at the University of East Anglia manipulated global warming data to support a theory of man-made climate change will be investigated by a United Nations panel, the university chairman said today" The Guardian. Also "The United Nations panel on climate change has promised to investigate claims that scientists at a British university deliberately manipulated data to support the theory of man-made global warming" The Times and "The United Nations panel on climate change is to investigate claims that scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit manipulated global warming data " The Telegraph. Brumski (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeating the same wrong words just won't help. You need to engage with the objections already raised William M. Connolley (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I quoted the words to demonstrate that the proposed edit directly reflects the articles in 9 WP:RS. I believe I have engaged with the objections raised previously - although there was a lot of text there were only two objections raised by two people. 1) One was Apis who mentioned "I generally agree that we should alow for the dust to settle a little so we get more than one news source to compare from". There are now 9 sources instead of one, so there is more than one news source so that objection doesn't seem valid any more. 2) The other objection was from you and was "The BBC seems to have got it wrong" (supported by an assertion that the BBC routinely gets things wrong, with an example) and that "We are not, however, obliged to repeat their mistakes" and that by allowing the story to settle we will avoid repeating the BBC's mistake. So, your objection seems to be essentially that the BBC is wrong. To help with that objection (which I didn't know about when I compiled the text - i.e. I did not use the BBC as a source) I have provided 8 additional well respected WP:RS sources. There are 9 sources now included in the proposed text and that proposed text directly mirrors what they say: it's a strictly factual statement that reflects the sources and there is no POV to it. Is that a correct assessment of the objections and if not, can you restate or re-summarize them? If you have any additional objections can you state them as well. Thanks.Brumski (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally would leave out rather problematic words "...to favour the conclusion that human activity is driving global warming". To me it seems these are header/lead words added by media, however RS's. I short, the words are: imho not needed, as header text not worthy material to wiki and, just creating needless debate here. With simpler facts we should add this and also UEA own investigation announcement into article. Just my 2 eurocents. --J. Sketter (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Also I'd consider adding the reasons for these 2 investigations being done (credibility & reputition of these institutions). --J. Sketter (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

---

I've been trying to find the actual interview online, it apears to be made by this radio program: The Report but it won't be available online until 20:00 Thursday 10 December 2009... Ah, but now I found a snippet on the BBC News Briefing 4 December 2009. As far as I can tell he says:

"We certainly will go into the whole lot and then as I said we will take a position on it. We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet [unclear] swept under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we certainly will look into it in detail"

The BBC News article quotes him as:

"We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it," he said.

"We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail."

Well, what can you say, crap journalists can't even get their quotes right. It looks like the IPCC has only made the following official statements so far:

• Statement by the IPCC Chairman
• Further elaboration by IPCC Working Group I

BBC might have 'overstated' what he said. If we want to include this now, I suggest we write something like:

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said that the IPCC "certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet", it's a serious issue and they will look into it in detail before taking a position on it. However he has also stressed that "the processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report".

Any thoughts?
—Apis (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is an important distinction people often miss (not just here, there was a similar issue in the Swiss Minaret controversy article for example). There's a difference between an official statement from the IPCC or another organisation, a statement made by an individual on behalf of the organisation/representing the organisation and a personal statement from someone high up in an organisation but who isn't claiming everything he's saying is the official view of the organisation. An official statement would usually be clearly identified as being an official statement. Something someone says on radio is unlikely to be an official statement but could be made on behalf of the organisation or could simply be personal comments. We need to clearly differentiate the three when writing Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added an additional reference from the Wall Street Journal to my proposed edit above. I don't think there is a basis in policy for deciding that 11 reliable secondary sources are wrong and that, because of that, 1 primary source should be interpreted by Wikipedia editors and used in place of those sources. Additionally, asserting that the BBC has made a mistake and that 10 reliable secondary sources have copied that mistake is original research and unsupported, except by a rhetorical argument that journalists are crap, based on something as weak as the difference between "as I said" and "he said". Could you include the text "The chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" at the start, and "he wants them investigated" somewhere in the text and adjust your current quote to "we certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet". Brumski (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The UN IPCC statement is obviously important and deserves inclusion. While it is a reaction, I beleive it belongs more appropriately in the call for inquiries section, as it is a call for an inquity. I suggest a level 3 subsection 3.2. I'm struggling with the exact placement. Chronologically, it occurred after the evetns summarized int he "East Anglia response" subsection, so belongs after. In terms of layout, it might be better to have the discussion of various calls for inquiry, followed at the end by a response section. In the interest of addressing this in small increments, I propose a small subsection after the response section, then, once East Anglia responds to the UN call, the response section can be moved to the end.

I note that Brumski added quite a few references. I interpret that number as attempting to insure that this was getting broad coverage. However, I don't think we should clutter the article with that many references, even though Brunski obviously went to some effort.

My proposal is to include two references, the BBC reference for the main point, and the Times for a quote (although the most relevant quote is in both references, there's some value to showing this is not a one-off article.)

Picking up on the point that this isn't an official UN announcement, I'll modify my proposal as follows, although still believing it belongs as a subsection under inquiries:

===IPCC promises investigation===
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) promises an investigation into claims that the CRU manipulated data to favour the conclusion that human activity is driving global warming.Pachauri stated, "We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail."

References

why is this not added to the article? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Added, Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because we are currently discussing the precise wording?
—Apis (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to include Brumski's sugestions, wich I think are good:

The chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra Pachauri said that "we certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet", and that it was a serious issue and they will look into it in detail before taking a position on it. However he has also stressed that "the processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report".

I didn't do a very good job at motivating my version. I believed it was clear from the other context I presented. (The "crap" comment wasn't meant as motivation, it was just an observation. I just think it's bad when a journalist can't even be bothered to quote properly.) What Brumski say about sources isn't true. It was the BBC radio 4 news, a secondary source (although radio is not a good source for wikipedia for technical reasons, so it should be avoided in the article). Although it was the radio interview that the BBC article refers to. I also strongly object to any original research, but there is certainly no policy that we should include things we think are wrong, even if published by a RS. Apparently, even a RS can get it wrong sometimes. The IPCC doesn't appear to have made any official statements about it. I simply think we should avoid saying they have, and stick to what Rajendra Pachauri actually said (as supported by the source). No original research, just be careful about what we say and how we do it.

I think it's very important that the second qoute (or somthing similar) is also included, since that is the main point Rajendra Pachauri has been making, and it's also what is said in the official statements from the IPCC, both by himself and by IPCC WG-I. Maybe we should elaborate more on that?
—Apis (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Apis that it's important that the second part of the quote (or similar) is added - it's important for WP:NPOV. I would recommend adding it to the current text that is there already [6] rather than replacing that text with your proposal immediately above, essentially because I want "UN", "IPCC" (both as their full names) and "investigation" to remain in the text. If you're looking to add new text w.r.t. the UN response there is also Yvo de Boer's response [7] (this is not my opinion that you should expand it, just a source suggestion if you do: it shows two significant views by an important figure with respect to climate change in the UN; that the "correspondence looks very bad" and also why it looks bad, and also a defence of the review process). Brumski (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The above edit wasn't bad, but again it is slanted way too far against the sceptics so I added the sentence about Saudi Arabia.

{{quote box2 |width=100% | bgcolor=white |align=left |halign=left | salign=left | fontsize=100% | quote= The chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra Pachauri said that "we certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet", and that it was a serious issue and they will look into it in detail before taking a position on it. However he has also stressed that "the processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report". However Saudi Arabia has requested an "independent investigation" at the [[United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 ]]

--138.162.8.58 (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The comments from the Saudis should be mentioned, no doubt, but not here. I will try to add the other IPCC and Rajendra Pachauri statement to the existing text then. Not easy to discuss this wile some edit the article while ignoring discussion and so much BS going on elsewhere, but I can live with this solution.
—Apis (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Have included statements made by RKP and WGI, still not happy with the wording of the first paragraph in the article; it reflects the BBC news piece, is possibly wrong, and doesn't fit in to our article.
—Apis (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this quote not included in the article?

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, stated:

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

Why is this quote not included in the article?

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

My own opinion is that this sounds like an idle boast, not connected to any specific event. While there are concerns that some information is missing, the relatively recent admissions of loss of data relate to time frames predating his statement. Further, the known losses of information in the 80's appear to be related to storage requirements, rather than attempts to hide data. (Not saying the decisions were good, just that the rationale seems to be unrelated to the quote.) If an investigation confirms that he did delete files without adequate cause, the statement may come back to bite him, but I think we need more to make it anything other than unfortunate wording. Finally, he refers to a "file" but without more specificity, it isn't clear what he is talking about.--SPhilbrickT 19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about facts, not your opinion. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I do think that something regarding the how the e-mail authors discuss the Freedom of Information Act inquiries should be added at some point to the E-mail section. This is certainly one of the hot topics and Muir Russell will be investigating how the CRU responded to FOIA requests. Any such addition or quote would need to come from a WP:Reliable Source (Fox is OK but the NY Times or a British source would be best methinks) and we would want to add some sort of balancing here's-one-way-to-think-about-it-quote from the authors or other reputable sources. Madman (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not neutral to cherry-pick quotes from the emails to imply some ones guilt. If there is more to write about, like a court case, then we might be able to elaborate.
—Apis (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we cherry-pick quotes, and we certainly shouldn't go into the archives outselves, but several of these e-mails (maybe 1%, if that's several) have been widely discussed in the press and the article should mention those particular e-mails. There're 3 e-mails highlighted in the artcle now and I bet we'll have 5 or 6 eventually. Madman (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy about the email quotes. There is still just speculation and accusations, and these are stolen emails. Still there might be some justification for trying to illustrate what some of the accusations are about. But simply adding the quotes without context or at least some response from the author isn't neutral. It's difficult to give a fair representation when selecting 1 quote from 1 private email out of more than 1000 from a period of over 10 years. Also worth to keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't investigative journalism, our goal isn't to expose some injustice, or present up to date news. To me it makes more sense to wait and see if there is something more to these accusations.
—Apis (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire reaction section is filled with cherry-picked quotes, most of which diminish the severity of this scandal, and the lies by the scientists in question. The quote should be included 03:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.136.29 (talk)

We should cover this as reliable sources do. If we can find some reliable sources which cover this quote, then it should be included. If Jones or someone else has explained or provided context regarding it, that belongs in here as well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few reliable sources that we can use: A climate scandal, or is it just hot air?, Climate emails hacked, published, Who's to blame for Climategate?, U.K. Climate Scientist Steps Down After E-Mail Flap. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the first article I listed above from the New Zealand Herald is particularly good at examining the content of the e-mails. I would prefer a little more depth, but it's one of the best articles about the e-mail content I've read so far. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[8] is probably a better link to the NZ Herald article since it doesn't open a print window on many browsers Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the URL in my previous post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Because there's no way to make it look like it's no big deal, which unfortunately is what this article is trying to do when it comes to this whole issue. Counteraction (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Destruction of files seems to be one of the more commonly reported things in this whole affair; if there's some specific email that is being singled out in the mainstream press we should include it. Evercat (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I came to this talk page specifically to look for the reason for non inclusion of FOI. This particular issue has been widely reported and discussed by media. Non inclusion of this issue would give an appearance of censorship against sceptic side. Vapour (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, articles don't write themselves; someone needs to seize the initiative and add it. Evercat (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So, even though the whole corpus of stolen material was cherry picked by the "sceptic side" and from that a few extra-juicy (and easy to misrepresent) quotes were selected and repeatedly broadcast by "the sceptic side", not including all of their picks gives the appearance of "censorship" of the "sceptic side". Got it. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, the FOI (and other) concerns should be mentioned in the article. What I don't like is the inclusion of quotes from the e-mails unless there is some very good reason for doing so. In my opinion it adds nothing to the article. It neither proves or disproves innocence, and it's arguably unethical.
—Apis (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the links everyone. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Added notes on source code and harry_read_me.txt

I added info on these, because they have been subject to controversy. If there is any bias, I'd appreciate editing. I write this in good faith because this subject is relevant to the topic, and I hope that we are not too agenda driven and can include a discussion of it. Much thanks!-WikilAGATA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilagata (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a mention of leaked/stolen program code is appropriate. The emails were the immediate source of controversy, but the programmer comments and other areas of the source code have been generated just as much controversy - it had just taken longer for the public to digest.Static623 (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

I'm deleting the following from the article in accordance with WP:PSTS:

"According to the RealClimate website, in their response to the CRU hack, the "decline" being mentioned is a decline in tree ring sizes, not temperature. RealClimate characterizes the e-mail excerpt as follows:

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

"

I doubt this is very controversial, but I've been surprised before, so I figure I should mention it here. --Heyitspeter (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored that lucid, scientific explanation, and also cited a Philadelphia Inquirer story that quotes Mann saying exactly the same thing. Given the amount of nonsense we've got in the article from people who nothing about the science, it's very unwise to remove what few good scientific sources we have. --TS 02:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that we have the secondary source, can we remove the primary source? Again, this is in accordance with WP:PSTS.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove anything, and I'm afraid you are misinterpreting the policies/guidelines again. Because there continues to be confusion on these issues from you, please use the talk page before making these edits in the future. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I am, and I fail to understand why you think this is a case of misinterpreting the policies/guidelines "again." Please be civil and engage with me rationally. If we have a secondary source that says "exactly the same thing" as the primary, and if primary sources are contentious in this case, let's go with the secondary. This shouldn't be a difficult decision to make.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If we removed the clear RealClimate explanation we'd have to replace it with something else that does the same excellent job. We've got our secondary source, so there is no longer an issue. People come to this encyclopedia for an explanation of the issues, and RealClimate is a good source on this subject. --TS 04:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The key point here I think is similar that do when primary sources came up before, e.g. with the CRU-UEA response & investigation. It's best to avoid solely using a primary source as the source. If however we have a secondary source which says the same thing or even quotes the primary source, then using the primary source to back up the secondary source is useful for readers to get more information that may not be provided in the secondary source. Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The POV issue with quoting the RealClimate explanation is that critics are not saying thet the "trick" was simply truncating tree-ring data after 1960, but that it involved turning the trend line upwards by incorporating later temperature data into the smoothed series, even though the tree-ring data was declining from 1940 to 1960 (in line with temperature) and after 1960 (diverging from temperature). A UEA press release [9] illustrates the different visual effect between splicing and truncating in two charts; note that it does not show how the tree-ring data continued after 1960. NPOV could require also quoting from critics such as [10] --Rumping (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added some secondary sources that the "trick" involved splicing together (not just plotting) tree ring and thermometer data, plus relevant links to UEA and RealClimate on the same point. --Rumping (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate -- or CRUgate

Since Wikipedia is in the middle of writing history at exactly the same time as History is out there busy writing itself, could I request of both Wikipedia and History that we try to do something about this awful new word that is in serious danger of coming into existence, viz. "Climategate". It raises so many questions that should never, ever be raised -- and certainly not anywhere near an encyclopaedia. For instance, should we capitalise the 'G' (CamelCase) or run it all into a single word (Climategate)? Could we break it up into two words? Um, hypthenate (Climate-Gate)? Argh. And beside, who exactly is guilty here: The hacker, the leaker, or the climate? A number of sensible writers have, to mitigate against such a looming linguistic catastrophe, opted for CRUgate, e.g. http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/?p=4156, http://www.crikey.com.au/topic/crugate/, http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/cru-gate-climate-conspiracy-or-much-ado.html, http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/in-the-wake-of-crugate-letters/, http://www.Free Republic.com/focus/news/2392001/posts. I say, we help them out, we help history out, and we add to the text the words, "... or CRUgate". Any support for this? (I'm serious). Alex Harvey (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just googled and there are now 2,580,000 hits for the word "Climategate" (around a million more than the last time I looked at the number). Regarding how it will be worded when the article changes its title, I would suggest the word everyone is using: "Climategate". And to be quite frank, it should be pretty obvious why its being called climategate: no one out there can think of a better name and you can see them struggling with the thought of "University of East Anglia, which is a little known University in England, from which some emails, may or may not have been stolen/leaked, and which may or may not be evidence of ... oh hell, why don't we just call it climategate". The analogy with watergate is obvious and was explicitly made in the papers today: Information was obtained illicitly (it is suggested) which some suggest is evidence that some people were being "economical with the truth". (Unfortunately, if I were to believe some editors, just by writing the above I will get myself banned from Wikipedia - but to hell with such censorship - so, so long and thanks for all the fish!) 88.109.63.241 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry the censors need to know who to ban! Isonomia (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Dancing around what to call it isn't getting anywhere, the page is going to stay as its current name and climategate will redirect and be a significant "Also Known As". This has been discussed extensively on this talk page already. Ignignot (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. The controversy has almost nothing to do with how the emails came into the public sphere, and pretty much everything to do with what the emails contained. The "CRU Hacking Incident" will be dealth with by the IT firewall crew at the University. "Climategate" will be discussed by the leaders and scientists of the free world. "Climategate" may be a nothing more than a tempest in a teapot, but the current name is misleading and suggests that the *real* issue here is data security at East Anglia. Under this premise, the Pentagon Papers would have been called "Bob's Unlocked Desk Problem".Nightmote (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Climategate: Results 1 - 100 of about 30,400,000 for climategate. (0.28 seconds)

Google: "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident": Results 1 - 100 of about 37,600 for "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident". (1.22 seconds)

Google CRUgate: Results 1 - 100 of about 6,450 for CRUgate. (0.68 seconds)

The above in order of number of hits. Frankly, Climategate wins hands down. Wikipedia can play games all it wants to -- but people that come here will type "Climategate" into the wiki search and come to this page. It appears pointless to keep the current name. But whatever. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"CRUgate" is a completely fringe name. I've also seen "Hackgate" and "Deniergate", but I hardly think it's worth noting every name made up by some bloviating blogger somewhere. -- ChrisO (talk)

You're misusing WP:FRINGE, similar to how a lot of people misuse WP:BLP. -Atmoz (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not. Check Google News - six hits for the term, five of them blogs. This alternative term has negligible representation in reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

'Climategate' at centre stage as Copenhagen opens

"The 'Climategate' row immediately took centre stage at the Copenhagen climate summit today when one of the opening speakers went out of his way to defend the scientific consensus on global warming from the attacks of climate change sceptics. "[11]

Due to the insiduous censorship here, I can't say anything more. Isonomia (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

XXX link XX brokXXXXXXweird. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"According to a report in the Times, UN officials have compared the climate change E-Mail theft with the Watergate scandal. In that the hackers who stole the data were probably paid for by climate change sceptics intent on wrecking the Copenhagen climate change talks."[12]

Again, I'm unable to make any comment due to personal threats (except thanks stephan!). Isonomia (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, if you're referring to my broken FreeXXXXRepublicXXXXXXXX link, I wasn't able to save the page with it intact because that nefarious site is on Wikipedia's spam filter (and I think you already know what this proves). ;-o Alex Harvey (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[13] and the surrounding history should be enlightening. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Saudia Arabia told global warming talks on Monday that trust in climate science had been "shaken" by leaked emails among experts and called for an international probe,... The IPCC, which is the authority accused, is not going to be able to conduct the investigation," he said, referring to the Nobel-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).[14] <zip>Isonomia (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, we know for sure that Saudi Arabia would have no vested in interest in trying to prevent a reduction in worldwide carbon emissions. --Nigelj (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to manipulate the peer review process

I'm going to add the following:

Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, claims that the leaked emails reveal an attempt by Climatologists to disrupt the peer review process by threatening editors of peer reviewed journals with removal from their function if they decide to accept critic's papers for publication, which could have implications for the common argument that there is a consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

If you think it shouldn't be on there and people shouldn't hear about the attempt to keep "skeptics" from publishing their articles to scientific journals by threatening the editors of these journals with removal, please come up with a good argument here. Damage control is not a good argument.

Counteraction (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please give people more than 2 minutes to consider your prosed text additions in future. I've removed the text for now William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I also note that you've added this text before [15] and it was removed [16] with an indication that you should seek consensus on the talk page first. That was good advice William M. Connolley (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

While the article is worth reading, the author is not an expert, so I would leave it out. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fact is, as it stands, this Wikipedia article doesn't mention anywhere that the e-mails revealed an attempt to get people removed from their positions as editors of journals if they published articles that disputed the "consensus". Seems to me such an event deserves a mention on this encyclopedia, but it keeps getting removed. Imagine if the Tobacco companies tried to destroy people's careers for merely publishing a study showing that cigarettes cause cancer. Does an e-mail first need an official explanation from Realclimate or something before we are allowed to add it here? Counteraction (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Counteraction, sorry, don't you know the policy. Only sources peer reviewed by the climate "scientists" are allowed on wikipedia climate articles. That is the rule that the "overwhelming consensus" of editors has determined and unfortunately, unless you can find one of these scientists in the emails who has published an article in a peer reviewed journal regarding climategate, then you are completely wasting your time. 88.109.63.241 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the source you're quoting does not say anything about "threatening editors of peer reviewed journals with removal", nor does it say that there was an "attempt by Climatologists to disrupt the peer review". It does accuse them of hubris and an "implicit attack on the basis of peer review". That is, of course, the nature of private correspondence. It's one thing to say "X should be fired" when venting. It's quite another to actually try to get them fired. But that's beside the point - the summary does not accurately represent what Kelemen says in the article. And that's a problem. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. It does mention it. Look at this:

It was even more troubling for me to read messages in which, in at least two instances, scientists discussed how to get associate editors removed from journals that published papers critical of their work. The theory seemed to be that the papers were so seriously flawed on scientific grounds that they should not have been published. (This is a common view among authors whose work is criticized.) Personally—having looked at the paper that generated the most complaint, by Soon & Baliunas in the journal Climate Research in 2003—I agree that the paper is scientifically incorrect. Still, incorrect papers make it through peer review all the time, generally because reviewers are not sufficiently vigilant. Despite this, it is very unusual to try to get editors fired as a result.

If anyone here can explain to me why it shouldn't be mentioned, don't hesitate. As it stands I'm just having my edits reverted and told that I'm making stuff up. Counteraction (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the article says nothing about "threatening editors of peer reviewed journals with removal" or "attempt by Climatologists to disrupt the peer review". No mention of threats. No mention of any "attempts to disrupt peer review". Nothing in the article to suggest that there was any action associated with the comments. Guettarda (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Again:

It was even more troubling for me to read messages in which, in at least two instances, scientists discussed how to get associate editors removed from journals that published papers critical of their work.

Doesn't this constitute disrupting the peer review process? Counteraction (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn't. Private discussion ≠ action. Quite frankly, if you believe that an associate editor isn't doing her/his job properly, it's quite appropriate to discuss whether they should remain as associate editor. But that's entirely beside the point - the point is that there's no evidence that anything was done. If something was done, that's another issue (although, of course, not all actions to remove an editor constitute improper actions. Guettarda (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to understand that my writing "We should run out into the middle of the street." does not constitute disrupting traffic? -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I will have to agree with Mr (or Mrs) Action here that this is something that has been widely discussed in the press. I think we should add something along this line similar in format to the other 3 email sections: (1) a quote from the emails (sourced to a WP:Reliable Source) followed by some sort of rebuttal/explanation from another Reliable Source.

Here are some Reliable Sources: [17], [18], [19] (not sure whether this is news or opinion piece), [20]. There's also something from New Zealand (now where is that??)

Could we all agree to that in principle? Madman (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I found some of the original e-mails after using Google:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt These are the e-mails where the climatologists discuss how to remove people from their positions, to prevent certain articles they disagree with from being published in peer reviewed journals. That's not very nice, is it?

If someone could use them to update the article, please do, since I'm being told that if I edit the article again I could get in trouble... Counteraction (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically we editors cannot quote directly from the emails, since those would be considered Primary Sources. See WP:PSTS. We can only (in most circumstances) quote from WP:Reliable Sources which quote the emails. Madman (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for what? They don't (as far as I can tell) support the idea that they tried to get an editor removed - if, in fact, Jones had acted on the email quoted, shouldn't that email be among the collection? The fact of the matter is that there's a huge difference between saying "I should do X" and actually doing X. Especially in private correspondence. None of the sources (as far as I can tell) support Counteraction's allegations that something wrong was done. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Reliable sources for what?" Reliable sources for the contents of the emails. As has been mentioned in earlier threads, there are perhaps 5 or 6 e-mails that have been widely discussed/reported/dissected in the press (i.e. in Reliable Sources) and we should include short sections on these 5 or 6 (or 4 or 7 or . . . ) in this article. We have 3 e-mail sections now, and Mr Action here is proposing that we add a 4th that would revolve around this email from Jones: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" I think we can do this in a non-accusatory and factual basis. You know, "just the facts, ma'am". Madman (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Mr Action here is proposing that we add a 4th that would revolve around this email from Jones" - really? That wasn't what I got from Counteraction's post or her/his arguments here. I thought you were saying that these were reliable sources that supported Counteraction's proposed additions; my point was that they don't. So what would you suggest we add? Guettarda (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about what these scientists have or have not done with respect to the peer review process, it is about the public release of email and other information and its repercussions, including responses from other scientists. If other scientists are alarmed because they think that the emails indicate that some sort of unprofessional behavior is going on, then I think that belongs in the article - to clarify, we're not trying to say that the scientists are unprofessional, that would be a BLP violation I think. But if other notable people do then we can and should say that they have done so, as a reaction. Ignignot (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Granted. But the source doesn't support the claim made in the section that Counteraction added. Kelemen commented on what was discussed. Counteraction present it as if the discussions were actions. Guettarda (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

Re-reading the article shows a tone of cautious alarm at possibly unethical behavior, I think. I think it could be written as:

Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, claims that the leaked emails seem to indicate possibly unethical behavior by the scientists involved. (I am taking this from "If scientists attempted to exclude critics' peer-reviewed papers from IPCC reports, this was unethical in my view.") He also states that there might be an attempt to circumvent the basic peer review process. (from "Some of the stolen CRU e-mails state that if an associate editor of GRL was "in the greenhouse skeptics camp" he should be "ousted," suggesting that the e-mail authors viewed any critic of their work, no matter how ethical or well-informed, as incompetent. If so, this is a remarkable instance of hubris, and an implicit attack on the basis of the peer-review process, not a normal part of the give-and-take of scientific debate. ")

That might be a little too simplistic, making it strongly worded. His position is more nuanced than that (which is why it is about the same size as the wiki article! [[21]]) but I think that is the basic idea. He phrases everything in "might" and "maybe" which makes weasel words inevitable, unfortunately. Does anyone have suggestions? Ignignot (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded that thought, Ignignot, and added contrasting opinions and ended it with a big fact:

A few of the e-mails have raised concerns that their authors may have attempted to undermine the peer-review process. For example, an 8 July 2004 e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann said in part:

"The other paper [written by sceptics] is just garbage. . . . I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, said that "If scientists attempted to exclude critics' peer-reviewed papers from IPCC reports, this was unethical in my view."

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, responded that IPCC has "a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which ensures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening." The University of East Anglia's commission will evaluate whether CRU's peer-review practices comply with best scientific practice.

Any changes? Madman (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it also needs a specific rebuttal saying that no unethical behavior has taken place. Ignignot (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think his own stated motivation is significant. He said it was garbage, and so must be kept out somehow. If he'd said it was 'highly damaging to our manufactured and shaky claims', that would be news. If someone writes rubbish in a WP article, you might say, "That is badly-sourced garbage and I'll get it removed somehow, even if I have to get the policy at WP:RS changed." I'm sure in the earliest days of WP, before that policy was very well tested, people really did say things like that, and that's why we have such hard-to-circumvent policies now. --Nigelj (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We aren't talking about what Jones said. We're talking about Peter Kelemen's reaction to released emails (and some other reactions). There is no need to defend or explain his comments. Ignignot (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the rebuttal, I could find no Reliable Source that said that no unethical behaviour has taken place. We could say something to the effect that no charges have been filed even without a Reliable Source, couldn't we? But of course that's not the same. We do have the quote from the IPCC chair saying essentially that IPCC process can't be hacked. Madman (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I posted the proposed section shown above. I will work on getting the 7 <whew!> references into the correct format. Thanks, Madman (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the email quote is modified to sound as if he did it because they where sceptics, it's extremely misleading.
—Apis (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the sentence to the exact wording of the email, but put the name of the authors in brackets. OK? I also addressed Mr Connolley's concerns. Madman (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My first reaction to this on the article is that this is now a well covered issue. Excellent work. Thank you. --TS 15:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Statements from elected representatives

I am dismayed that all mention of this source has been expunged from the article. Times have moved on and perhaps this one is now more germane. It is an opinion piece written by the UK prime minister, so is pretty central. Regarding the emails, he writes:

Let no one be in any doubt about the overwhelming scientific evidence that underpins the Copenhagen conference. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change brings together over 4,000 scientists from every corner of the world. Their recent work has sharpened, not diminished, the huge and diverse body of evidence of human-made global warming. Its landmark importance cannot be wished away by the theft of a few emails from one university research centre. On the contrary, the pernicious anti-scientific backlash that the emails have unleashed has exposed just what is at stake.

The purpose of the climate change deniers' campaign is clear, and the timing no coincidence. It is designed to destabilise and undermine the efforts of the countries gathering in Copenhagen today.

I propose summarising this as follows:

Gordon Brown has said that there is no doubt about the overwhelming scientific evidence that underpins the Copenhagen conference. The recent work over over 4,000 scientists, as represented by the IPCC, has sharpened and not diminished the huge and diverse body of evidence of human-made global warming. "Its landmark importance cannot be wished away by the theft of a few emails from one university research centre. On the contrary, the pernicious anti-scientific backlash that the emails have unleashed has exposed just what is at stake." he added, noting that the purpose of the climate change deniers' campaign is clear, and its timing is no coincidence. "It is designed to destabilise and undermine the efforts of the countries gathering in Copenhagen."<ref>

At the same time, I intend splitting the current sub-section, as raised by Itsmejudith, above into 'Elected national representatives' and 'Political organisations'. Currently, only Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute would appear in the latter.

Two questions: has anyone any objections, before I proceed? and can someone find a recent statement re the emails and docs from Pres. Obama? I find it hard to believe he has never mentioned them in any way, and so the article seems a bit lacking there. --Nigelj (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Why Obama? There are plenty of world leaders without putting in more US bias. Unless Obama says anything notable then please don't go out of your way to make this website look even more Wikipedia.US. 88.109.63.241 (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Only that he's another world leader, and I thought I'd try and be nice to our colonial cousins ;-) --Nigelj (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that a statement from Mr Brown would be appropriate. I do hestitate to put in large paragraphs because I'm afraid people won't read them. Madman (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think, especially as the incident happened in the UK, a five-line reaction from the UK Prime Minister is about right. In the absence of any other comments although the article and this Talk are quite active, I think I'll go ahead. --Nigelj (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - that should be the gold standard in the reaction section. Ignignot (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, with a few typos fixed too.--Nigelj (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a Google for something from the US, but there seems to be nothing from Obama, nothing from his advisors since 2 Dec. --Nigelj (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Judith Curry's reaction

"Well, I mean, I believe that this was a blow to the credibility of our science. And I'm concerned particularly in the context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report. You know, 1,000 scientists contribute to this from 130 different countries. It's a process that takes several years.

So the IPCC is really the authoritative assessment of our science for policymakers. And some of these emails do mention the IPCC and trying to keep certain journal articles or papers out of the IPCC, and I think that's wrong."

See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121139996

"But the failure to distinguish between, like, the advocacy group, talk radio kind of skeptics versus scientists, researchers and even people on blogs who are actually doing analysis, you know, technical people analyzing the data and doing analyses, I think all of that kind of skepticism needs to be looked at, rather than trying to dismiss it in the way that I'm seeing, you know, in these emails."

Hope this helps others who want to contribute. Ann arbor street (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

-gate link?

While we're calling it ClimateGate, I'd like the link to list-of-gates restored, that [22] removes William M. Connolley (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see any reason to remove it. While it isn't critical to the article, anyone seeing "Climategate" and knowing "Watergate" could wonder, "hey what other -gates are there?" and then find out that it gets tacked onto everything under the sun. Ignignot (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. It is an informative and encyclopedic cross-reference - just exactly what we're here for, with hypertext. --Nigelj (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Within the context of this article, it's trivia. Not to mention that it looks stupid to have only part of a word hyperlinked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

contradiction:

Blog post: ...when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate... [23]

Blog comment: ...At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey...and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our server...[24]

which one is more reliable? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something? What's the difference? --Nigelj (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

first says attempted to upload (implying failed), later says uploaded. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comitting unpublishable OR here but I think the attempt was to upload it to the blog, as opposed to just getting it on their server, which it appears they succeded in doing. I think our article is fine as is, but I can see the source of confusion. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

that makes sense (server vs blog). thanks. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Posting entirely from recollection, I agree with the distinction. I think someone was able to upload the file, and tried but failed to post the “announcement” to the blog. The activity was noticed, and blocked and the uploaded file was removed.SPhilbrickT 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. The interesting question is why RealClimate was targeted. It seems to have been an attempt to frame RC for the distribution of the files. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be both OR and complete speculation. Maybe it was because they are the top climate blog and they wanted to show it to as many people as possible? Maybe it was because a login for the blog was included in the hacked email data? Maybe it was because it was just one of many attempted uploads? Maybe it was because many of the people at the CRU are involved with the blog itself? But the most important question is, where is there a source for any of this? Ignignot (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alexa climateprogress.org+realclimate.org+wattsupwiththat.com+climateaudit.org -- SEWilco (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

why will have to wait for analysis or confession. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

which some have dubbed

Either it's called it or it isn't. If it is, it should be written as "also known as". If it isn't, it shouldn't be in the article. I don't particularly care which it is. CNN refers to it as climategate. They haven't dubbed it as such. Newsweek similarly refers to as climategate. ABC news too. With all the dubbing going on, I think I'm watching a foreign film. -Atmoz (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer that this stupid, jokey "gate" nonsense was purged from Wikipedia as unencyclopedic; however, that fact remains that some sources (though by no means all) have adopted this retarded term for the incident. The usage is particularly prevalent in the US, where crawling information bars and "chyrons" have limited space. "Climategate" is not an encyclopedic term. At best, it is simply a moniker; therefore, "dubbed" seems appropriate (although I would prefer "which some refer to as..."). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think that dubbed sounds very encyclopedic, even though climategate is a stupid name. Instead of foreign films by the way, I was thinking that it should be called Sir Climategate of East Anglia. Ignignot (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using "Climategate" and "Climategate scandal" as alternate titles that redirect here. There's a strong tendency here in the Colonies to append the suffix "-gate" onto the name of any scandal, and so the term is gaining traction. Just trying to help. And calling it a "hacking incident" in the main title assumes that it was the result of hacking, so the word "hacking" should be removed. (P&W immediately covers his head with his arms, and flees from the Talk page in a zigzag pattern.) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate already existed as a redirect, I added in Climategate scandal as another redirect. The hacking in the title thing is a huge can of worms that should be discussed in the appropriate talk section. Ignignot (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to correct someone way up there above, "CRU gate" has actually 690,000 hits -- here. (CRUgate, one word, around 6,000). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 (talk • contribs)

As I'm sure most of you know, the number of hits Google generates is only loosely connected with the number of results it turns up. In this case, it runs out at 469 (and precisely zero of the 9 hits on that page are about climate). Guettarda (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I like "which some have dubbed". At this stage, it isn't a "thing", it doesn't have a name. But some have named the issue. Guettarda (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's recap something that I mentioned when we were discussing the inclusion of "Climategate". If people want to argue that "CRUgate" is in use they need to refer to reliable sources - not blogs - and a general Google search is next to useless in that regard (see WP:GOOGLE). Google News finds just six sources, five of them blogs and one an opinion piece, which use the term. [25] So it clearly is not in any general usage among reliable sources as opposed to the blogosphere. Second, it is original research to use sources as examples of usage. You need sources which specifically speak of the term's usage, rather than sources which merely use the term. Hence - for example - the Reuters source cited after "Climategate" says that the affair was "already dubbed "Climategate", and our article reflects this wording.

Turning to Atmoz's comments, "also known as" is problematic because, first, the existing wording specifically reflects the source, while that wording does not - it's one editor's own spin on it (hence OR). Second, "also known as" makes it seem that the alternate term is a general term for it, which it clearly isn't (hence also OR and rather POV). The term is not in general use like "Watergate"; it was specifically coined by anti-science activists to promote the incident as a scandal, so it is loaded with POV connotations. Given the very partisan way in which it's used we need to be careful about how we present it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources which refer to this as "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident". You're argument is disingenuous at best. -Atmoz (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You will also no doubt find that there are "no sources" which refer to "Rathergate" as Killian documents controversy or "Attorneygate" as "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy". Those names are used because of Wikipedia's policy on article naming and our avoidance of "gate" in article titles. (I wrote the relevant sections of those policies a very long time ago, so I know what I'm talking about here.) Wikipedia is not news: we deliberately avoid non-neutral article titles, and we make an effort to find descriptive article titles. Yes, "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is longer and clumsier but it has the huge advantages of (a) neutrality and (b) telling you something about the subject. "Climategate" tells you only that it's something about climate which someone considers a scandal. I'm not saying that "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is necessarily the best title (I didn't choose it!) but it's significantly better than a lot of the alternatives. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)But "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident", it's a descriptive phrase. Because it isn't really a "thing", it doesn't have a name. Just a descriptive phrase for the article title. Guettarda (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to go on record as saying that this has has to be one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lamest edit war ever. Why not just say "widely referred to as "Climategate"" or somesuch? That would be entirely accurate. Evercat (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple. We have three groups of editors here. One group wants to maximize the damage of this controversy as much as possible. The second group wants to minimize it as much as possible. Then there's the third group who just wants to write a good article in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to that if someone can find a source to support it. As I said, merely finding examples of usage isn't enough - what we need are sources telling us how the term is used (widely? narrowly? who uses it?). Otherwise it's OR and weasel wording. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Would this do as a source? [26] Evercat (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? A list of Google search results? What did I just say about "merely finding examples of usage"? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. It's not just an example usage, its an indication of how wide that usage is, which is what you asked for. Nobody looking at that link can deny that the term is widely used. About 600,000 hits contain both "Climategate" and "Climate Research Unit" [27] indicating that there's a substantial use of the term in this context. Evercat (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is pure original research. It's an argument that's not made in reliable sources. I don't mind including the term, but if we're going to say anything about how the term is used it needs to be sourced. And you should know that Google tests are heavily caveated/deprecated. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not original research. I didn't do the research, Google did. Google is a fairly reliable indicator of how widely a phrase is used on the web. I think it's obvious you're trying to use the letter of Wikipedia policy to object to an edit that you know would be perfectly sensible and accurate. You don't actually deny that "Climategate" is being widely used, do you? [Edit: but see my comment below...] Evercat (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't deny that it's widely used. But the point stands about using a Google search as a source in an article to make an argument that doesn't appear in any reliable source. You can't do that. If you don't believe me, go over to the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm afraid you're wrong about "Google doing the research". You created the list of search results from Google's database snapshot at that particular time. It can't be reproduced because the database is in constant flux and the results vary wildly. Google isn't even a fixed source, let alone a reliable one. This argument about using Google search results as a source is one that's come up time and again; basically, it can't be done because of Google's inherent instability and the general unacceptability of making novel arguments without reliable sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

'About 600,000 hits contain both "Climategate" and "Climate Research Unit"' - actually drill down and you'll find that "600,000" resolves to only 675 pages. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's odd. Have I really been misled into thinking that Climategate is widely used when it in fact isn't? I suppose this is possible... Evercat (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. But with regards to results, see Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Google_unique_page_count_issues and the reference cited therein. Google doesn't actually count pages that match your query. Guettarda (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Now it's beginning to be referred to as "hackergate" it seems [28]. Might be a bit too early to rename the article but perhaps we should add that to the list in the lead section. NB.
—Apis (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Channel 4 News called it "emailgate" the other day... Itsmejudith (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate is the single most common name for the incident. No other name has stuck. I don't actually care much what the title of the article is, but "Climategate" should be introduced without disparagement and the which some sources have dubbed Climategate wording is dismissive, therefore POV. It isn't serious encyclopedic language, either. Let's use neutral language with a more serious tone, the way articles normally use it: also known as Climategate. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate" has two problems. First of all, it's a very US-centric moniker that is little-used outside of US and US-influenced media. Secondly, it carries the implication of guilt on the part of the CRU, when in fact the guilt lies with the individuals or group who conducted the data theft. A fairer approach would be to say something like "which some media commentators have referred to as 'Climategate'". -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You've given a good reason not to use "Climategate" as the article title, but none of those are good reasons not to neutrally note that it is a name very, very frequently used. It isn't just used in the U.S., either. Here's a Google News search limited to UK sources, showing results from many prominent sources. [29] (I did the search to show prominent sources.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still not ubiquitous enough to label it without a qualifier. "Some media commentators have referred to it as..." or "Some media outlets...", etc. Wikipedia itself must not apply this label, if you get my drift. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

also known as Climategate isn't "Wikipedia itself" saying anything other than that it's a name that's been used for it. No more, no less. Neutral. "Some media outlets" using the term is always assumed because it's obvious. Using a "qualifier" is Wikipedia itself making a statement about use of that term, which would be fine if there were something special about the term, but in this case there isn't anything special about it. If it's worthwhile, we might cite some source discussing the term and possible objections to it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but using the term "also known as" would need a qualifier. "Also known as" by whom? Either you stick in a festival of corroborating references, or you simply say "some media commentators" and throw in a couple of representative references. There should be no doubt whatsoever that it isn't "Wikipedia's voice" using the term. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of "some" corrobation. Search the article for Climategate and you find there are already a half-dozen references which use the term. Go through the article's versions in other languages for more non-US-centric examples. Actually read the sources if you need more. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AKA Climategate (as in, the name everyone uses) would need a qualifier, but "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident," which no one, anywhere, "knows" it as, does not?Drolz09 (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Everybody? I doubt it. While Google claims 30 million hits for "climategate", it only turns up 730 of them when you look through the results. Surely this issue has attracted a lot more than 730 distinct hits. Or has it? I think I perception of the size of the internet is grossly inflated by these silly stats Google likes to throw our way. Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What other wikipedia projects are calling it isn't relevant, nor is how they refer to it in other languages. Other language wikipedias might have different policies, and likely they want to reflect the name used in their local language media.
—Apis (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that everyone thinks of the issue as "Climategate" is obvious if only in light of the effort people go to to re-brand it, and how awkward they look doing so. Drolz09 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone" does not think of the issues as "Climategate", and Wikipedia relies on a neutral approach to topics supported by NPOV, rather than a sensationalistic, emotionally-manipulating approach that is promoted by the media. Viriditas (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What is it going to take to change the "some sources have dubbed..." to "which has been dubbed as". I don't believe that wording will carry the implication that Wikipedia is authoritatively coining the term. Additionally, to go on saying "some sources", carries the implication that the incident is going by other nicknames. As far as I've seen, just about every major media outlet has used the term Climategate or Climate-gate. For those undo'ing edits to drop the "some sources" - please list some examples where a different moniker is being used. Static623 (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, "global warming" only yields about 730ish hits before Google posts the irrelevant/redundant results link.76.105.74.127 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have a better idea: In order to reflect the actual content of the article, change the name to "Climate Lobby's Response to Ambiguous Incident Involving Criminal Hacking and Possibly Other Crimes." Drolz09 (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to confuse the issue - there is no other short-hand for this incident other than "Climategate". Static623 (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Name – a compromise: Climate Research Unit science controversy

As proposed by Ronnotel suggest above the article should change name to the more neutral Climate Research Unit science controversy as also ChrisO indicates above. Could this be a compromise between the Climagate and current name Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident? Nsaa (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me suggest an alternative - Climatic Research Unit files controversy. This is more precise, since the focus of the controversy is on the stolen files. The controversy is not about the CRU's science in general but about what the stolen files (supposedly) indicate about specific aspects of its science. Compare with Killian documents controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"[W]hat the stolen files (supposedly) indicate about specific aspects of its science" - it's more than the science...much of the discussion has turned to behaviour and ethics. Not to mention, the "response" is as much of a story. Guettarda (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'd have a problem with that. This isn't, primarily, about their science. No one has documented any evidence of scientific misconduct, as far as I know. Not to mention, the main news here is about the willingness of people to cherry pick quotes and turn them into a full blown attack on the scientific endeavour - something that's old hat for evolution denialists, but a fairly new tactic for the climate denialists. Guettarda (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit emails incident any use? (Translation of the French WP article title.) Itsmejudith (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Similar names have been suggested several times and the consensus has been not to use non-neutral words such as controversy. Please also see Wikipedia:Words to avoid.
—Apis (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could go the whole hog and call it Theft of Climatic Research Unit files but I suspect some people on this talk page might have a problem with that... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a point on "files", since most of what was stolen apparently wasn't email. Guettarda (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I suggested it. I could live with a variant of Itsmejudith's suggestion, Climatic Research Unit files incident. I do think we should get away from "e-mails" if we can. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On "theft" as well I think, because hack is rather vague, and we don't know the details of how the files where stolen.
—Apis (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Theft" annoys copyright-skeptics like me :-) because nobody's been deprived of anything; the files were copied, not stolen, as would be obvious if they were physical files. Evercat (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

cf Data theft... Would you say it wasn't theft if your bank had been hacked and your bank account details had been taken? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How about Some climate change deniers attempt to sabotage the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by conducting espionage on the Climatic Research Unit? On a serious note, the title should definitely not include the phrase "science controversy" in it. If the title is to change at all, serious consideration should be given to make sure it is a neutral title that everyone agrees on. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making incendiary comments in a discussion that is supposed to try to get us to consensus on a difficult topic. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It was not an "incendiary comment" at all. I was trying to prove a point - that there should be proper discussion and a cast-iron consensus for a neutral article name, if it is to be changed. Otherwise we end up with "move wars" and pointless bickering. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the "copying isn't theft" argument, but wouldn't the legal term still be theft? So lacking a better word, but perhaps that word is hacking.
—Apis (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am stunned to read the above exchange. Where would the editors have stood on the Pentagon Papers? This scandal - and it is a scandal - has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that emails were hacked/stolen/released, and everything to do with the content of the emails. The possibility certainly exists that the email quotes were "cherry-picked", but the fact remains that (right or wrong) the professors have failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and the neutrality of the scientific community has been called into question. The current article name is convoluted, non-descriptive, misleading, and should be changed to reflect what *most* people on both sides of the issue are calling it: Climategate. Anything else smacks of damage control and spin.Nightmote (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Pentagon Papers sounds pretty neutral to me? It's not called Pentagate, nor the Pentagon Papers Scandal, not even the Pentagon Papers Controversy.
—Apis (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, "incident" is obviously inappropriate. Never has the word incident been applied to an ongoing, multistage controversy before now. If you guys want to use incident, you need to make a separate article about the hack, and change this one to controversy, then get rid of all the hack nonsense that has no bearing on the science issues. And yes, it's Pentagon Papers, not "Daniel Ellsberg Larceny Incident" Drolz09 (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no indication that "incident" is inappropriate, but other titles are possible. The word incident has most certainly been applied to such articles as this one, so you are wrong on that point as well. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that anti-science activists went so far as to hack two websites, steal files from one, attempt to frame the second, and sabotage the Copenhagen Summit with the release of the files, certainly is part of the scandal. It reminds me of the way anti-abortion activists cheered the murder of that unfortunate abortion doctor in Kansas last June, arguing that his supposed "crime" justified or outweighed the crime committed against him. Though in that case at least the perpetrator admitted he had done it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So, anti-abortionists equate abortion with murder, and you equate hacking with murder. Meanwhile, "anti-science activists" reveal widespread scientific fraud, which pro-science Wikipedia editor-zealots will stop at nothing to conceal. Understood. Drolz09 (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He didn't equate hacking with murder, he said that one case of cheering (a theft) reminds him of another case of cheering (a murder). And there's no evidence of "widespread scientific fraud", and even if there were, a debate about whether to put "gate" or "scandal" in the article title is not an instance of editor-zealots stopping at nothing to conceal fraud. What you "understood" appears to have an internal, not external, source. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to state that we do not know that the servers were hacked. Most sources that say so are simply assuming. When we know, we'll hear details, like suspects arrested. Or on the other end, whistleblowers may come forward, were we to find that this was not the act of a hacker. If it were a whistleblower, he/she could have easily had access to RealClimate as well, being a direct colleague of Jones. It is premature to declare that this is the result of an outside computer criminal.Static623 (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already closed one discussion that ended in speculation on the event rather than discussion of the article, and will do so with this if it moves in the same direction. The Norfolk Constabulary reports that it is "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia" and that's what we report. Removal of the word "hacking" isn't going to happen because both UEA and RealClimate have reported separate hacking incidents. --TS 10:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones e-mail

Nsaa just added this bit to the article:

====Jones e-mail of February 2, 2005====
On February 2, 2005, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, wrote, "If they ever hear there is a [[Freedom of information in the United Kingdom|Freedom of Information Act]] now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."<ref name=nzherald_20091128/>

The file mentioned was not actually deleted.{{fact}}

I think we have to be very careful about how we treat these e-mails. First, there's a risk of cherry-picking. Is this particular e-mail notable? Has it been cited by other reliable sources or just this one? Second, what is the context? Third, the "defence" looks awfully thin. What does Jones himself say about this, if anything? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have a simple quote, sans context, of the Jones email from Feb 2005? It's either a random quote, or it's an attempt to imply wrongdoing, without actually having a source to back up the implication. Which, of course, isn't permissible, per WP:BLP. Guettarda (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed a risk of cherry-picking. That bit was deleted by William and restored by me, because the whole "destruction of data" thing is a widely reported topic that we ought to have something on. Even if the section is not neutral now, it will hopefully become so as it grows... Evercat (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Globe and Mail, is it a reliable source? If so, there's this. Evercat (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP doesn't allow us to use material that it "not neutral for now" when it's about living people. Guettarda (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not as if its untrue that he wrote it. But we need more context is all. Evercat (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a cherry-picked quote that implies wrong-doing. If we're going to suggest that people did wrong, we need reliable sources to back up the accusations. We can't print innuendo, not about living people. Guettarda (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well since 2 people have now removed it I will not be restoring it, but note the conversation above at "Why is this quote not included in the article?" - this whole destruction of data business is one of the hot topics that should be mentioned somehow. Evercat (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be discussed in the article. By all means - discuss it. Using reputable, reliable sources. But don't simply use a quote to imply wrongdoing. Guettarda (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not my intention; though I can't speak for whoever added it to start with. Evercat (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda that something of this sort needs to be included. We mention that the UEA inquiry will be reviewing whether CRU violated FOIA laws/rules/etc, so we should say why they are looking at that. Madman (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• See "FOI subsection restored" section, below -- a fine spot to include it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see I only moved four references down to the reference section? Where did I add the above statement? Nsaa (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

FOI subsection restored

I've restored the FOI subsection which had previously been removed with the objection that it was somehow a BLP violation. Discussion at WP:BLPN showed otherwise. See WP:BLPN#Use of blog to source allegations of criminal wrongdoing by named individuals. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, here's the diff showing what we're talking about: -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, i don't agree with your reading of the comments on that board. Its a WP:SPS and it doesn't come under any of the exceptions to the rule (ie. he's not an expert). And since it is BLP material that we are talking about, then there has to be some very good reasons for ignore wikipedia rules. Find better and reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no other way to read the comments at the BLP board. He isn't self-published, as is made abundantly clear by the section on the BLP noticeboard, which I'm surprised you didn't notice. The blog is published at the Science magazine website. Using italics doesn't make your argument for a BLP violation any better: It's been discussed in numerous publications by now and an inquiry has begun. The source is as reliable as they come: a journalist from a reputable publication where both he and his editors can be expected to be well-versed in libel law. And as for sourcing, the journalist himself uses sources: a British lawyer familiar with FOI and the British agency that handles FOI law. You didn't really read the BLP noticeboard discussion, did you? All this information is there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My, my, Kim, you actually participated in the BLPN discussion. I'd forgotten. All of your objections have been answered there, yet you repeat them here. Perhaps you'd forgotten those parts of the BLPN discussion in which your objections were answered with evidence. Again, please review them. It would save us the trouble of repeating them all here, although by this point, I think I might just cut and paste previous responses. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough there are only 2 (uninvolved) comments to that BLP request, one is ambivalent with a nod towards "No", and the other is positive. Thats not nearly enough to assert that it went in the way you want. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please address the actual issues, which you failed to do in the BLP discussion. Please address the actual points I made here (after I already made them there). You objected on the basis of BLP and self-published sourcing. I've already shown that there is no BLP violation and the sourcing is not self-published. Do you have any other objections or any further BLP objections that haven't already been knocked down? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all familiar with this aspect of the matter. Were any emails actually deleted? If they were, then absolutely it should be in the article. If they were not, then it all becomes speculative stuff from a blog that should not be in the article, per WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the BLPN discussion conveniently linked at the top of this section. All your points should be answered there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A simple "yes" the emails were deleted, or "no" the emails were not deleted is all I need. The discussion you refer to does not seem to focus on the salient point I am getting at. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Your point is slightly off topic: the section is not about whether or not FOIA was violated but whether or not that is a possibility, based on what Jones said in some of the emails. The point that the journalist was making, a point made by other reliable sources as well, is that this is an area where Jones wrote some suspicious statements in the emails, and if emails or documents were deleted in the face of an FOIA request, there are legal consequences involved. The point is not whether or not anything was actually deleted -- something we have no way of knowing. This is an issue that many reliable sources have brought up about this well-known person, so there is no BLP violation in WP bringing it up. If you look at the BLPN discussion, this will be very clear, very quickly. Again, sorry I wasn't clear about that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what you have made clear is that you want to write about something that didn't happen. Some iffy-sounding emails that offer no proof of anything, that a few blogs and other sources have picked up on. Regardless of the outcome of that BLPN discussion, it does not seem as if the long-winded exposé that is currently being edit-warred in and out of the article is appropriate. If it gets mentioned at all, it would seem that WP:WEIGHT demands it be a one-line mention, or something of that level. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can't discuss this civilly, I'm going to ignore you. I asked you to familiarize yourself with the facts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been perfectly civil. I am coming at this from the perspective of being an experienced Wikipedia editor, not an expert on climate change. The information you seek to include is about a nebulous "maybe" scenario, so it is clear that it does not warrant the enormous chunk that has been proffered thus far. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, edit warring of this section must stop. Until there is a clear consensus for inclusion of this controversial section (on this talk page, not some other meta page), it should not be in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Anybody still think it's a BLP violation to bring up possible FOIA violations? Apparently the University of East Anglia thinks it's a subject worth discussing: [30]

LONDON - The British university at the center of what climate skeptics are calling "Climategate" on Thursday named an outside reviewer and detailed what would be investigated. [...]

The university said Russell would also review: [...]

"Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data."

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is a BLP vio. My assertion is that it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT because too much coverage is given relative to the rest of the article, violating the neutral point of view. Clearly, we need to establish a consensus for what (if any of it) should be included. That is a discussion that should occur here, and not elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What I think you misunderstand is that the problem was with the source, and that criminal allegations are subject to WP:BLP. You cannot source that material from a blog, even if that blog is hosted by science (compare with a column in a newspaper).
—Apis (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just wrong. There is no problem with the source, since the source doesn't make an allegation. Your idea that we don't or can't rely on reliable sources to state the obvious with regard to legal liability is without any foundation whatever in policy. And it's not just that source, of course, but all sorts of sources. To cut and paste from the WP:BLPN discussion that you're ignoring:

• See also: The Guardian news story from 11/23 [31] it emerged last week that hundreds of their emails and documents had been leaked that allegedly manipulated data and destroyed evidence for Freedom of Information Act requests. Jones has been called (by a writer in the Daily Telegraph) without doubt, one of the world's most influential proponents of the theory of man-made global warming [32] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• [...] here are two more, so we have at least four reliable sources (Science magazine, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail) saying that Jones' statements call into question whether or not he violated Britain's FOIA:
  • The Daily Mail in the UK: Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real, the emails appear to show researchers manipulating raw data and discussing how to dodge Freedom of Information requests. (11/25) [33];
  • Daily Telegraph story: Thousands of documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) also seem to show that academics on both sides of the Atlantic discussed deleting sensitive emails to evade Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics. (11/24) [34]
  • Here's what Phil Jones wrote in one of the released emails (09:41 AM 2/2/2005):

Mike,

I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McKitrick, McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it ! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• And why not have The Financial Times of the UK [35] join the party (registration required, but it's free) -- referencing the very blog post that's the supposed BLP violation: Lesson 2: Don't evade Freedom of Information requests. As noted in the Science Magazine link above, many of the e-mails discuss how to destroy documents in anticipation of Freedom of Information requests. That's a criminal offense in the United Kingdom (where the CRU is located). IT folks should be aware that an increasing amount of data (particularly scientific and research data gathered via public funding) is subject to FOIA. They should work with researchers to ensure documents are stored and organized with that in mind. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your usual spin-doctored, scare-mongering version of the facts with special bold bits that were the same bold bits Glenn Beck showed the other night. The simple fact is this: there is no evidence that any emails or data were actually deleted. They are allegations, not confirmations. The only actual criminal offense was perpetrated by the hackers who stole the information. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mention of news reports about claimed FOIA violations would be in order so long as undue weight is not given. Debating the meaning of individual primary sources (i.e. the emails) is WP:OR.

WP:BLP should not be a problem so long as wide-circulation media outlets are the source. Blogs are not sufficient because moving info from a (low-readership) blog to (high-readership) Wikipedia makes Wikipedia the publisher of said info and liable to court proceedings if the claim is not provably correct (because people can 'sue in England').

The publisher needn't be especially noteworthy, mainstream or even reliable, assuming proper contextual info is provided, so long as it has reasonably broad readership.Dduff442 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"The publisher needn't be especially noteworthy, mainstream or even reliable" Um....no. Sources must be reliable. Readership is irrelevant. We have specific policies and guidelines about this: WP:V and WP:RS and they are not negotiable on this talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are quite a few WP:RS that report deletion of emails in a way that suggests it's significant. The Telegraph covers it [36] and includes a comment by Michael Mann: "Prof Mann also said he could not "justify" a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders. "I can't justify the action, I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that's clear."" They also cover it further [37] where they refer to it as one of the most contentious emails: " Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public" and again [38] when Nigel Lawson says "They were talking about destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act" (Lawson is firmly in the "climate change isn't as bad as it's claimed in terms of the policy changes that are required" camp). Phil Jones himself directly addresses it in The Guardian: [39] "We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that". The Wall Street Journal mentions it here [40] " In one email, Dr. Jones asked others to delete certain emails, apparently after some data were requested by a climate-change skeptic under the Freedom of Information Act", and Science mentioned it via one of their news editors [41], where a link between the law and FOI and deleting emails is made (and again [42]) Brumski (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, the Michael Mann quote should be included, given that he is an "expert," directly involved in the scandal, and it's in a trustworthy source. Drolz09 (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional source

The Stolen E-mails: Has 'Climategate' been overblown'? From TIME. I'm a bit hesitant to actually edit this article, but perhaps worth citing briefly re: press coverage? It specifically addresses the debate over what to name the incident ("Climategate" vs. "Swifthack"?!?) MastCell ^Talk 00:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, anything Blahgate uses US-centric terminology. The term "Climategate" is only popular in the United States, and among a very few US-influenced media outlets. You would need a decent smattering of international sources to really justify using this term. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you to try to search for "Climategate" in the French Google news. I bet you would be surprised by the very reliable sources openly reporting on Le Climategate. So much for the US-centric usage theory... If anything, it is in the US and UK that the mainstream media tries to avoid the word, while the rest of the world is having a ball using it. Dimawik (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It must be made clear that media outlets are using the term, not Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Wouldn't want wikipedia to use the most widely-known international media-sourced phrase available when "Climate Research Unit email hacking incident" was still available.Nightmote (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We aren't talking about the article title, which should be as neutral as possible ("Climategate" implies guilt, due to the association with Watergate). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

US-centric? Not in Wikipedia? Take a look at the Wikipedia articles in other languages. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need to mention the media. While I strongly support keeping the reference to Climategate in WP, personally I dislike the term. Unfortunately, no other concise label had appeared in time to become popular, and by now, I think, it is too late to coin one. The name of the article in WP is a non-starter for any media outlet for obvious reasons (again, I am not in favor of changing the name of the article). Something along the lines, "frequently referred to as Climategate by the media" will work for me. To Nightmote: in WP, there are rules that, if followed, really discourage the use of suffix "-gate" in the article titles - and I think that it is good for an encyclopedia (note that I am also an active supporter of keeping the word in the first sentence of the article). Also note that Google search is smart enough to find the redirect and thus our work comes up first in Google search for "Climategate". Dimawik (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving up on any further comments on this, because I'm beginning to sound nuts. The argument is that the predominantly left-leaning scientific community and green profiteers like Al Gore, with the deliberate support of the MSM, have hijacked the peer-review process and used personal influence and statistical manipulation to establish their personal opinions as irrefutable scientific "fact", gaining power, prestige, and wealth while de-constructing and taxing the industrialized capitalistic Western world. That's nuts. But it's just as nutty to assume that there *can* be no truth to the assertion. Eisenhower feared and fought the military-industrial complex. Good for him. I'm going back to editing hockey articles. Nightmote (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favor of the "frequently referred..." construct you propose. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Began...with the hacking of..."

This is simply inaccurate. The scandal began with the RELEASE of hacked data. The hacking occurred over a month prior to the scandal. Indeed, part of the actual controversy revolves around a BBC reporter choosing not to run the story, after being given the data well before it became public.

Incidentally, this is part of the reason that "CRU e-mail hacking incident" is an absurd article title. If you don't want to call it Climatgate (and I understand the reasoning even though I don't find it convincing) it should at least be called something like "CRU Controversy."

In any event, the opening line should be corrected to "began with the release of data acquired by hackers from the..." or something to that effect. Drolz09 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That sort of makes sense, but you could argue that it did begin with the hack if you regard the article as a sort of "timeline" of events. Personally, I think your interpretation would be correct because the "timeline" approach is more in the vein of a Wikinews article. I am opposed to the use of the word "controversy" in the title of any Wikipedia article, per WP:WTA. It is rare that a case can be made for its use to be neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"The scandal began with the RELEASE of hacked data" - perhaps, but the incident began with the theft of the files. This is about the incident, so... Guettarda (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If incident is used here to mean "an individual occurrence or event," then you are correct, but in that case, it also ended with the hacking. If, on the other hand, incident means "an embarrassing occurrence, esp. of a social nature," then it began with the release of the emails. The reality is that incident is wholly inappropriate as a description of this controversy, and the sentence is still in error.Drolz09 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"after being given the data well before it became public" do you have a reliable source that confirm this?
—Apis (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If BBC reporter Paul Hudson admitting that he got the emails on October 12 counts. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml Drolz09 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, no, not in itself I think. :( There might be more about this later when the police investigation is complete. Very interesting though.
—Apis (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So a BBC reporter admitting on a BBC blog that he personally received the emails on October 12, more than a month before this article says the "incident" "began" is not a viable source? What, would does the BBC need to report that a BBC reporter posted an admission on his BBC blog before it actually happened? Drolz09 (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue seems to keep coming up as people seem to keep misinterpreting Paul Hudson's comment (although many people pointed out that people appeared to be misinterpreting his comment before any clarification) despite the fact he clarified the situation the day later [43]. There is no evidence he received any e-mails from any hack nor has he ever claimed he did. He did receive some of the e-mails discussing him which were copied to him. There has been some suggestion in news sources (well one that I saw) that the hacking began significantly before the documents were released but no evidence was provided for any of the claims Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I yield that point, although it is some remarkably poor wording on his part. That does not change the main point though, which is that the scandal/controversy began with the release of the data. The "incident" began and ended (or more properly, occurred/took place) with the hack. There is no way that the opening sentence is appropriate to the article. Drolz09 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's your POV. Another POV is that this was a theft funded and organized by people intent on disrupting the Copenhagen talks and that the primary relevance of the content is that is a convenient weapon for that purpose but has relatively little intrinsic significance because it has no bearing on the well-established science of AGW and the topics to be discussed at Copenhagen. The stolen materials may reveal unprofessional behavior by a handful of scientists -- a matter of concern of philosophers of science and sociologists studying science as a practice -- but virtually no relevance to the hefty policy matters related to AGW. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to note how easy it was to misinterpret text when we didn't know the whole context. That's also why it's better with a secondary source, we let someone else do the research, and then trust in the journalistic integrity of the source. Still, if someone has sent copies to him earlier it makes me wonder at least, but well have to wait and see.
—Apis (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well secondary sources aren't perfect either [44] although that may say more about that particular secondary source then anything else (interesting the article says he was unavailable to comment, maybe it was because they apparently didn't bother to read his next blog post which came out the next day and 2 days before the Daily Mail article). Interesting enough, a comment pointing out that the Daily Mail had misunderstood what Hudson was saying and that Hudson had clarified the situation the day later is one of the 'lowest rated' comments which perhaps says a lot about the Daily Mail readership or at least comment raters. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who introduced the "began with" verbiage.[45] The reason why is that the previous verbiage implied that the controversy was over rather than ongoing. It might not be perfect, but it's better than it was before. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, that's fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate and CRU Hack as separate articles

I am not a wikipedia expert but it seems to me that these are in fact two separate issues. It's entirely possible for one person to be vehemently opposed to both hacking and scientific malfeasance.

The two issues really have no relation to each other; that is, whether or not the emails were obtained legally has no bearing on whether they reveal corruption. The opposite is also true; whether or not the emails constitute corruption has no bearing on whether they were obtained legally. The only reason that this would not be the case is if the emails had been manipulated by the hackers, but not only has no one alleged this--they have been determined genuine.

Accordingly, neither issue should taint the other on Wikipedia. If the emails reveal corruption, the article on them should not be cluttered with discussion of how the hacking was also corrupt. This amounts to instantiating "two wrongs makes a right" in an Wikipedia article. Again, the opposite is equally true.

Also, the hack occurred months prior to the actual scandal, and the hackers are unidentified. There is no reason to believe that they are even affiliated with the principle actors in the current scandal, but when they are discussed in the same article, they are effectively conflated with the skeptics, unfairly impugning the reputations of the latter. Drolz09 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In reading the article, I was thinking the same thing. There really should be an article related to the scandal and the fallout in terms of the science community and its impact on the overall view of global warming ("Climategate"), and a separate one covering the act of leaking the documents ("the incident"). Tencious9 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep adding material and when a subject gains too much material it will tend to be split off. No need yet to plan what will grow. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are actually several issues packed together there: 1) possible bad behavior by a handful of scientists; 2) the consequences in re the science of AGW; 3) the consequences in re the perception of the global warming issue. The latter is actually closely related to the issue of the theft, since it was clearly the primary intent of the thieves affect that perception. Of course all of these issues relate to one particular event -- the theft and dissemination of the EAC materials, which is the subject of this article. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a WP:POVFORK. Without the hacking incident climategate would not have occured. This topic might already be in the discussion archivesChelydramat (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I hardly see how these events can be considered the same subject. WWI might not have occurred without the Arch Duke being assassinated, but that doesn't mean they are inextricably linked and need to be on the same page. Also, I'm advocating a "fork" explicitly for neutrality. As I said, it's possible to oppose both hacking and corruption. The moral standing of the hack has no bearing on the science. If Climategate is a fake scandal (it's not, sorry), it is because of the content of the emails, not how they were acquired. If, for instance, the hacking were ongoing, or in any way continuing to play a role in the analysis of the documents, it would have a place here, but that is not the case.Drolz09 (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the same subject and we don't need two articles. So, no. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You cannot separate the two. The security breach would not be notable were it not for the release of the e-mails. The provenance of the e-mails is central to their authenticity. While we do not know who leaked the e-mails, they must have intended to embarrass the writers of the e-mails. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, as I said, the only importance the breach can have is if they somehow affect the veracity of the emails. Yet, even though no one contends that it does, discussion of the breach absolutely DOMINATES the article. The topics wouldn't need to be split except for the fact that the Wikipedia "Ruling Party" is so relentlessly shameless in its employment of the NPOV tag as a means to force POV. Drolz09 (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The hack is a central part of the story. Frankly, I see this as just another bid to hide the crime that started this controversy - we've seen people arguing that there was no crime, now we're seeing people arguing that the crime should be hidden away in another article. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So, the main story in the Smoking/Cancer issue is the leak of proprietary data by whistleblowers? Pentagon Papers/Ellsberg? Is your contention that any malfeasance which is revealed due to criminal activity is thereby excused? Or is it just that the real story is always the way in which it is revealed? So Watergate is actually about an observant security guard? Neither claim has merit. In fact, the reverse is, at the very least, more accurate: that is, if someone knows that a crime is being committed and commits a lesser crime with intent to stop it, a reasonable person could see that as justified. The claim you are making, that when ongoing criminal activity is brought to light by a lesser crime, it is excused, defies all reason. Drolz09 (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Problem though is that you're jumping the gun a little. There's no evidence of serious wrong-doing on the part of the CRU folks. As it stands, the story of stolen email, the content of the email, and the way the content was cherry-picked and spun wildly is all woven together. Guettarda (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You have mischaracterized the article, and your characterization of editors not only is wildly factually inaccurate but violates WP:NPA. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree they are two distinct topics (hacking being a technical): [46][47] 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The hackers made their intention plain, and to some extent they have been successful in the short term. It is unlikely that this subject will need two articles in the near future. --TS 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I weakly endorse the idea that two articles are required. The provenance of the emails remains in question, and the motives, methods, and legal status are under investigation by the university and the police. Totally apart from that aspect of the scandal is the appearance of impropriety on the part of individual scientists, missing/destroyed raw data, and the impact on the Copenhagen Climate Summit and the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. Like John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln, the two topics are vitally linked, but essentially separate.Nightmote (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not be in favor of splitting the article. That would almost certainly result in a POV fork. The significant detail of this incident is the data theft, and the local-level consequences that arise from it (security, staff being replaced, UK government investigation). It is unlikely to have any significant impact on the Copenhagen Climate Summit (from a point of view of policies, treaties, etc.) and it will have absolutely no effect on the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (or the science supporting it). At best, it will promote stricter standards among scientists working in climate-related fields. It might provide fuel for the James Inhofe's of this world for a little while, I suppose. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the data theft is the significant issue is unsupportable. Nobody in their right mind cares about an isolated incident of data theft. Claiming otherwise is especially absurd here, because the "stolen" data was subject to FOI requests anyway. The only reason the hack is at all relevant is because of what it revealed. Regardless of whether you believe the data reveal malfeasance, that is the issue at hand. It is not POV to answer this question independently of the question of the hacker's identity/motives, because the second issue cannot be said to have any bearing on the outcome of the first. Drolz09 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It "revealed" absolutely nothing, which just leaves the theft as the important and significant matter. All this alleged conspiracy has already been debunked repeatedly and all over the place. Here, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the article is not about a criminal investigation, but about the content and reaction to those contents. You are completely jumping the gun here by saying that it is all settled and done with because that is obviously not the case. The scientific review has only just been declared. I don't see how you can objectively reach this viewpoint. Ignignot (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite easily, actually. Just as the apoplectic wingnuts of the Limbaugh persuasion had already condemned the scientists within mere moments of the hack coming to light, and by misinterpreting the emails and data (such as the complete misunderstanding of the word "trick", or even what anyone was referring to). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you continue to flip out over the responses of "wingnuts," etc. proves that those reactions are what makes Climategate notable. If climate science is as robust as everyone here believes, it's hard to see how this compulsive suppression of dissent is warranted. Drolz09 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? With respect, the REAL story here is likely to be that some climate change deniers, backed by big oil, hacked into the CRU to find, and then misrepresent, data related to climate change for the purposes of sabotaging the summit. I'm willing to bet that is all there is to it. All this other stuff is fanciful nonsense, quite frankly. The focus of this article should be about the hacking incident, and then the misrepresentation and lies that followed it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well of course it's hard to see if you radically misrepresent it. Nothing is being suppressed, compulsively or otherwise, certainly not dissent -- unless you consider mere factual correction of error to be suppression of dissent. You talk about the robustness of climate science, yet this event and the materials it brought forth don't touch climate science, only the behavior of a handful of climate scientists. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, it's obvious that you're trying to swing this article as far into your own bias as possible. The hacking incident is focused on the by left-wing media, while most of the rest of the MSM is also reporting on the ramifications introduced by the allegations of fraud on part of one of the most prestigious climate research institutes. It's VERY clear that there are two distinct issues to be discussed.Static623 (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to splitting at the time being. The theft and it's performers possible intentions are integral part of this all. If there's a trial or so some day, then it'd be made as a sub-article. --J. Sketter (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Contested edits

I changed:

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific information, intefered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted e-mails to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

to:

Controversy arose after various allegations were made that the emails showed evidence that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific information, intefered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted e-mails to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is. Some prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign.

This was contested by Viriditas. I'm not sure why. For justification see (currently)recent edit history. Any specific problems with these changes?--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you deleted

Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December.

and you changed

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded

to

Controversy arose after various allegations were made that the emails showed evidence that climate scientists colluded

(Emphasis added). Why the deletion? And what's your basis for claiming that "the emails showed evidence"? Guettarda (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(And obviously it wasn't just contested by Viriditas, I also contested the changes. Guettarda (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

These are the edits indicated in the passages I pasted here. I didn't realize you contested the pages. You said you were enforcing what you saw as WP:BRD. In any case, I made the deletion that section because, as I said in the edit summary, it is the opinion of a scientist implicated in the controversy and with no indication of this it is not contextualized appropriately. The following sentence provides similar information from a noncontroversial source. I made the change because "my" version better represents the sources and the subject matter of the article itself.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they aren't. There is no mention of your deletion of "Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December." And you didn't add the sentence about Richard Somerville, you merely changed the first word of it.

You say your version better represents the sources. Can you explain what you mean? Guettarda (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, the idea that most of this is about "selectively quoted words and phrases out of context" is one of the most central ideas to the whole issue. So what's your rationale for removing it from the lead? As for sources - the material you removed appears to have been produced by AP's staff writers. The latter is based on a post from SolveClimate.com that was re-distributed by Reuters. What makes one "noncontroversial" and the other, presumably, "controversial"? As for the "collusion" sentence - your change makes the sentence longer and clunkier without changing the meaning in any important way. So how is that an improvement? Guettarda (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Such controversial and opinionated statements have no place in Wikipedia without strong evidence. No such strong evidence has been found. --TS 08:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits to article summary and climatologist's reactions[48]. I moved the last two sentences from the article summary, the reactions from Trenberth and other climatologists to the Climatologists' Reactions section of the article. My edit was undone and the summary given was "Severely unbalances lead." I did not remove the content, I simply moved it to the section allocated to climatologists' responses. What do you mean by unbalances lead? Is the article summary looking lopsided from a formatting standpoint? Please explain. I don't believe we should be misplacing content just to make paragraphs look longer. Static623 (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He presumably means that taking out those sentences makes the lead too favorable to the skeptic side. Personally I think the lead should just be a quick summary, like "Content of the letters set off a new controversy in the climate change debate..." and then move all the specifics down below. Drolz (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean that a rather contentious charge was mentioned but the vigorous and near-universal rebuttals were not adequately covered. I agree that the lead could be more compact, but it should still be balanced. --TS 09:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We already have a section for rebuttals - including a few rebuttals in the lead makes the article seem biased towards apologists while disorganizing the overall article. Note that I did not delete the rebuttals, but merely replaced them. Also, your edit summary said it "severely unbalances lead". I don't feel this is the case. Does anyone else feel that the lead summary becomes biased by moving the rebuttals? In my opinion, it seems bias is introduced leaving them there. Static623 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Static that the only reason to put the rebuttals there is to preempt the actual allegations. Drolz (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else care to offer feedback? If it's only Drolz, TS and I, then I'm going to put my edits back in, as there is agreement over the length of the summary and some of its content is misplaced - amid other concerns of disorganization/bias. Static623 (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The charges are mentioned in the lead, so including rebuttals, which were given promptly and with vigor, is appropriate. Not including rebuttals simply isn't acceptable because it gives a false impression. --TS 10:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The charges are mentioned in a general way. The rebuttals should be included, but in the same general way. The specific rebuttals seem out of context there. 71.206.138.96 (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Myron Ebell again

Continuing this discussion...

Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression states that "concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value" violates NPOV.

This is the relevant passage from the article:

Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said the e-mails showed that some climate scientists "are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

This is verbatim from the source [49]:

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position." (emphasis added)

The phrase 'whose group is funded in part by energy companies' is relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value that has been strangely excised from the middle of sourced information and should be inserted into the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dduff442 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to go down this road, let's include the funding sources for the university professors. They should not be consider clean and uninfluenced by their funding sources. Let's not assume that special interest groups don't fund universities. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on this because these pressure groups and think tanks exist precisely to advance the interests of their patrons. But consensus is against adding the text at least in this form. --TS 09:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The appearance of consensus is misleading. The standing was 2-1-3 F/Neutral/A (it's 3-1-3 if your support is added). Let's see what emerges here and debate the merits of the point. Mere objection is not sufficient to block progress -- the point must be defensible by reference to the rules. The onus is on those objecting to enter into debate.Dduff442 (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, Myron Ebell is a lobbyist? I find the whole idea of adding the comments by lobbyists very odd. How are their opinions notable? Does the CEI have such a huge influence that it makes their statements notable?
—Apis (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Ebell's patrons are in effect paying to have his statements appear in newspapers and the like. If we then quote him aren't we giving undue weight to paid representations? --TS 10:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec 2) I explained above. It's not relevant, as the only purpose is the implication that the sponsors affect the statements, which statement wouldn't be acceptable in Wikipedia even if explicitly stated.

Ebell is a scientist working for the CEI, which is a think tank, rather than a lobbyist working for a lobbying organization. If he were a lobbyist, the identity of the specific sponsors might be relevantHowever, CEI wouldn't then be a non-profit. The separate question of whether the Post's statement is more correct than Obama being sponsored by energy companies (some energy companies did contribute to his campaign) might tben need to be investgated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it claimed that the phrase is not information about sources or sources' credentials or that it is not needed to fairly judge their value? We have no authority to form a consensus on this issue while flying in the face of Wiki guidelines.

Your general objections cannot stand in the face of the specific rule I'm quoting.Dduff442 (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"scientist working for the CEI" - that's a good one! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ebell is a paid media jockey and is a longterm political activist, having worked as a senior legislative assistant to John Shadegg. (see CEI's own bio of Ebell). --TS 11:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also see his "impressive" scientific bibliography: [50]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Mr Ebell is none other than the great Larry David [51].Dduff442 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it as I don't think this is the kind of informed, expert commentary we should be looking at for inclusion in that section. The press is full of hype for anybody who wants that, and people come to Wikipedia for an insight into the facts of the situation, behind the hype. --TS 12:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you, others may not. His notability is doubtful but not completely absent. I'd be satisfied if the words cut from the Post piece -- 'whose group is funded in part by energy companies' -- were included. If there's consensus to cut Ebell's remarks entirely then I'm fine with that too.Dduff442 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree he's not notable, but I'm not OK with the "energy company" statement. As stated, it's accurate, as misleading as to state that Obama is funded by energy companies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That Obama's campaign was funded by energy companies is relevant to him, though I'll wager their contribution to his coffers was a small fraction of the total unlike in this case. The CEI page lists ExxonMobil and Ford as sponsors -- both firms with an interest in energy policy. Extraordinary justification would be required to rationalise cutting out six words from what is otherwise a direct lift from the Post article. The policy is pretty clear as well.Dduff442 (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's interpretation. Mentioning ExxonMobil and Ford (which is not an energy company) may be cherry-picking, but possibly relevant; mentioning energy companies is an incorrect interpretation. No additional justification is needed to remove clauses, where the only justification for keeping the clause is the allegation that the group's statements are dictated by the sponsors.

To quote the policy, the statement is "not needed" — nor is it helpful — "to fairly judge their value". It's needed to unfairly judge their value. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the best option is just to exclude Myron Ebell's comments given that he is obviously not a scientist and doesn't even appear notable and the CEI is not a scientific organisation of any note. Since we seem to have consensus to exclude it I don't think there's much point for further discussion.

However if we start to get opposition to excluding him, in terms of the energy companies bit you can probably say I'm neutral to it. The fact that it's sourced directly to the source used is good however such descriptions tend to be problematic and disputed so personally I prefer to avoid them.

The Obama/energy companies thing is probably not a great example. A better example would be if Obama had made comments on this and we decided to include them, I doubt many people would agree to us mentioning his campaign was part funded by reneweable energy companies and environmental groups (which I strongly suspect is true on both counts) even if it could be sourced directly to a source mentioning his comments. I also doubt we'd have any support to mention the CRU (or any one of their researchers e.g. Phil Jones) or other people and organisations mentioned is this article are part funded by reneweable energy companies and environmental group (which may be true in some cases guessing) even if we can find a relevant reliable source. Some people may say these comparisons are misleading since the percentange and diversity of funding is different but that's a completly different argument. Some may say it's red herring since we could never find such WP:RSes but I'm not convinced that's is the case (and in event, this is an issue that arises in other article and other fields) so it does serve as a good counter example IMHO.

In other words, I won't hold it up if people want to include it but I can also see the POV of those who want to exclude it.

As for ExxonMobil/Ford, let's just not go there again, eh?

Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I differ with Arthur (and apparently some other support his view) on inclusion of characterization of Ebell. If we were to include him we'd need to make clear that he spoke as a political activist, not a disinterested individual--I think it should be the case with all cited sources that we correctly characterize them. The nub of the difference is that I do think the sponsorship of his think tank by companies with an interest in the continued viability of the exploitation of petroleum technology for private transport--and yes, that includes Ford--would be an essential part of that characterization. I agree that we don't have consensus on that.

The reason I removed his entry entirely, however, is that I'm trying to move away from reliance on the usual rent-a-quote mob which has blighted the press and media coverage due to our voracious 24-hour news culture. Unlike news organizations we don't have column inches and airtime to fill, so we can afford to pick through the dross and get the most reliable sources we can find. So I'm against quoting political pundits and think tank mouthpieces who are in effect providing a paid-for platform for their patrons. --TS 09:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad Arthur Rubin has at last chosen to address my points directly instead of merely re-stating a prior position. I note the initial WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP objections have now been dropped to be replaced by a claim that knowledge of CEI's funding would somehow confuse readers.

It was never stated that Ford was an energy company (@AR, not Nil Einne). Ford is listed as a sponsor on the CEI page, and it is a firm with a critical stake in energy policy. The proposed edit didn't mention Ford. I can't comprehend how mentioning ExxonMobil and Ford would constitute cherry-picking, mind, when they are the only funding sources given for the CEI on its own page. I'm going to consider this aspect closed now as nobody is suggesting mention of either.

Ebell is a former congressional staffer; a lobbyist. AR may dispute this last definition, however numerous other eds have used it. It's casual usage but accurate. He has no scientific training and is certainly not 'non-profit'; he's a paid representative. Public corporations have a legal obligation to maximise stockholder returns; if they did not believe their funding of the CEI produced a return for their shareholders that funding would be illegal and those authorising the payments might be sued for damages. Quid pro quo isn't a possibility, it's a legal imperative as actions that deliberately hurt the value of shareholder funds are ultra vires.

I can cite the precedent of the original Washington Post piece in defense of my POV here; what examples can Arthur Rubin provide where journalistic integrity permits such information to be concealed? This is what he is arguing for -- suppression of information.

When this discussion was re-opened, eds quickly came to an assessment of the value of Ebell's comments: 0. Like I said, this is more than I sought and might even be disputable. (with inverted logic, WMC tried to present this as a defeat for my views on his ArbCom election page).

Public_relations#Front_groups states that "one of the most controversial practices in public relations is the use of front groups – organizations that purport to serve a public cause while actually serving the interests of a client whose sponsorship may be obscured or concealed...Instances of the use of front groups as a PR technique have been documented in many industries. Coal mining corporations have created environmental groups that contend that increased CO2 emissions and global warming will contribute to plant growth and will be beneficial...". (emphasis added) Do we agree we're not in the business of 'obscuring or concealing' information?

This is from the Society of Professional Journalists [52]: "Journalists should identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability." (emphasis added)

From the BBC[53]:"As with any medium, hidden commercial or political agendas can shape a Web site's content. Researchers should check the links to and from a site as these can often reveal political or commercial affiliations. It is wise to question where the financing for a Web site comes from". (emphasis added) Again, the Post thought it unwise to hide the commercial affiliations and possible commercial agenda of the CEI.

This dispute relates to matters of editorial judgment rather than fact, the facts being undisputed. AR's position is that one particular undisputed and sourced fact needs to be excluded, the definition of suppression of information. My position is in complete agreement with Wiki policy and the various editorial standards quoted.Dduff442 (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses by Whitehouse spokesman Gibbs

Obviously we should add a reference to Robert Gibbs' statement Monday, when asked whether the affair "Climate change is happening...I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly among most people, in dispute anymore." [54]. Should this appear under "elected national representatives"? Although Gibbs is a press secretary, he speaks for White House official policy. --TS 10:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama is the President of one of the most prolific carbon polluters in the world, and one of his key energy policies was a proposal for a strong carbon-limitation regime. That's why the responses by his spokesman to press questions on this matter is relevant--just as Gordon Brown's response is relevant. --TS 10:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's arguably one of the most notable political comments, the US is a key player globally, the response by the US government/president regarding this is highly interesting because it will have a direct effect on global politics (e.g. in Copenhagen now).
—Apis (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Russia response may be interesting as well. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

interesting: [55] According to the Mail, computer hackers in Tomsk have been used in the past by the Russian secret service - the FSB - to close down websites which promote views not approved by the Kremlin. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an allegation published by a (not particularly reliable) newspaper. It isn't an official response by Russia. --TS 11:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

i know. i just thought it was interesting and somewhat relevant. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article contents and how to improve it, not for chatting about whatever catches our interest. --TS 12:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

whatever. your perception is wrong. that interesting fact IS related to the article topic, not necessarily to this thread. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that quote doesn’t come close to being notable. It isn’t even clear from the article when he said it. There no indication that it was in response to ClimateGate, and even if a transcript shows it was in response to a question about ClimateGate, there’s no indication that the White House has actually done anything to investigate and reach a conclusion. It is an extremely common, perfunctory, restatement of current opinion. SPhilbrickT 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Gibbs was speaking on Monday and had been specifically asked whether this affair would affect Copenhagen. If you don't regard this statement by the press representative of the most powerful government on the planet as "notable", my impression that the phrase "not notable" is often used as a synonym for "stuff I don't like" is strengthened. --TS 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the US is the biggest emitter of CO2 in the world, so the US Government's position on CO2 emissions and reaction to the CRU thing is probably the most significant single national response, with the possible exception of the UK because it happened in their jurisdiction. The only other political response that would be as important would be the UN or the results from Copenhagen. Ignignot (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I do not appreciate the barely veiled implication. Let’s talk about the article, and not impugn motives. I think I’ve managed to do that.

Your claim that Gibbs was “specifically asked whether this affair would affect Copenhagen”, may be correct, but it is not in the article. And no, I don’t autmatically assume that a press spokeperson’s boilerplate response is automatically notable.SPhilbrickT 15:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why this is notable, either. Robert Gibbs is asked about everything by the press corps (he was asked about Tiger Woods, FFS!). To me, it seems like editors want to see this quote in the article because he said, "Climate change is happening..." If his words concerning the CRU incident specifically become significant in a preponderance of reliable sources, then it is reasonable to mention it. Right now, that is not really the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To what extent can Gibbs be said to be speaking for the Administration? If what he says reflects the position of the Administration, then I would call it notable. If not, then it's more debatable. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He is paid to be an official spokesman for the administration. And he is paid to waffle when he is unsure what the administration position is on anything related to the administration. He is not, however, paid to independently determine facts. Collect (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite what I asked. If what he says is the official position of the Administration, then that is notable whether or not that position is based on (what you regard as) the facts. The question is whether his statements represent the Administration's official position. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course they do -- he's the official spokesman. If he says something that doesn't reflect the official position of the administration, he or the administration issues a correction/clarification. That said, this comment is only relevant if it is specifically about the effect of the CRU incident and if it is presented that way in the article. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Trick

I find this edit very odd [56] especially the comment "rv: you wouldn't need so many refs if it was true". All the refs are from the side of the University of East Anglia / RealClimate. --Rumping (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit being removed was a tendentious and opinionated synthesis. --TS 10:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are happy with a long quote from RealClimate which fails to say whether or not tree-ring and thermometer data were spliced together but unhappy with the following:

The trick involved replacing proxy temperature data from tree rings in recent years with data from air temperatures, following the tree-ring reconstruction up to 1960 and the measured temperature after that. This contradicted an earlier statement on RealClimate by Michael Mann in 2004 which said

"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, 'grafted the thermometer record onto' any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum."

with refs at

• "The Stolen E-Mails: Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?". Time. 2009-12-07. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
• "Climate change e-mails have been quoted totally out of context". The Times. 2009-12-08. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
• "CRU update 2". University of East Anglia. 2009-11-24. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
• "Myth vs. Fact Regarding the 'Hockey Stick' - response to comment 4". Real Climate. 2004-12-22. Retrieved 2009-12-08.

There are clearly serious POV games being played with this article. Were the two series spliced together or not? What do the sources say? --Rumping (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The tree ring metrics were used as a temperature proxy which was tailed off for the time series where more reliable metrics were available. That isn't a controversial statement, nor is it an allegation of any wrongdoing at all. --TS 11:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So were the two series/metrics spliced together? I think you are saying yes, but your words are unclear, as is the current article and the current quote from RealClimate. The sources are much clearer: they were spliced.

Whether this involves wrongdoing is subjective. RealClimate now takes your current position that there was little wrong with the splicing "trick"; five years ago it described such splicing claims as specious industry-funded climate disinformation, so presumably at that time such splicing was not seen as being so reasonable. So let's state clearly in the article that the "trick" was splicing the two series, with the sources and (for POV balance) the two RealClimate quotes. I do not see how RealClimate can be a reliable source now if it was not five years ago. --Rumping (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the word "spliced" is inexact and suggests sloppy work. The works in question have been subject to repeated peer review so we can rule out sloppiness. We cannot directly or indirectly suggest sloppiness, nor render important disagreements as debates over sloppy grammar. --TS 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - I am not fixed on "spliced", even though splicing is in fact a skilled technical opperation, and it is a fair description of what was done. Would you prefer "joined", "stuck together" or something else? In fact the reverted edit did not use any of these words: it used "replaced" as does the reference from Time. So without using "spliced", I take it we now have consensus. --Rumping (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Spliced", "joined", "glued", "stuck together" or any other verb suggesting an ad hoc operation not technically justified by the mathematics and the science would be inappropriate. The RealScience description really is very good and we needn't strain hard to improve on it using our own synthesis. Their wording is "the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear." And that's what it's all about. --TS 13:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure your contention that the “works in question have been subject to repeated peer review” is accurate. My recollection is that the work in question is cover art for some publication. If cover art is subject to peer review, it will come as a complete surprise to me. I’ll have to dig to source my recollection. I don’t question that both the temps and the tree ring values have been peer-reviewed, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is whether it is OK to create a hybrid curve, consisting of tree ring data through c1960 and thermometer temps post c1960. In my profession, that would be unethical. Is there evidence it is ethical among climate scientists (assuming my recollection of what happened is correct)?SPhilbrickT 14:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The point I have been making is that the "trick" was not just plotting the the two series together. The sources say the same thing. If that is really how you read the current article and the RealClimate quote, then the current article and RealClimate are misleading you. What happened was that the tree-ring data was truncated for recent decades and replaced by the thermometer data, with the two lines being drawn as one. This was not technically justified by the mathematics, and the ad-hoc scientific justification was that showing the reconstruction after the 1960s would be misleading because the reconstruction did not track actual temperatures. What you describe as plotting one series along with another is the second chart at the end of the University of East Anglia press release [57] linked in the reverted edit. What actually happended with the "trick" was the first chart in that press release where the tree-ring and thermometer series are joined to become one, by replacing part of one set of data with another. That is what the Time, The Times and UEA sources in the reverted edit say. Have you looked at the sources? You are now making my point for me as to the confusion in the current article and the need to reinsert the deleted edits. --Rumping (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rumping, you're conflating several different facts: a particular figure was under discussion, and the data sets and conclusions from them have been discussed in articles that have survived multiple independent peer review. As for the CRU document you cite saying anything about splicing, what it actually says is: "To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month." Nothing about joining, splicing, sticking together, gluing or indeed anything not justified by the requirements of faithfulness to the most reliable data.

Sphilbrick, according to UEA the actual case under discussion was "a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999." --TS 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So you would be happy with "combine"? You do accept that the series on the WMO cover [58] combine tree-ring data up to 1960 and thermometer data after 1960 into single series? --Rumping (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've indicated, I'm happy with our use of the RealClimate description which is more than adequate, is a reliable source on this field of expertise, and doesn't rely on synthesis. --TS 15:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I will try again another way. Does the RealClimate description suggest to you that the "trick" was to combine tree-ring data up to 1960 and thermometer data after 1960 into single series? --Rumping (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a description on a matter of expertise provided by experts, and is consistent with other expert descriptions. --TS 20:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes or no would have done. So you can't tell us what the RealClimate statement means. That makes it a bad statement and it needs to be replaced. All you have given is an appeal to authority (part of the list of red herring fallacies), and in this case RealClimate is an unreliable and ambiguous apologetic source, strongly connected to the leaked emails. The secondary sources linked above and that from UEA are clear and therefore better. --Rumping (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I brought up the issue of reliability at the WP:RSN, and the end result of the discussion was that RealClimate is reliable under WP:SELFPUB.[59] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to authority is Wikipedia's bread and butter. If you would read the article you cite, you will note that it says that appeals to authority are not generally fallacious; they are only fallacious if it is claimed that the statement must be true because it was stated by an authority. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this is POV as stands. If you are going to include a huge block of text published by an interested party for the express purpose of explaining away controversy, you should at the very least include an equally detailed explanation of what skeptics claim "trick" and "hide the decline" entail, rather than one vague sentence that says "manipulation" is alleged. Drolz09 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The point here is that the RealClimate text clearly fails to make clear whether or not the "trick" was to combine tree-ring data up to 1960 and thermometer data after 1960 into single series, in particular in the WMO cover graph[60], and is perhaps deliberately obscure and self-serving. The secondary sources do make it clear, as does the UEA statement. So excluding informative sources but including the RealClimate text, simply because RealClimate has spoken, is hopeless and is indicative of the problems with this article. Remember that is simply a description of what was done in 1999. For true NPOV, we might also consider what the skeptics are saying "hide the decline" means: that the divergence problem meant that tree rings did not track temperatures in the last 40 years, casting doubt on their ability to track temperatures in the previous 1000 years. Given the behavior of other editors on simple sourced facts, it would be impossible to get something like that here.--Rumping (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have veered off into original research. Let's stick with what our reliable sources are saying, and not try to push our personal views on the matter into it. --TS 09:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not it has not. This discussion has shown that you refuse to allow the article to use what reliable sources have said. The University of East Anglia said This email referred to a "trick" of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The Times says They draw the line to follow the tree-ring reconstruction up to 1960 and the measured temperature after that. Time says According to PSU's Mann, that statistical "trick" that Jones refers to in one e-mail — which has been trumpeted by skeptics — simply referred to the replacing of proxy temperature data from tree rings in recent years with more accurate data from air temperatures. Which of these is "original research"? What do you object to? Why? --Rumping (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not object to the characterization in the UEA's statement. That is a falsehood. I do not object to the characterization in the Times' statement. That is a falsehood. I do not object to the characterization in Mann's statement. That is a third falsehood. I do not refer to any of those three as original research. That makes a fourth falsehood. Please rethink your line of discussion, which appears to involve a grossly mistaken characterization of argument against your own line of original research and that of Drolz09.

In short, you appear to have manufactured a controversy from your personal interpretation of the RealClimate description, although it is quite compatible with what all other reliable sources have stated. --TS 13:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I will take that as consensus that those three quotes can go in the article. --Rumping (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never argued against the inclusion of further reliable sources on this matter. The RealClimate description is, however, detailed and accurate. --TS 13:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Small earthquake on "Reactions"

I've renamed a couple of the subsections of "Reactions" to sharpen the focus to expert commentary (there is much uninformed commentary and we'd do well to ignore it). I've also moved the newspaper section to the bottom and renamed it "Miscellaneous media". Frankly given the patchiness of the contents I'd rather we did away with it altogether and reassigned any useful material from there to other subsections.

The media coverage of this affair has not been particularly good, and we've done a far better job of covering it ourselves. I don't think we should highlight the media coverage per se. --TS 12:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Msm (mainstream media) hasn't done a good job of appropriately covering the subject. But wikipedia, which is comprised of the educated masses, has done a much better (still not perfect...but much better) job of covering the subject. Give wikipedia a pat on the back, they deserve it=D.Smallman12q (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that pat on the back, and raise you an ice-cold beer! Chilled in one of those vanishing glaciers, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes we forget this in the hurly burly of editing and discussion: we're producing a really good reference work and it is much appreciated. --TS 14:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian Hackers

Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is not qualified to give an expert opinion on the hackers' identity, nor is he in a position to have personal knowledge of the event. Moreover, he doesn't even pretend to give an expert opinion; it's just rampant speculation. Even more ridiculous, his speculation that the hackers were Russian adds NOTHING to this article. What difference does it make if the hackers are Russian? Presumably it must be a matter of some importance to warrant the inclusion of speculation that is far more prejudicial than probative. Drolz09 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ypersele is Vice Chairman of the IPCC. As such, his opinion should go into the article. His opinion on this matter--expert or not--tells us something about the thinking of the scientific authorities about this matter. --TS 12:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when are "scientific authorities" polled on criminal activity? And again, what bearing does the nationality of the hackers have on the debate? Drolz09 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

When it's a criminal matter that targets the scientific community. Much like when labs or homes of academics are targeted by animal rights activists. Guettarda (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, based on the idea that they have some insight into why they were targeted, as in "do you know anyone who might have something against you?" In this case, he blames paid Russian hackers, with no possible foundation. We already know the emails were hacked in order to make CRU look bad anyway. There's just no reason for this comment. Drolz09 (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The source makes it plain that Ypersele's claim is not without foundation, though it is of course speculation, as we make it plain that the hackers have not yet been identified. --TS 13:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, what if they are Russian? Does that somehow change the debate? It's one thing to include a fact like this if it becomes a fact, there's no justification for the speculation. Drolz09 (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. So far, it is 4-1 for inclusion, so you need to focus more on persuading people to take your view, and less on reverts against consensus. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You people are obsessed with consensuses. It's 4-2. 83.134.87.192 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope so. Thanks for the compliment. Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is not a professional in the computer security arena. He is just a climatologist. It is very strange to see how people who are (for a good reason) fighting against including quotes on climatology from statements by people unrelated to the field, turn around and fight for an inclusion of a completely non-professional statement into an article. Delete it. Computer security is just as complex a field as climatology. Dimawik (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Van Ypersele is vice chair of the IPCC, the IPCC is the organisation that is the first, primary consumer of all the research that CRU does. It was the CRU that got hacked. This is going up the food-chain, to people whose job it is to find out what's going on here. Their views are based on an informed top-level overview. This is not comparable with the views of the CEO of some security company that didn't get the job of investigating the hack (as we had until a few days ago) or the views of other people who would have liked, but never did get, a job at CRU etc. (as a lot of the other noise here is based on) --Nigelj (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A statement from Ypersele on this subject at this stage is important. There's no way it's going to be removed from the article. Arguing that Ypersele isn't an expert in field X or Y is missing the point that he is an expert in the opinion of the IPCC at this stage. --TS 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a very serious problem with the sourcing policy in this article. What is going on is basically analogous to treating the Nixon administration as the only reliable, official source in Watergate. Even though none of you believe that the data actually reveal fraudulent activity in the climate science community, you can't possibly prove their innocence by treating them as unimpeachable official sources and experts. Drolz09 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The analogy doesn't apply. You're treating the entire scientific community as a single, monolithic entity, which is patently not the case. You're also treating this purely as a political rather than scientific issue. Your argument is essentially that of the most extreme anti-science activists, i.e. that because a few scientists have been accused of (completely unproven) wrongdoing then the entire scientific profession is discredited. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire, the Nixon analogy applies quite well. In this particular case, Ypersele represents IPCC, not the "scientific community". IPCC is in the very center of the scandal, just like the "Committee to Re-Elect the President" was in the Watergate. Dimawik (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means offer context, but it is bizarre to suggest Ypersele's remarks are not relevant. If his statements are speculation then he surely must have drawn some fire in the media. Track that down and you're set.Dduff442 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, he has a vested interest in CRU being cleared of wrongdoing. A reasonable person could conclude that he is not a completely reliable source on the matter. Also, there has still been no answer to the question of how the hackers' nationality is relevant in the first place. Drolz09 (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I remarked earlier, Ypersele is a reliable source for the tenor of IPCC thinking at this stage. His opinion on the matter is relevant. --TS 09:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sceptics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia uses terms such as "Climate change sceptic" because "sceptic" (or "skeptic") is the generally accepted terminology and is a label embraced by most of those of have strong reservations on one or more aspects of the scientific consensus on global warming. Words such as "denier" or "denialist" are controversial and should not normally be used.

---

This article uses the label 'sceptic' far too loosely. Social identity indicates why some involved in this issue would want to categorize others as 'sceptics'. But, care must be taken when adopting this terminology when neutrality is important.

The article makes is appear as if there is a group, the 'sceptics', whose members hold a uniformly rigid set of ideals. The article attributes many acts and beliefs to the 'sceptics'. In reality, there is no such group.

Is a 'climate sceptic' someone who doubts the existence of climate? Is a 'climate change sceptic' someone who believes the climate is always the same? These are words are used not to inform, but to assign social identity. And the assignmentof social identities is a good indicator of the loss of neutrality. JookBocks (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point actually. "Sceptic" is the chosen self-identification for a group that is called "contrarian" or "denialist" by others. It's a label like "Pro-Life" - it has little bearing on their actual use of skepticism. Guettarda (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sceptics is fairly neutral language compared with deniers (etc).Dduff442 (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's actually why it is to contentious - there is a group of people who are actual skeptics and want more research / more open research on climate change, and there is a group of people who call themselves skeptics who are just reacting against the greenhouse gas environmental warnings. Sorry, tried to phrase that as neutrally as possible but probably offended someone. Even those two groupings are wrong, there is such a broad range of views on the topic that set membership is fuzzy. All I know is, there is a group of people (let's call them "biased") who like to label other groups of people arbitrary things to pidgeonhole them. Ignignot (talk)

Would a link to environmental skepticism be helpful? Guettarda (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'denier' label is an unfortunate digression into politics. Some catch-all label is too useful to resist, however, on grounds of brevity alone. This isn't the only instance where very loose labelling is employed or actually useful. Still, use of the term should probably be minimised. "Joe Scroggs, who is sceptical..." is better than "climate sceptic Joe Scroggs".Dduff442 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All scientists ought to be sceptics -- it is the foundation of science, in fact. Collect (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Amen. It's a proposition AGW cheerleaders couldn't get their heads round yet. Luckily we are far more patient and understanding with them than they are with us. 83.134.87.192 (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing the point. This isn't about "skepticism", it's about professional contrarians. It's newspeak. I don't think we should be using such misleading terminology, certainly not without explanation. Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, some of the greatest scientists in history never were professionals. Science is of course about skepticism, it has nothing to do with positions or pay grades. I know AGW cheerleaders which it would be like that, then they could bully everybody into submission, but you constructivists can't have your cake and eat it too. 83.134.87.192 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem confused, so let me clarify. The term "skeptic", in this context, is the descriptor of choice of the group that is otherwise called the "climate change denialists" (among other terms). It has nothing to do with science - many of them are non-scientists, like my senator. Many of them are also in the employ of the oil industry, or in the pet think-tanks of the oil industry. A few of them are real academics. But their "skepticism" is not scientific skepticism. It's simply a name that has been adopted by this group for PR purposes. Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be very opinionated on the matter. I assume you have sources for this. I see anybody who calls himself or herself as a skeptic as somehow who wants to remind so-called scientists about scientific rigor. 83.134.87.192 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think 'climate skeptics' means 'AGW skeptics'. They doubt the explaination towards AGW, that is. It is quite consistent to other mainstream usage of 'skeptics' (e.g. epistomological skeptics: Those people who deny on whether (most forms of) knowledge is possible). --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Collect, you're absolutely correct. Unfortunetly, it's the term that most WP:RS are using. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A piece on Sky News a short time ago about the "alternative" climate change conference being held at Copenhagen by a group of deniers/sceptics made rather a good point. They're not a monolithic bloc - some deny that global warming is happening at all, some agree that it is happening but deny that human activity is responsible, and some agree that it is both happening and man-made but say that it's either too late to do anything about it or that doing something about it would cause more harm than letting it happen. One could perhaps term them strong deniers, weak deniers and inactivists respectively. The problem is that there isn't really a satisfactory collective noun that covers all of them. Not all of them are deniers, while "sceptics" suggests that their views might be subject to revision or change, which really isn't the case for a lot of these people. Nonetheless "sceptics" is probably closer to the mark than any other term and is widely used by sources, so I suspect we're stuck with it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the views of the "experts" are open to revision or change either. Denier is an insanely prejudicial term to label everyone who questions global warming with. It overtly suggests the holocaust. Drolz09 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Global warming has the potential to kill billions if not dealt with smartly. That's an order of magnitude more than the atrocities committed against the Jews. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The denier label is an unfortunate digression into politics. This issue has become irrevocably politicised, however those on the green end of the argument erred practically as well as ethically when they swerved into this sort of underhanded technique.

Labelling all sceptics deniers dents the credibility of environmentalists. There's a continuum of so-called sceptics from those who'd place a ceiling of no more 1C in temp rise by 2100 all the way over to rent-a-scientist PR men. The problem is that labelling them *all* as deniers gives the real obstructionists the consolation of company -- something they'd have much less of if the 'denier' label was used more sparingly.

Deniers do exist; it's best to allow them to isolate themselves rather than force legions of the naive, ill-informed etc into their arms.Dduff442 (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Skepticism and denial are two entirely different things, although they may overlap and it may also be very hard to tell one from the other from the outside. Speculating about someone's reasoning for questioning things also takes into the realm of opinion and political bias. Plus, even on the most rock solid issues like night following day or gravity causing things to fall some people say things because they believe them, some because of some internal emotional reason, and some because they have been paid. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jones email wording and other "maybe could have possibly been represented by some to"

Nigelj, I have changed your "their authors may have threatened to attempt undermine the peer-review process" back to the original "their authors may have attempted undermine the peer-review process". I actually toned down the original quote: "the suggestions [that] climate scientists may have actively conspired to undermine the peer-review process". That just seemed too over-the-top. But let's not get too vague, either. Madman (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The above copied here from my Talk page, as it was not really about me, but this article. --Nigelj (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was me!  : ) I thought I should explain the reversion, but didn't think it was a big enough issue to discuss here.

I also just reversed this (diff here). The emails do indeed discuss "how to combat the arguments of climate change sceptics, unflattering comments about sceptics, queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers." There's no reason to say that they "have been represented by some commentators and advocates as" discussing how to combat etc. Let's not get so careful that we start to scatter WP:Weasel words where they don't need to be. Madman (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of your statements above are non-contentious, others are contentious. I've tried to establish by editing the distinction between the two. The statements do not match what the journalists in the sources say, for instance, but they do in some instances match what some skeptics have told the journalists. --TS 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. As I pointed out in the edit summary when I added, "...threatened to...", if someone writes "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" to a colleague, there is no way that this can be characterised as an attempt to redefine what the peer-review literature is (unless you have some very powerful colleagues). At most this is a threat to try to redefine what the peer-review literature is. we have no evidence from that statement that he actually tried to redefine it, let alone whether he succeeded (actually, I think we know he didn't). These are not weasel words, they are accuracy words. Summarising that statement as an attempt is just wrong, even if a reporter did so. --Nigelj (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute...what? How is pledging to keep "garbage" out of the IPCC "an attempt to undermine the peer-review process"? And how do any of the references (USA Today, Winnipeg Free Press or Bloomberg) support the idea that this was a "threat to undermine the peer review process"? I don't get it. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, none of the sources say anything about "undermining the peer review process". Looked through them carefully, and they don't say what they're alleged to say. That's a big problem. Guettarda (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is getting warped from the conditional speculation in this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html?do=print Ignignot (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Another great article from Monbiot

The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public is full of links to case studies, books and websites that show what we're up against here. The first half of that article is about this e-mail incident, then we have links to four case studies (US coal companies targeting specific socio-economic groups with sound-byte denialist quips they can use, Patrick Michaels getting paid 'lavishly', the Heartland Institute with its list of 500, and the Bush presidency working with oil companies). There are also books about it all (The Heat is On, Boiling Point and Heat) and websites devoted to the subject (http://DeSmogBlog.com and http://exxonsecrets.org). --Nigelj (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What we're up against on wikipedia is NPOV editing by people whose opinions have overcome their objectivity, not some crack team of exxonmobil spin doctors or outsourced meatpuppetry. For God's sake don't make it into more of an us vs. them than it has already become. Ignignot (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As encyclopedists, we're all opposed to attempts to misinform the public. --TS 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. We're simply here to report back what reliable sources say about the subject without introducing bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is an interesting article, but does not provide much help in this story. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV issue is people frantically trying to exclude anything that suggests malfeasance on CRU's part, while trumping up the hack element of the story to detract from the issue people actually care about. Drolz09 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof of any malfeasance on CRU's part, but there is plenty of proof of the hacking incident. So I'm afraid you have the neutrality issue backward. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is the CONTROVERSY. A person who came to this page to understand what Climategate meant could reasonably conclude from it that Climategate is a scandal revolving around computer security, which is ludicrous. Climategate is notable SOLELY because of what it does or does not reveal about the climatescience community. Drolz09 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with this point of view. There are two facets to the notability of the issue. In terms of newsworthiness, the issue of the scientific scandal is paramount though issues like who organised the hacking etc are very important. The criminal investigations etc are the other facet -- less prominently reported but more important in many ways in terms of the public record. Eds may conclude the emails don't undermine climate science and they may be correct, but the scandal is genuine as Monbiot very correctly points out.Dduff442 (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are actually wrong there, Drolz09. This is a hacking incident and some reaction to it. If you are here to try to bring down the whole of global warming science (or the whole of science, etc), that will be why you are having so much trouble. The science has not changed - glaciers are still melting and people are still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Luckily, world leaders are also still at Copenhagen trying to get agreement to do something about it, otherwise, as you were told above, billions of innocent people could die in the next 100 years or so. Try not to argue for the impossible. --Nigelj (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

<snark>Yeah, we're hobbled by our verifiability policy, our policy on biographies of living people and the fact that we are a mainstream encyclopaedia. It's a terrible burden.</snark> Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Nigelj has summed it up far more eloquently than I ever could. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, you can verify that "billions" of people are likely to die in the next century, but not that there is controversy over the content of the emails. Makes perfect sense. Drolz09 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We can say with absolute accuracy that billions of people are certain to die in the next century, just as billions of people have died in the last century... -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't think this immortality thing is going to pan out? Silly scientists and their incompetence at making such basic breakthroughs :-( Nil Einne (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Had a similar thought, but then realised it probably wouldn't help. See [61]. Guettarda (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors: immune to context. Drolz09 (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans von Storchs comment and comparision with the German Forest die off hype is worth while a read. I think it should be inserted here. --Polentario (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What context? You're the one who said 'you can verify that "billions" of people are likely to die in the next century' which we can say with extremely great certainty would be yes. If you had wanted to say 'can verify that "billions" of people are likely to die in the next century due to climate change' you should have said so. Don't blame us because the question was inherently silly. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On the merits, I would be inclined to reject this opinion piece by Monbiot because it doesn't fall into any category of expert commentary that I regard as acceptable for inclusion in this article. Everybody has an opinion in this matter, and Monbiot is just another man with an opinion. --TS 10:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

URL to e-mails

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please use the talk page to discuss the article

---

Could any of you give me URL of the site where those e-mails were posted?74.14.181.174 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not on-wiki, due to copyright concerns. But if you google e.g. "CRU FOI2009.zip -torrent", you should find any number of sites that claim to have the archive (if you have Bittorrent, leave off the "-torrent"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst Wikipidia can't link to the emails themselves, some newspapers are linking to the "east anglia emails" website, which has a copy of the emails in searchable HTML format - e.g. The Times [62], The Guardian [63], Science [64], Financial Times [65]. Could a section that mentions that (not the "east anglia emails" website name, but that they are being linked to) be added i.e. - essentially linking to a few of those major news site's web pages that themselves link directly to a copy of the emails? Brumski (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't allow support linking to the actual files, but a simple google search should do. They aren't difficult to find anymore. Also consider checking wikileaks, they ussually have this kind of stuff.Smallman12q (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the stolen Palin emails links to the Wikileaks files. Why not link to the Wikileaks copy of this file? -- SEWilco (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know - that's a question to ask at that article. Perhaps those are considered public documents. Or perhaps they shouldn't be linked to from that article. Who knows. These aren't public documents in that sense, so linking to them would be linking to copyvios, which isn't allowed. Guettarda (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leaked E-mails Still At Center Of Climate Change Debate

Here's an article that we can potentially use as a source: Leaked E-mails Still At Center Of Climate Change Debate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Weart interview (cont.)

That quote by Weart from The Washington Post looks like inaccurate hyperbole. In saying that the hacking incident is "a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science" Weart forgets about the existence of Lysenkoism.Chelydramat (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this quote is a bit over the top, particularly if the "hack" is really a "leak". If I were a rules-lawyer, I would quote WP:UNDUE to disqualify this. With dozens if not hundreds of quotes to choose from, I think we should all try to avoid the most extreme statements. Madman (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not really true for this particular quote. Lysenkoism is an inapt analogy - that was an attempt by a state to control and suppress science for ideological purposes, rather as happened in Nazi Germany (where Einstein's theories were disparaged as "Jewish science") or under the George W. Bush administration with regard to climate change or stem cell research. This case is an instance of (presumably) private individuals attacking and attempting to discredit an entire field of science for ideological purposes. It's more comparable to the terrorism carried out by animal rights activists against medical researchers. Animal rights extremists have always been a tiny minority, though; Weart is making the point that the anti-scientific campaign against climate researchers is of a kind and a scale which we've never seen before. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between governments and individuals is solely one of magnitude. At the roots of each are attacks on science on ideological grounds. -- Chelydramat (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The piece on Spencer Weart, who is an expert in the history of science, is under the "Other expert commentary" section. Speaking for myself I have no professional expertise in either science or history. If anybody reading this has relevant expertise comparable to Weart's and has an opinion distinct from Weart's, they are welcome to contact the Washington Post or a similar source and publish a critique which may be considered for inclusion in the article. Someone on the internet saying Weart's comment looks suspect doesn't really cut it. --TS 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Eds are welcome to find contrary opinions but the notability of Weart's views is hard to dispute.Dduff442 (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Very much so. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Still, isn't it premature to turn to a historian for comments on a still-developing event? Much of this incindent hangs on the content of the hacked files, which Weart apparently hasn't looked into because of the nature by which they were made public. -- Chelydramat (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the article

The article's name seems misguided as more than emails were hacked...there are thousands of pages of source code and other documents "hacked." There is also controversy surrounding whether they were hacked or leaked. Perhaps the article should be renamed Climatic Research Unit incident ...the name seems far more neutral without adding extra emphasis on the e-mails.Smallman12q (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We had a smilar discussion at the german lemma, here it was renamed from Climategate or E-Mail incident to a lengthy translation of the english lemma. Keep me posted :) --Polentario (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can just remove the "e-mail" from the name? Then change the opening line to reflect it? Ignignot (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Polentario, I wouldn't put too much faith in the English Wikipedia on this topic. We have a severe POV-pushing problem here between two different sides. The current article name merely reflects which side has better Wikilawyering skills. I suspect the best name for the article is either "Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy" or "Climate Research Unit documents controversy" but it's not a battle I'm willing to fight. I hope that helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be evidence they were leaked, not "stolen" or "hacked" in the traditional sense. A name change would make sense (perhaps "scandal"?). Riley Ralston (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)user was blocked as a sockpuppet Kim D. Petersen (talk)

We already have a guideline which addresses this issue. "Scandal" is a word to avoid. So, no, we can't use "scandal". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that either "Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy" or "Climate Research Unit documents controversy" is best. Doesn't reference a hack which is unproven and (surprising to me) appears increasingly less like what actually happened. Doesn't reference Climategate. Indicates that there is a controversy over documents/emails without saying whether the controversy revolves around their content or matter of acquisition, which is an acceptable compromise, I believe (and really, outside of wikipedia, the controversy is the content). Drolz (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure AQFK noticed when he typed that link, controversy is also a word to avoid: WP:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal. Actually this has been discussed a few times before, might be worth looking over previous suggestions an comments as well.
—Apis (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The page says to avoid using "controversy" except in cases where the is clearly a debate going on. That is, cases exactly like this one. Drolz (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should continue to discuss possible names for this article with a view to achieving consensus. So far we seem to be bogged down, though. Most of the suggested alternatives have irresolvable problems. --TS 10:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"A controversy is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views", but is often used in place of the words scandal and affair, and often by editors with a strong disposition against the article subject. The term should be used carefully and only when it is interchangeable with the words debate or dispute." Controversy is clearly an appropriate name for this topic. There is, in fact, no other word to accurately describe it. Incident needs to be replaced ASAP because it strongly implies that this was an isolated occurrence rather than an ongoing and developing story. "Climate Research Unit File Controversy" fairly describes what is going on. Constantly objecting to proposed names without finding alternatives is not constructive behavior, and only serves to keep the current, biased name in place. Drolz (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe 'Climate Research Unit FOIA Controversy' or just 'Climate Research Unit Incident'? I don't want to contribute to sending the discussion off in a hundred directions at once, it's just that 'File Controversy' is a bit strange to me. The current title is clumsy, but I don't have strong opinions on alternatives.Dduff442 (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There are now 3,000,000 google hits for "climategate" ... and google seems to be back censoring the term "climategate" in its "quick text" feature (or whatever it is called), because again it suggested "climate guatemala" even when I had "climateg..". But of course, according to the "scientists" who edit these articles, the google hit rate is going down, there is no censorship of wikipedia, and there never was a scandal. 88.109.60.215 (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate is neither neutral or encyclopedic language. The word is in the article, just not in the title.Dduff442 (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

FOIA would be fine with me, but others would probably consider email or documents better. Again I think controversy is obviously better than incident. I agree about file in retrospect-awkward. Drolz (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"As I'm sure AQFK noticed when he typed that link, controversy is also a word to avoid". Actually, per WP:AVOID, "When using words such as controversy or conflict, make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict." Numerous reliable sources are using the term 'controversy' including: The Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, US News & World Report, TechNewsWorld, The Star, Mail & Guardian, Scientific American, Live Science, Politico, Irish Times, St Petersburg Times, Sidney Morning Herald, Seattle Times, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and Reuters A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wallstreet Journal The Guardian Los Angeles Times Christian Science Monitor San Francisco Chronicle FOX News The Boston Globe Business Week Forbes MSNBC The Miami Herald The Scotsman Cosmos Magazine CNBC New Zealand Herald BBC News A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Research Unit Incident or Climate Research Unit Controversy are each fine by me. As Monbiot points out, attempting to deny there's a scientific controversy (of whatever severity; mild to moderate IMO) simply erodes the credibility of the person making the claim and the credibility of climate science generally. Von Storch's attitude reflects my views as well. There's the hacking controversy as well of course.

My only real objection to the current title is its incredible clumsiness.Dduff442 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where Monbiot or any other serious commentator has said there is a scientific controversy: there may be a career crisis for 3 - 4 scientists, but there is no controversy with regard to the science itself and the other several thousand scientists involved in it. Has anybody called for the cancellation or postponement of COP15? If there were serious scientific controversy over AGW, that would have happened. That is just the extreme-right, big-oil fringe trying to have a last word. This is the article about the incident, and all its ramifications, in that there are no others, just what we have here. For sure, the only mention at Copenhagen has been the Saudis, and what could their motivation be? --Nigelj (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to be more specific in the title. Perhaps it should be "2009 Climatic Research Unit incident", or "Climatic Research Unit data theft", or something like that. Use of "controversy" should be avoided at all costs, particularly because there is nothing controversial about the theft of data (it happens all the time). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Death Threats (WP:UNDUE)

I challenge you to give me a single reason that anonymous death threats have any relation to the controversy. The only reason that sentence is included is because it makes the entire skeptic side look bad. This is obviously ridiculous, because prominent people from all sides receive death threats all the time. Noting it here is just prejudicial. Drolz09 (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the cited source, which is highly noteworthy: "Two of the scientists involved in "Climategate" – the e-mail hacking incident at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, UK – have been emailed death threats since the contents of their private e-mails were leaked to the world. No further information can be revealed about these particular threats at present because they are currently under investigation with the FBI in the United States. Many other CRU scientists and their colleagues have received torrents of abusive and threatening e-mails since the leaks first began in mid-November 2009." [66] This means that there are now two criminal investigations taking place into this affair, one on each side of the Atlantic. That is very significant news. The harassment of scientists by anti-science activists is also indisputably a sigificant part of the story. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At most, harassment is part of a broader narrative on the global warming issue. It has no specific relevance to this controversy unless you can provide evidence that the threats were made by someone with a tangible connection to either the hackers or the skeptics who are quoted in this article. You don't see me adding that climateaudit is routinely DDoSed. Drolz09 (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Audit's alleged DDOSing clearly isn't relevant to this issue. But as the cited source notes, there is a direct link between the file theft and these threats: they "have been emailed death threats since the contents of their private e-mails were leaked to the world." It may make you unconfortable to acknowledge it, but the people sending these threats are global warming sceptics. If you consider yourself to be in that category then I'm afraid you're sharing it with some very unpleasant people - indeed, criminals. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are nuts on every side of every debate. The fact that some of them took this particular scandal as an opportunity to make death threats does not "link" them to the scandal. They are no more relevant to it than eco-terrorist nuts on the other side. There's no reason to mention them here except to make everyone skeptical of global warming guilty by association. Which, it seems, is your intention. Drolz09 (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The theft was perpetrated against the CRU, and they are the victims of this crime. It is entirely appropriate to describe the crime, including all aspects pertaining to it. It's relevant, topical, and significant. Viriditas (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, it is the theft of the data that is the most significant detail of this entire incident, and should constitute the bulk of the article. Much of the fuss that has followed has been based on speculation and opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that some of them took this particular scandal -- at least you are now admitting that it was a consequence of this particular scandal, contrary to your immediately preceding absurd contention that it was not. And of course that is what is relevant here, making your original objection moot and a big waste of a lot of people's time. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidently you and the FBI part company on the matter of whether the death threats to climatologists are to be taken seriously. --TS 12:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking death threats seriously has nothing to do with whether or not they belong in this article. I'm not denying that they happened, but the fact that they did has no relevance to the question of whether there was fraudulent activity at CRU, or whether the hack was legal, etc. Drolz09 (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony and Chris are quite right - this is directly connected with the story. This doesn't appear to be a random coincidence. Or rather, since our sources see them as connected, we need to treat them as if they were connected and not substitute our own opinions. Guettarda (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant to how some in the anti-science activist community have responded to this incident, as well as to the personal consequences for the scientists whose e-mails were stolen. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case they belong in another section of the article, and it needs to be phrased in a way that doesn't basically imply the threats came from leading skeptics. Drolz09 (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that much is clear from the context. --TS 13:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if things like this are going to be included from either side; that is, "reactions" that do not actually have any relation to the veracity of issues at stake in the controversy, the article needs to be broken up into multiple sections. Since you refuse to fork the hack and controversy because you need to draw attention away from the latter, they should at least have their own section in the page: Something like Hack/Analysis of Emails/Reactions from Concerned Parties/Fallout (which is where death threats belong, if anywhere). Drolz09 (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make accusations of bad faith against other editors. --TS 13:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO openly admitted to believing that the "real story" is the hack. It is transparently obvious to everyone that the dominant wikipedia editors are essentially a public relations firm for organizations that are the mouth pieces of climate activists. There's no reason to pretend otherwise. Drolz09 (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. This article is a joke. It reads like AGW activists wrote the damn thing.JettaMann (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see our policy on personal attacks. Making accusations like that against your fellow editors is unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not transparently obvious to everyone -- most rational people think otherwise. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Please, let’s avoid the characterizations, and return to the discussion of the article. ChrisO, I thought we had broad consensus that edit beyond trivial copy edits would be discussed and some semblance of consensus reached before inclusion in the article. I see no discussion of the addition of the death threat sentence. I think it is quite arguable whether it belongs anywhere in the article, but it most certainly does not belong in the lede. (Of course the FBI is investigating, that's what we pay then to do, but absent some evidence it is credible, it isn’t as important as a hundred other issues we’ve chosen not to include.) Please remove it, then propose in this talk what wording you suggest and its placement. We can then discuss it.SPhilbrickT 15:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As the death threats were reported and a direct result of the leak, I'd suggest the incident merits inclusion though not very prominently.Dduff442 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys mad? Criminals hacked into a university server and then caused a massive breach of privacy by publishing loads of emails. As a result, (1) climate sceptics had a large body of text from which they could cherry-pick what seemed to confirm their conspiracy theory, causing confusion right before an important conference; and (2) the scientists became the targets of death threats. And then we are supposed to discuss the speculations coming from (1) in detail, but downplay (2)??? Hans Adler 16:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, and Yes.SPhilbrickT 16:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To the first question: not generally, but there do seem to be specific instances. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The death threats have been covered by several reliable sources, so it belongs in the article. As for amount of coverage, we're supposed to determine weight based on its prominence among reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the death threats information into the reaction section, out of the Hack and Theft section. Given the rationale for their inclusion in the first place (i.e. they show the reaction) it seems indisputable that they belong in that section if anywhere. If anyone has a reasoned argument otherwise, please state it. Drolz09 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously ridiculous

Indeed your statement is obviously ridiculous -- death threats were issued to people whose names appeared in the emails, as a direct consequence of the emails being made public. Even from your cribbed perspective that it's only the content of the emails that is relevant and not the fact of the theft, the death threats flow from the content -- it's because those big bad scientists pulled a massive fraud on we the people that their lives are in danger, eh. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I can make out, this is an argument for their inclusion in the article, which they still are. In the reaction section. With the other reactions. Drolz09 (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Death threats are criminal acts, currently being investigated by the British police and the FBI, arising from this affair. As such they're an integral and very important part of it, should be covered in the lead, and should have a prominent section of their own alongside the section on the hacking, so that readers looking for a rundown of the important events of the affair will read about them there without having to rummage through the section about "reactions" (ie statements of opinion, not criminal acts), a location which doesn't make sense at all unless we were to decide that a death threat was a reasonable reaction to the leaking of the documents. --TS 09:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I very clearly explained why the death threats, which are said to be a reaction to the publishing of the emails were moved to the reaction section. The mere fact that they are under investigation does not mean they belong in the Hack and Theft section, because 1. That section does not specifically deal with things "under investigation" and 2. The death threats are not being investigated as part of the hacking incident. No one has provided evidence that the hackers made the death threats or are linked to them. Putting death threats in that section, however, implies that that is exactly the case. Unless you have evidence of a link between the hackers and the threateners, you need to undo your edit and put that bit back in the reaction section, with other reactions. Drolz09 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While it's a "reaction", it's not exactly the sort of reaction that the section on reactions is about. We've got a timeline of actions - theft of files, distribution of stolen files, death threats. And we have reactions - what people said in response to the theft / content of the messages. Guettarda (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So your contention is that the death threats are unrelated to the content or theft of the emails? If that is the case then there is no reason to include them in the article at all. Drolz09 (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While technically "comments" or "reactions", they are also illegal acts being investigated by the authorities. I think it makes more sense to have them in the hack and theft section dealing with similar matters.
—Apis (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The hack section deals with how the data was acquired and released. It is only incidentally about criminal investigations. The death threats are entirely unrelated to this section: they are a reaction. Drolz09 (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"So your contention is that the death threats are unrelated to the content or theft of the emails?" Nope. Not saying anything of the sort. Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

Given the following:

• The overwhelming amount of coverage by reliable sources has been about the content of the e-mails and reactions to these e-mails
• Significantly fewer reliable sources have focused on the death threats

Does anyone else besides myself think that we're giving undue weight by featuring the death threats so prominently in the lede? Obviously, it belongs in the article, but does it warrant mention in the lede? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I have been saying, which is part of why I had moved them down to the reaction section. Drolz09 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Um no, that's not what AQFK is asking about. Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't actually have a lead. We have a chronology which starts in the first sentence. The material above the TOC really isn't a summary of what's below the TOC. Guettarda (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it does belong in the lead. The case involves a series of (apparently ongoing) criminal actions against the CRU and its staff which have sparked at least two criminal investigations in the UK and US, plus the reaction to those actions. Since the harassment and targeting of these scientists before and after the theft is a key element of the story, it's essential to mention it. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

like AQFK, i also think at this point it is undue in the lead. maybe in few days if more news write about it. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ABC in Australia has just published two lengthy articles on the subject: [67],[68] -- ChrisO (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The death threats are a very major part of this affair. They're being investigated by the British police and the FBI as criminal matters. Weighing up media coverage and the like is beside the point, and should never by itself determine the weight we give to an event. --TS 10:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

really? does that always apply when determining wp:undue? or only sometimes? if a non-mainstream media reports on FBI activity and police criminal activity (in regards to some other article/topic), should we also give it a due weight in leads of articles? or do we need to always wait for mainstream media to report on these FBI/police inquires? what has more weight -- FBI activity, or the type and amound of media coverage it gets (mainstream/non mainstream)? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead should summarise all the major ideas in the article. Since the death threats are a distinct issue, not an expansion on some other issue, they should be in the lead. Guettarda (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We all know there are death threats and there are death threats. We pay our policing functions to err on the side of caution and take all seriously, but until someone is actually charged with a crime, there is zero evidence that these threats are anything more than the mindless bloviation of cranks. I'm not convinced that the thin information presented to date even deserves inclusion in the article, but I'll bow to the consensus that mention is appropriate. However, they do not presently come close to justifying inclusion in the lede.--SPhilbrickT 15:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with your opening point: "lead should summarise all the major ideas in the article". That why I oppose inclusion. There are far more credible death threats against Obama [69], and those don't make the lead. --SPhilbrickT 15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

These are death threats against scientists (all US presidents get death threats, especially Democrat(ic) ones). This is an article about an incident and its ramifications, and now those have extended to include death threats to individual university workers. I don't see how that could be more relevant. Now, if this was an article about a point of scientific theory (which it isn't, but I think many AGW sceptics and deniers wish it was), then maybe it wouldn't be so relevant. So, which is the article about? --Nigelj (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hack Unproven

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See FAQ Q5. We report the facts from reliable sources.

---

The simple fact is that there is currently no proof a hack occurred. I didn't bring this up before because I always assumed that one had. However, it looks increasingly likely that this is not the case. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked/ This is a professional sysadmin's opinion on the issue, and he believes that the structure of the file makes a hack very unlikely. I don't claim that this is probative by any means, but the salient fact is that no hack has been proven. In absence of proof, this article should not state explicitly that a hack occurred. At most, it should note the investigation. Drolz (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The blog doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Most news use words such as hack, stolen or theft. Some news articles have even had details on the hack actually, but since there is an ongoing investigation it's still a bit thin...
—Apis (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See this link. Drolz09 & Co. are pushing Conservapedia talking points (they call them "takeaways") in contravention of NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. So, if a conservative believes something, it can't possibly be accurate. I never heard of "Conservapedia" before now. Regardless, my point here speaks for itself. Drolz (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's just keep open ears about this. Some editors would like to close out this discussion, but the topic keeps coming back up, even redundantly in multiple concurrent discussion topics. Drolz09's cited source might seem outside credibility b/c of the domain name and barebones page formatting, but the information is quite good - the author's expertise in unix server administration speaks for itself (I'm qualifying the source from my own professional experience). It's far more qualitative than any press releases from the MSM that I've seen so far. So even though a lot of news reports are claiming hack/theft, their information isn't justified by any actual analysis. Static623 (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't intend to use the article as probative evidence. The relevant fact is that there is no proof a hack occurred, or even reliable evidence indicating that one probably occurred. You guys are maniacal about source quality whenever someone posts something that you don't like, but you're happy to rattle on about this hack for which you have no evidence. The most you can say is that CRU claims they were hacked, and that news outlets have reported this claim. Drolz (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have heard it was a leak by a whistleblower...in that case, the term stolen does not apply. Zooktan (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

— Zooktan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This user created their account at approximately 07:57, seven minutes before posting this message.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hack Discussion Not Finished

"A5: Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. Norfolk Constabulary say that they, alongside a specialist team from the Metropolitan Police, are "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia", and both the University and a science blog, RealClimate, have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair." This is not proof that a hack occurred. There is no proof that a hack occurred until someone is convicted of hacking, or at the very least, the police say "So and So hacked CRU." What the police say here means: "Data got out when it wasn't supposed to, and we are investigating." It does not preclude that data having been leaked by an insider, or even confirm that any criminal activity took place. Drolz (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are speculating. Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. --TS 08:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not speculating because I am not drawing a conclusion. YOU are speculating by assuming that a hack occurred without proof. I am saying that we don't know whether or not a hack occurred, which is manifestly true. Drolz (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your point is that we cannot say that a hack occured until someone is convicted, but you have no problem with saying that an insider leaked the information. I think you have it the wrong way round. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At no point did I say that. I am saying that you cannot say either. You can say that data got out where they didn't belong, because that has been factually established. The absolute bottom line is that there is no WP:RS source for the claim that a hack occurred. The most you can say is that an investigation is ongoing, but I think even that is very dubious, except as mentioned in passing. It certainly should not be a huge part of the article as it is now. Drolz (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz, you say "there is no WP:RS source for the claim that a hack occurred". This is categorically false. Both UEA and RealClimate have reported hacking incidents directly associated with this incident. Those who say it could be something else are speculating. They have absolutely no evidence. --TS 08:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is an RS for the claim that a hack occurred. Drolz (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The police are investigating. The statement is reliable. If the known facts change, we will report the changed facts. --TS 08:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"The police are investigating" =/= "The police confirm that a hack occurred and are investigating." Drolz (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Since reliable sources overwhelmingly speak of a hack, that is how we refer to it. The UEA is after all in a position to state definitively what happened, since it owns the server that was hacked. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Given that they have a vested interest in the outcome of this controversy, they are not a reliable source. 2. Determining whether a hack occurred is a matter that requires expertise, and it is not clear that they performed any investigation which would conclusively rule out other explanations for the breach. 3. Reliable sources are speaking of an alleged hack, which is exactly what we should be doing. There's just no justification for the categorical claim that a hack occurred when neutral language better fits the confirmed facts and really doesn't take anything away from the article anyway. Drolz (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

1. WP:BOLLOCKS. 2. They have stated explicitly that their systems were breached. 3. "Alleged" is a weasel word; there is no significant dispute that a hack occurred. And as for your "neutral language", I noticed that you also attempted to delete references to the files being stolen, a fact about which there is no dispute since the UEA is the owner of the files and the only party competent to comment on their status. You're blatantly POV-pushing. This has all been discussed before and you have no consensus whatsoever for such sweeping, unsourced changes. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

An interested party claiming that they were hacked does not constitute proof. It is absurd for you to jump to the conclusion that they were hacked and furiously remove neutral language that accurately states they claimed as much, while concurrently injecting massive rebuttals into the debate over whether the emails reveal fraud. You are turning this article into CRU press release. It's absolutely deranged that you call me POV while you do it. Drolz (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, I do not agree with you when you say there is no significant dispute about whether or not the files were hacked. Insisting the files were definitively hacked is premature as has been acknowledged several times. Static623 (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is one RS making preliminary suggestions that it may have been a leak: "In the UK a police investigation is underway to uncover how the material was hacked or leaked" [70]. Very preliminary, but worth keeping an eye on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The UEA has said definitively that the files were not accidentally released.[71] -- ChrisO (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Interestingly that article also speculates that it might have been a leak (by which they seem to mean a deliberate release by an insider). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The key word there is speculates. Anyone can speculate; let's stick to the facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, as long as we recall that facts are defined here as the balance of what reliable sources say. My point is simply that we have between us turned up two RS articles indicating that it may have been a leak rather than a hack. This remains a minority position, but if we find many more it will become a significant minority view that should be incorporated in some way. Recall also that statements by the UEA are primary sources and cannot be considered definitive, although it is no doubt useful to include them. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If we ever get a reliable source indicating strong evidence for an accidental leak or an act of whistleblowing, then we discuss the weight to give. Until then, it's a hacking incident. In fact the evidence for hacking has grown since the article was started. We have credible evidence for two illegal hacking acts, and absolutely no (zero, nada) evidence to justify speculation that there was no hacking. --TS 10:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is pure POV pushing and you should know it! It is not a hacking incident, it is at best an alledged hacking incident, alledged by people who from the emails and the bogus Russian state connection are clearly highly paranoic and obviously don't have the first clue about computer security, (I probably have to spell that out: in the unlikely event it was a hack - who let the hack happen?) so you can't even claim they are experts on the subject, the only article I seen by anyone with any right to claim expertise suggests it is very very credible that it was intentionally released from inside - but as this article seems to be written by the climategate gang themselves I'm not going to waste my time finding the link because it is a waste of time! 88.109.60.215 (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that a person reading this article would have absolutely no clue that the hacking was not a 100% verified fact. There is no justification for treating it as though it were except that a hack supports your POV. You have a source claiming that they were hacked, and you have police saying they've investigating a security breach. Going from that to the categorical tone of the article is personal research. Drolz (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan's link comes from the Guardian, which is speculating that it could be either way. I think some of the editors are being too selective of which sources they're willing to listen to.Static623 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Selective? You mean like avoiding the use of creationist sources in an article about evolution? At what point does balance become unbalanced? Does balance mean giving equal time to both sides, even when the other side is irrelevant? Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are using climate scientists as unimpeachable sources in an article about an event that is notable chiefly because it casts doubt on the reliability of climate scientists. If your intent is to prove that this doubt is unjustified, then you need to find external sources. In any event this is irrelevant to the question at hand--even if they weren't under suspicion, the claim that they were hacked does not prove that that is the case. Your insistence on writing the article as though it were categorically true that a hack occurred is undisguised POV. If the relative strength of evidence for a hack and a leak were reversed, and someone edited the article to say "a leak occurred at CRU..." you would scream bloody murder. (Kind of like you do when I edit the article to be NPOV, except that you would be right.) The level of bias that you are injecting into this article without even (as far as I can tell) being aware of it, is unbelievable. Drolz (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We're using the Norfolk Constabulary, RealClimate and the University of East Anglia as reliable sources for the hacking. All three have made factual statements, not statements of opinion. There is no reason to doubt their veracity and, so far, absolutely no evidence to support the speculation about an accidental or unauthorized release by insiders.

Finally, please stop making ad hominem attacks and insinuations of bad faith. --TS 12:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The police said they are investigating a security breach. I've submitted this for commentary where I expect your POV will be very obvious to many. Drolz (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be useful to do a survey of reliable source wording? I know I've seen many that use words like hacking and theft without caveat, but I've seen other that take a more responsible attitude and caveat with alleged or other wording. My guess is that more sources take the easy route and just assume it was illegal, than those that are being more careful. It isn't clear to me what one would do if one had numbers. Obviously, 100% on either side is a clear discussion, but if 75% used no caveats, and 25% used a caveat, I would think we ought to err on the side of caution, until more proof comes out. If the consensus of this group is that anything over 50% would allow the stronger term, I'd say that thinking is flawed, but I wouldn't bother doing the survey.--SPhilbrickT 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'd just like to pick up on the UEA as a reliable source. UEA is not "climate scientists" - the university has many schools and faculties other than the CRU. It would be very strange if we did not treat the official statements of a UK university as reliable. And UEA as a whole is not really a party in this, CRU is. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael McKenna?

Does anyone else think that mentioning the views of Michael McKenna a redlink and some random lobbyist is unnecessary even if it was mentioned in the New York Times? How about we remove the McKenna quote, and put the Daily Telegraph and NYT part in the same paragraph? If we do want to take something from the NYT article, Lawrence Rothenberg unfortunately also a redlink but at least "an environmental politics expert at the University of Rochester" would probably be a better person to quote (in the expert section I guess). Rothenberg is also quote much more extensively in the NYT article then McKenna (who's only quoted twice). The best quote would probably be ""This will help confuse or muddle the debate in ways that the public then says, 'I don't really know, I'm not sure". There's also Joseph J. Romm but while some of his points are interesting they're not that directly related to the incident. Some may feel this removes any view from the other side, something I'm not unsympathetic too but if we do want to have something, can't we find a better example then some random lobbyist? Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing the entire "Miscellaneous media" section because it is prone to random additions like this. The media coverage itself, including opinions by paid lobbyists, shouldn't really become part of the story in an affair like this (unlike, say, events such as the George W. Bush military service controversy where the media coverage did become a highly significant part of the story.) --TS 10:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU Hacking Dispute

There is disagreement over whether the claim by CRU that they were hacked, and an inconclusive statement by the police that they are investigating a "security breach" is grounds for writing the article as though it were a categorical fact that a hack occurred, despite some (also inconclusive) evidence to the contrary. Drolz (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that there are no reliable sources that support the alternative hypotheses - they're are only blog speculation. Guettarda (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In your summary you have grossly mischaracterized the statement of the Norfolk Constabulary, which says they are "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia." Both the UEA and RealClimate have categorically reported separate hacking incidents directly related to this issue, and as the site operators they have access to the logs. There is moreover no (zero, nada, zilch) evidence supporting speculation by some parties that there was an unintentional leak or a deliberate leak by an inside party. --TS 13:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This description is so misleading it's downright dishonest. You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any evidence (barring speculation) to the contrary. Equally, there's little evidence hacking occurred, though I'd bet any money this is what happened based purely on the intensity of the buzz -- insiders know more than has been published so far.

The police statement regarding hacking does not confirm an offense has taken place; they would in any case refer to 'alleged hacking' until any court proceedings were concluded.

On balance, I don't think referring to a hack as an established fact is completely fair at this point. Those who suspect hacking, as I do, shouldn't get too hung up about it. Time will tell -- maybe in the very near future the police will confirm an offense has taken place.Dduff442 (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There's plentiful evidence in the shape of the statements from the victims of the hackers. You can't simply ignore those. The people who own the servers are the only ones in a position to tell us what happened to those servers. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My familiarity with these issues is slight. I'd be wary of feeding paranoia by treating the antis more reasonable claims the same way as their wholly unreasonable ones. Having had my say, I'll leave the final decision to those better informed than I am.Dduff442 (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought a look at existing policy and guidelines might be useful, so I took a look and found Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) (WP:N/CA). My intense dislike of the concept of "notability" aside, there are some useful criteria there. In particular, the following:

Notability of criminal acts

"Criminal act" includes a matter in which a crime has been established, or a matter has been deemed a likely crime by the relevant law enforcement agency or judicial authority. For example, the disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable.

We seem to be well within the criteria here, although we're really trying to settle a different question: whether we should refer to this as a crime. Because the police say they're investigating criminal offences we can refer to this as a criminal case. Should we at some point find a reliable source reporting evidence of an inside job or an accidental leak, we can add that reliable source under due weight, but meanwhile we're correct to refer to it as a hacking case. There is plenty of evidence in reliable sources to support this characterization. --TS 14:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing "e-mail" from the title

I think there is general agreement that not only e-mail was involved in this issue, but my previous suggestion got buried under other title discussions. I think we should remove email from the name of the article, and change the first line to match. Thoughts? (please, please, don't bring up hacking vs not hacking! get your own section) Ignignot (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed here.Dduff442 (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my earlier expression of agreement to the suggestion of changing it to something like "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident." --TS 15:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd submit that the word "hacking" might even be presumptuous, as there is speculation it may have been leaked. "Climatic Research Unit data exposure" or something like that seems pretty neutral to me. Gigs (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a matter for weight of reliable sources again. I have to admit that when I Google for this, I find something like 'CRU e-mail' usually gets me quickly into the right area. I think the media have, so far, focussed on the e-mails - it is what defines this incident in a great many reports. TS's proposal just sounds a little vague to me, putting all the emphasis on the hacking, and none on the subject of most media discussion. I propose we keep the existing title for the time being. --Nigelj (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In deference to Ignignot's request, we should try and keep the hacking and email issues distinct.Dduff442 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with nixing the word "e-mail" if removing the reference to hacking as well is too controversial. Gigs (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can stay with the current title too, as Nigelj's comment that "the media have, so far, focussed on the e-mails" has a lot of truth. It's not just the media: the expert commentaries have all focussed heavily on the emails. --TS 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is at least one exception to that - many of the articles reference HARRY_READ_ME.txt Ignignot (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Everyone, and I mean everyone, is calling this climategate, and with the latest revelations proving that there are serious problems with the data[72] these events aren't going to fade into history. The article name is doing a lot of harm to wikipedia because it looks like a mouthpiece for those involved in the events rather than a NPOV encyclopaedia. What is more, the hack is clearly POV and clearly unsupported because it now looks increasingly likely the information was gathered internally and then released rather than "hacked". [73], so change it to whatever you like, because the neutrality of wikipedia will be judged by whether it is given the name everyone knows it by or the one the "climategate gang" would prefer it to be known by. 88.109.60.215 (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: the second link, I don't believe it's disputed the file (or a similar file that was maybe edited after compilation) was compiled within the CRU. CRU compiled the information for FOIA purposes -- that fact has no bearing on whether the affair resulted from an internal leak or the result of hacking, however.

With complex issues like this, progress becomes impossible if the different strands are permitted to run one into the other. It would help to try to make remarks in the most appropriate segment of the page.Dduff442 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Picking up on Tony's suggestion, and Gigs observation, what about "Climatic Research Unit data incident" ? (If specific charges are filed against hackers in the future, I'll go on record as supporting a change to Tony's suggestion.)--SPhilbrickT 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, AFAIK, one thig that wasn't hacked was the data, i.e. the climate data. So that just muddies the water, I think. (yes I know e-mails and source code and other docs are data too, it's just that the word already has an important meaning 'round here) --Nigelj (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? You think people will see data and assume it means temperature data? "Data" is a nice, neutral term, encompassing the emails, the programs, the Word docs and whatever else was in there. and I don't believe anyone think a reference to data means every scrap of data. Good grief, we have an enormously misleading title at the moment. Let's come up with an improvement. It was an incident, it did involve data, and it did happen at the CRU. People will not be mislead, as they are by the current title.--SPhilbrickT 18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion of "CRU data exposure" doesn't have that issue. Gigs (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this suggestion does not have consensus, somehow. Ignignot (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Email preface

Why does the Emails section have a preface that is meant to color our perceptions of the scale of this incident? It clearly looks like AGW apologists are trying to downplay the incident in an obviously POV way. I vote to remove the entire preface and just say something totally NPOV like "Some of the noteworthy comments found in the are listed below" or words to that effect. The AGW activists here on Wikipedia are clearly trying to spin this incident their way and have thrown the NPOV rule right out the window. JettaMann (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems factual and neutral to me. The bulk of the released emails were indeed mundane and not very controversial. Gigs (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, factual and accurate. Just like the description of the Debeeers diamond mines says, "vast majority of contents are mundane, worthless rocks". Oh wait, it isn't described that way. Factual, accurate, and enormously misleading. Absolutely right, this preface is pure spin. The right approach is to write it neutrally.--SPhilbrickT 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: How did you surmise that? Did you go through all 1000 emails? I have them downloaded on my computer and was looking through them, and pretty much every email had a few things that jumped out at me. The hackers didn't upload all the emails, they selectively took emails that were somewhat implicating. Not every one is a neutron bomb of a revelation, however, like the kind the media picked up on. Many talked about funding, conferences, etc... All interesting stuff and slightly damning in their own way. JettaMann (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"How did you surmise that? Did you go through all 1000 emails?" That's what just about all reliable sources who have commented on the matter appear to have said. We can't "go through [them]" ourselves. That isn't our role. Well, of course we can, but we can't use that research in our article. See WP:NOR. Guettarda (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The other statements in the preface were also unreferenced, yet for some strange reason you don't seem to be objecting to them. ;) What we can do is link to some articles that contain the union set of quoted emails in order to determine how many have been heavily played in the media. Or perhaps there is an article that summarizes the statements that received multiple quotes in the media.JettaMann (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't do that. It's not acceptable, per policy. This isn't about not being referenced, it's about falling afoul of our core policies. Guettarda (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh what a shocker! Of course you think that we can't go reporting actual numbers in a NPOV manner. It comes as no surprise to me that you want every facet of this article to be contaminated with your AGW activist spin. Please do tell what "core policy" is being violated by NPOV reporting on the actual numbers?JettaMann (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I just read the entire section, it seems to be missing mention of the various emails which talk about how to hide from FOIA requests, and expressing a general concern about FOIA type requests. Including those would make the section more neutral, but the preface to it seems fine. Gigs (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Gigs. You seem like you legitimately are interested in facts. I agree, that section misses out on many of the prominent quotes that were picked up by the media, so it looks like some of the AGW activists here are trying to suppress information. As for the preface to this section, I think what we could do is try to use less wiggle words like "vast majority" and "small number of emails". Instead, we should use specific words to summarize the contents of the emails, such as "There were xx emails. Of those, approximately xx of the emails received significant coverage in the media."JettaMann (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source for those numbers? Guettarda (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably. I haven't tried but it should be easy to identify the emails that get repeat play, and also identify an article that mentions the total number. JettaMann (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a reason I like to WP:NOR above. We need reliable sources. We can't go out and do our own research into "how many emails get repeat play". Seriously, it's important that you read that policy document. Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I removed that on Monday because it was simply a cherry-picked quoted with no supporting context. A quote that is cherry-picked because it makes Jones look bad fails BLP. If it's in there, it need to be thoroughly discussed. It doesn't "speak for itself". Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Reactions to Incident is slanted

I can't help but note in the "Reactions to Incident" section that pretty much every scientist, politician, and media personality quoted is an AGW theory supporter. In fact the most interesting reactions to this incident have been from the scientists, politicians and media personalities who are AGW skeptics. The "reactions" have obviously been cherry-picked by the handful of AGW activists here on Wikipedia. I propose we broaden the skeptic reactions and narrow down the activist/supporter reactions. JettaMann (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What other notable authorities are missing? Guettarda (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Climatology founder Dr. Tim Ball has done tons of interviews and written articles. Search Tim Ball Climategate and there are lots. Here's one article:

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/5663-obamas-science-czar-john-holdren-involved-in-unwinding-climategate-scandal

Lord Monkton has a great summary from the political end of the debate:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/

CBC Television has a prominent reporter named Rex Murphy who reported on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbxxlSRa4Y0&feature=related

There have been other commentaries ranging from Jon Stewart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

To Glenn Beck (multiple, I'll spare you the links)

To Lew Rockwell:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/lost-left-climate-morass136.html

Economist/author Christopher C. Horner.

And of course James Delingpole who was on top of this from the start:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/

I can go on and on.JettaMann (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a single reliable source in that little list. Glenn Beck WTF??? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Garbage in, garbage out. It certainly explains where JettaMann is coming from. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Reports of Media Suppression of this story

There have been some credible reports of suppression of this story, including non-reporting by the major networks and delaying reporting of the story for weeks after it occurred: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/ and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd_XssuWtyc&feature=related and here http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091202135822.aspx

I propose that this article should include a section called "Suppressed or delayed reporting" and we include the news outlets that failed to report this story in a timely fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JettaMann (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea if you were to study this policy carefully before posting more of this fringey conspiracy stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)