Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

NOTICE: Per the probation sanctions logged here
this article is currently under a 1RR editing restriction.

Dirty tricks

This topic has ratfucking written all over it, but not a single mention of the dirty tricks tactics that were used against the climate scientists. I suggest that this angle be taken up, and sources found to support its inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I found at least one source on this topic:

The irony of this story is that climate change deniers are notorious for their dirty tricks. During the Bush administration, satellite images showing the shrinking ice cover in the Arctic – an emblem of the damage done by climate change – were kept secret. In 2007, a committee on US government reform criticised systematic efforts “to censor climate scientists by controlling their access to the press and editing testimony to Congress”...The book Climate Cover-up by James Hoggan and Richard Little­more documents minutely how naysayers manipulated and fabricated data to support their position. A case in point is the way one relatively cool year (2008) – a widely predicted blip – has been used to suggest that the world is cooling when, as Ed Miliband keeps reminding us, we have had nine of the 10 warmest years on record in the past 15 years....Much of the denial industry is driven by the oil and coal industries. A conference in New York in March, entitled “Global warming: was it ever really a crisis?”, was organised by the Heartland Institute, funded by Exxon Mobil until three years ago. And a leaked memo recently revealed the much-quoted Professor Michaels is funded by an electricity company running coal-fired power stations...This lobby has succeeded in confusing the public. A recent poll in Britain suggests around one-third think the link between climate change and man-made emissions remains unproven, and 15% do not believe global warming is happening at all. The instinct for balance in the serious media is partly to blame for this because of the platform these titles give to climate change creationists and the way analysis often treats both sides equally. Meanwhile, several of the right-inclined tabloids are overtly sceptical. Recently Sir Nicholas Stern, the government adviser on the economics of climate change, compared the naysayers to “flat-earthers”. “If you look at all the serious scientists in the world, there is no big disagreement on the basics of this,” he said.[6]

Viriditas, do you have a source which specifically states that there were any "dirty tricks" here, besides the discussions among the CRU staff about strategies they could use to get away with not responding to FOIA requests? Remember, if the statute of limitations hadn't expired, Jones and others at East Anglia would now be potentially facing criminal prosecution. Also, the emails help show the concerted, behind-the-scenes effort to get Amman's paper, which helped "save" the hockey stick, published in time for it to be used in the IPCC report. Some of these efforts appear to have attempted to subvert the peer-review process, although not enough, evidently, to result in a finding by the investigations. There are "dirty tricks" on both sides. We should report on all them as they appear in reliable sources. I think when the first books start coming out in a few months we'll have ample sources and information to do so. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"I suggest that this angle be taken up, and sources found to support its inclusion." No, no, no. That's a recipe for a bad article. Instead, you read your sources first, and then base your article content on the sources, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the campaign being waged against climate science and climate scientists is well documented and has been going on for years. This topic is only the latest example. The angle I am talking about is already well sourced, and should become a part of this narrative. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you should be cognizant of WP:SYN issues. In any case, we should start with the sources first, not seek out sources to support some pre-conceived notion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Viriditas, I haven't seen much documentation on "dirty tricks" used by the sceptical lobby, besides blog posts in RealClimate and DeSmogBlog. If you're talking about fake grass-roots groups set up by lobbying interests, I haven't seen much in any sources stating that they had anything to do with what these scientists were saying to each other in these emails. It's true that Mann, Jones, and some of the others did appear to have a siege mentality, but most of their ire was directed at McIntyre and others who had legimitate concerns, including papers published in peer-reviewed journals, criticizing their work. That's one of the reasons for Mann's famous email diatribe against that science journal which printed a paper he didn't approve of. No dirty tricks there, at least from the sceptical side. In my opinion, the main story here is not dirty tricks by the sceptical side, but the constant, ongoing tug of war going on over the veracity and credibility of the hockey team's and CRU's research methods, using tree rings, weather reporting stations, etc., and how the data was collected. This story isn't well represented in this article but I expect that forthcoming books will explore it more completely. Cla68 (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that environmental issues bring up some rather dirty tricks and there is some merit in including this as background information. But the thing is dirty tricks go both ways. I remember being recruited (unsuccessfully) into a environmental group that used tricks such as breaking and entering, vandalism, sabotage of day-to-day operations etc etc. Big business of course also tries to protect its interests but in general legal means suffice. With the exception of heated debate and bizarre arguments this has been a mostly disorganized war of words. Also I don't get the logic of blaming oil and coal while missing the point that the nuclear lobby is winning. We just got 3 new nuclear power plants approved here in Finland. Thank you climate change!91.153.115.15 (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• The source Viriditas has found is from the early days of this topic, and while it does state "This is a reference to “Climategate”, the row over leaked emails... The irony of this story is that climate change deniers are notorious for their dirty tricks.", it's a comment piece by Anne Johnstone whose credentials are unknown to me. As and when better sources analysing this aspect are found, we can duly consider the reliability of these sources and as appropriate add a summary of their statements to the article. A couple worth examining: Part two: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies | Environment | guardian.co.uk, and Part 11: 'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review | Environment | guardian.co.uk, to be read with the linked response by Santer. . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I've sent a note to Anne Johnstone regarding her credentials. No idea when or if she will respond. Meanwhile, you will appreciate this later column of hers. Note the paragraph beginning "Ergo..." that discusses what we call undue weight. --Yopienso (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

At first skim, "The irony about the UEA story is that, if anyone is routinely manipulating data, it’s the deniers" is an interesting comment. A bit old now, there's a more up to date news story in The Herald. . .dave souza, talk 09:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My object was in reading more of Johnstone, not in reading more about "Climategate" (as both Johnstone and the anonymous author of the 8 Jul 2010 report call it.) My thought was that you would consider her a RS. The "Ergo..." paragraph speaks of overdone "fairness and balance." Johnstone herself has no worries about balance as she rushes to defend the CRU's honesty and rigour and disparage those who questioned it. She offers insightful comments on how the CRU should adjust to the 21st century with its attendant cares of transparency and public relations. The even-keeled tone of the report to which you link, though differing nothing in substance, is more to my personal taste and what I'd like to see at WP. --Yopienso (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As most of you know The Guardian published a series of articles, 12 in total, by Fred Pearce. Highly recommended reading! While there is no lack of material it also presents a great opportunity to pick and choose soundbites. The articles are quite nuanced. Has anyone read the book he wrote? I've heard very little about it.91.153.115.15 (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Grauniad articles are poor, in my opinion [7] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that Fred Pearce has problems with going too far in being "fair and balanced", which has put me off buying his book. However, the newspaper report series is still one of the better sources on the controversy, so far. . dave souza, talk 09:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Viriditas. This is viewed by many, and possibly titled at one point, as a "hacking" scandal. It was correct not to make that the title, but there could be more on the illicit aspects, if sourcing exists. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

  The police investigation is ongoing, and as is normal in the United Kingdom the police do not say much until they have completed their investigation, except for instance to make appeals for witnesses to crimes. So there's nothing much to say. --TS 00:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, I meant it when I said we won't be using books written by cranks as reliable sources on factual matters on Wikipedia. --TS 00:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony, to be honest, that sounds like censorship of views and opinions you don't approve of. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's the minimum requirement for representation of verifiable facts.

Books by cranks can be cited to represent the views of the cranks, where it is appropriate to do so, and with consideration to due weight. So for instance we wouldn't want to give anything like as much space in this article to a book on the subject by a blogger without any qualifications as to a report by a committee of experts who have interviewed the principals and deliberated on the charges.

Note my correct distinction here and in my previous comment on how we source facts on Wikipedia. --TS 00:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This is not censorship of disapproved views and opinions; it's a necessary focus on mainstream reliable sources. The situation might be different if the book had been written by an established scientist with a publication history in this field, or perhaps even if it had been written by a mainstream journalist. But a debut book by a blogger with no relevant qualifications is a very different kettle of fish, particularly when the view it presents is decisively rejected by the experts and when the book itself has been ignored in print outside a very small circle of like-minded individuals. This is a simple issue of basic quality control. We wouldn't use a book by a creationist blogger in an article about evolution, nor one by a moon landing conspiracy theorist in an article about the Apollo programme. The fact that fellow creationists or moon landing conspiracy theorists make favourable comments about such books would not by itself make such a book a reliable source, nor one worth citing. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Both are you are at odds with our RS guideline, which is why your views amount to censorship, IMO. The question is not if to use sources like those, if published by independent publishing houses, but how. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Don't forget that WP:RS requires sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:FRINGE/PS also applies in this situation, since Montford argues a pseudoscientific POV: "editors should be careful not to present [pseudoscientific] views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views." -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please name the book we're discussing here? I know I'm a bit behind in my talk page reading, but I read through the conversation here and I found no previous reference to a book. Perhaps I missed it. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford ("Bishop Hill"). Currently under discussion at Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion and WP:RSN#Can the book The Hockey Stick Illusion be used. Basically, Cla68 and Marknutley are pushing for it to be used as a source, while lots of other editors disagree. This has prompted a very lengthy discussion of the book's reliability and suitability as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 if you think either of us is at odds with the reliable sources guideline, I suggest you read it again. It is a question of if as much as how we use a source. Firstly we don't ever use unreliable sources for factual statements, least of all where factual claims are contradicted by more reliable sources. Secondly we don't give undue weight to sources that represent a fringe point of view. This includes but is not limited to those that allege a conspiracy in the face of the evidence as judged by the preponderance of reliable sources on the facts.

So the fact that a minority view exists should certainly be mentioned, but that should not be given undue weight, and detail may be inappropriate. Where a factual claim (rather than an opinion) is asserted by a source such as a blogger with no competence on the facts, particularly where that factual claim is contradicted by more competent, reliable sources, the factual claim cannot be asserted as a fact on Wikipedia. Finally, where the only source for an opinion or factual claim is crank books and blogs, we may not source some crank sources at all (and I suggest that this will often be the case here, where a very, very conclusive result had been found). But we'd have to have a specific source and a specific citation form to discuss before we can be sure.

In reply to Scotty, I have no specific example in mind and I don't think Cla68 has one as yet. Cla68 seems to be thinking of future books that support his unorthodox take on the facts. We've had problems in the past with editors including Cla68 trying to cite unreliable sources, I think on one of the articles about the IPCC. --TS 01:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony, you might have missed the discussions elsewhere on using The Hockey Stick Illusion as a source. Cla68 is specifically pushing to use it as a source in a range of articles. See my comment to Scotty above for links. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Chris, I needed a laugh. From a glance, Cla68 appears to be advocating exactly what I feared he planned to do: that we cite a book written by a non-expert to support a factual statement. Is that correct, Cla68? --TS 01:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Talk:Hockey stick controversy#New source, where Cla68 makes his view pretty clear at the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, looking at the discussion I see that I did comment. Cla68 unashamedly states his opinion that by virtue of being a book the Montford work is a more reliable source on the hockey stick than blog postings written by climate scientists including Zorita and von Storch who have written peer reviewed papers on the subject. Honestly I'd forgotten all about it. --TS 01:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And as I've said elsewhere, it's fundamentally unnecessary to cite the book for the "dry historical facts" that Cla68 wants to document - they're documented elsewhere by indisputably reliable sources. This is like using a book by William A. Dembski to cite facts about evolution that are recorded by Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins, or using the moon landing hoax conspiracy theorist Bill Kaysing to provide "balance" to an article citing Gene Kranz's history of the US space programme. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony, blog posts are self-published sources. Please review our guideline on reliable sources. ChrisO, strawmen aren't helpful. Rest assured, the both of you, that any books I or anyone else use in this article in the future will, like Illusion, meet our RS guidelines. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony's point is that Illusion is a fringe source - it's directly comparable to the fringe sources on other topics that I just mentioned. As for blog posts, please note that there are a few very limited circumstances in which those are acceptable as sources, as WP:SPS states. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Opinion piece by Patrick Michaels:[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a point to this, other than pushing your own agenda? OpEds are not reliable sources, as you should know by now. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

They are a reliable source for the opinion of the source, in this case the Patrick Michaels, who is notable. If this is not the case, then material sourced to Revkin, Monbiot and other commentators have to go as well. WVBluefield (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Are the others specifically from the Opinion section, as this one is? Revkin and Monibot's do not appear to be so, but if there are problems with using them as sources, the solutino is not to pile on worse ones. What I object to here is this sort of simplistic link-dropping, a "look at me, I found someone out there who supports my point-of-view!" thing. That's all that this is here, soapboxing, with no suggestion for how, why, or, where it would be included in the article. That is what his page here is for, discussing article inclusion, not link-bombing the OpEd du jour. That's the kind of stuff we used to have to deal with the dearly-departed Grundle2600 in the Obama-related articles. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with including a mention of this article somewhere. It seems to be a comprehensive enunciation of that point of view. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that as one of the few actual climate scientists with such extreme views Patrick Michaels' combination of qualifications, experience and willingness to go on the record with those views combine to make a good case for mentioning that article. --TS 02:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Added this in a new subsection called reception of reports mark nutley (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed. I can see no reason to bother including PM's opinion. Also that piece, toegther with the Economist, gives a badly unbalanced view of the reception William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

PM's opinion is relevant because it is a notable voice in the Climategate scandal. In fact, I'm a bit shocked how little we have of him in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is i am sure easy enough to balance out the new subsection wit hequal positive reviews of the reports mark nutley (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily. PM's piece is buried deep in the article. OTOH, Newsweek's blog and NYT's editorial are featured prominently in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why the summary of media reactions to this was moved out of the lede - perhaps it's because some of you don't like the number of reliable sources calling it a manufactured controversy and need that buried. I would like someone to reinclude a summary of media reactions to the reports in the lede, with prominent focus given not to op-eds by partisans, but instead to editorials by major news sources. Hipocrite (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never been a fan of citing opinion pieces for contentious material. Especially when there are plenty of secondary reliable sources to cite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, and I've rarely (if ever) seen an opinion piece used as a source. In fact, I'm convinced that it was POV pushers who have encouraged the use of op/ed's on Wikipedia over the years; It's rare to find a FA that even uses them. Let's put your money where your mouth is, AQFK, and agree (by consensus) to remove all opinion pieces from this article and only use reliable books and news sources written by authors in their respective fields and journalists who we can all consider neutral in their approach and presentation as well as scholarly, peer-reviewed sources. Deal? Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: I'd go a step further and rip out all the primary sources out of the article. Primary sources are a POV-warrior's wet dream because they often spin things in manner that is preferable to their particular POV. In fact, I'd like to see our sourcing rules tightened to discourage their use for contentious material or controversial articles. I don't recall if you were around in the early days of the article, but I argued that we should only be citing secondary reliable sources. Unfortunately, I lost that debate. So right now, the consensus of the editors at this article is that primary sources (including opinion pieces) are acceptable. If you can get everyone to change their minds, be my guest. But me, I've given up that argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are used often in both secondary and tertiary sources, and they have a long history of use in encyclopedias. The problem you are describing is misuse. Primary sources can be used constructively, accurately, and are of great benefit to the reader. Perhaps you could help draft an essay that helps editors use primary sources effectively? Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: Yes, I agree with your point about misuse. There's nothing wrong with citing primary sources per se. In fact, I did three times yesterday[9][10][11] for the oh so beautiful Jennie Finch but this was for non-contentious material in a non-controversial article. Sure, I can help you write a user essay about this. Can you start it in your user space and post a link to it in my talk page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting idea. If I have time tomorrow, I'll see what I can do. Although I don't know what the status of the article is at the moment, I recall that there was a misuse of primary sources in the Terri Schiavo case article at one point, and I might have unknowingly contributed to the problem, so I may be able to draw up some examples from that topic. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote the section to remove all references to any living person other than Michaels himself, who is a valid source for his own opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Michaels in the WSJ and BLP concerns.

Michaels' opinion article in the WSJ suffers from flaws in factual accuracy, and as such, cannot be used as a source for facts about living persons. He writes the following:

Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

Mr. Boulton did sign a petition. However, the petition does not say anything about the East Anglia scientists - the petition can be found at [12]. While it discusses "many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity," it says nothing at all about the CRU.

Do not use opinion pieces by partisans to source factual information about people those partisans see benefit in making look foolish by misrepresenting their actions. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That petition was created due to climategate and for that purpose only. Your BLP claim is obviously flawed mark nutley (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And you might want to remove your accusation of slander against Michael`s as it is a blp breach mark nutley (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your personal beliefs about why a petition was created and what it says are not verifiable, and not relevent for inclusion in articlespace. Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s not my opinion and it is easily verified [13] And this is something you already knew. I shall ask you again to remove your attack on an identifiable living person mark nutley (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your new link doesn't say what you say it says. Michael's says the petition was about the UEA, and you apparently agree. The petition, and the article you've now linked, say otherwise. In fact, the article you quote makes it clear that "Professor Slingo said the statement was carefully worded to avoid claiming all climate scientists were beyond reproach." Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions" The petition was a direct response to climategate, try again mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it being a response to "Climategate" doesn't mean that it declares that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your splitting hairs, not surprising. I shall revert your removal of well sourced content tomorrow mark nutley (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I am not splitting hairs. Your opinion piece says something demonstrably false, and you are pledging to edit war the false statements about a living person back into the article. Are you being serious? Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs, the petition is exactly what Michaels says it is. Which is what i posted above. I am not edit warring, i am intending to reinsert reliably sourced information which has been removed on spurious grounds, Thank you for removing the attack btw mark nutley (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You alledge that the petition mentions the CRU or the UEA? Hipocrite (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m not alleging anything, i am using my common sense. You know that petition was created due to climategate, this has already been shown to you. I have no intention of going in circles here. The facts are the facts. mark nutley (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Commonsense is not verifiable. Reliable sources make it quite clear that the petition he signed did not state anything about the UEA scientists. That michaels makes a false statement about living persons designed to damage said persons credibility is problematic. We must not repeat his error. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe what you are doing here is termed "wikilawyering" we are meant to use our common sense. I`m done discussing this with you as you are obviously wrong but are unable to admit it mark nutley (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually he's quite right. If a statement about living persons is indisputably false, then we have a responsibility not to repeat the falsehood. That really is BLP 101. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As has now been clearly deonstrated, it was a BLP concern and MN should not have reverted it back it with his simple assertion that it wasn't. Verbal chat 18:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s not a blp issue, he signed the petition as shown above. There is no falsehood in the statement by Michaels is correct, what we have here is hair splitting to keep a critique out mark nutley (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, he clearly signed the statement, but it says nothing about either the CRU or the UEA. The key line in it is the statement that the data "come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity." "Scientists across the world" is a loose, non-specific category that does not identify any specific institution. Michaels appears to be under the mistaken impression that the statement was specifically circulated to support the CRU. In fact, as the statement makes clear, it is about having confidence in climate science in general and specifically in the "observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the only reason that petition was started was because of climategate, it was done with the direct purpose to support cru. You guys know this, I have pointed it out above, but quite simply you do not want the criticism in mark nutley (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: IIRC, that petition was a direct response to the Climategate scandal. Just because the statement itself doesn't mention the CRU specifically, doesn't negate this connection. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but irrelevent. That the petition was a response to the "Climategate" scandal doesn't mean the petition says what it dosen't say. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Michaels states as a fact that the petition referred to "that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia". But a simple read of the text shows that it identifies no institutions or individuals. It's a generic vote of confidence in climate scientists as a generic group, not a statement in favour of any specific institution or individual. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• But as I understand the value of the Michaels article, it is not as a source on BLPs but solely to depict the view of a leading adherent of the skeptical POV. The inaccuracy cited strikes me as insufficient to justify exclusion of the article for that limited purpose. Obviously it can't be used as a BLP source, but that's not its purpose here. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Apologies. I made my comment before reading the latest version of the article, and seeing that Michaels is indeed used as a BLP source. I had advocated his article be used as a source for his opinion, not as a source on a BLP. I agree that he should not be used as a source on a person, and that the current usage is unacceptable. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

These are good points, while the worst of the paragraph had been removed, the remainder is little more than ill-informed grumbling from Patrick Michaels and not very notable. If the best the skeptics can manage is a claim of "bias" repeated from 12 February, it's not much to go on. On that basis I've removed the paragraph, please discuss this BLP issue before restoring it in whole or in part. The WSJ spreading skeptic misinformation is, sadly, unsurprising. . . dave souza, talk 20:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The WSJ also published a letter in response from Michael Mann. [14] --64.244.99.100 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

P. Michaels wrt G. Boulton

@Hipocrite: Please self-revert your deletion of facts inserted by editor Meco. Your edit summary says, "This petition does not say what you say it says - as such, this source is not a valid source for information about living persons it disagrees with." Find it at the Michaels article and at Pravda. (!!) The full statement as published by the Times online is here. --Yopienso (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The information I removed was that "a December 2009 petition declar[ed] that the CRU scientists "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."" The petition said nothing about the CRU scientists - as I make clear in the section abouve. We cannot use opinion columns by people who are in strong disagreements to source facts about the people they disagree with. Hipocrite (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be taking issue with a single word ("CRU") in Meco's edit. Instead of reverting Meco's entire edit, how about we simply remove the offending word? The sentence still works without it. Will removing "CRU" from this sentence resolve your concern? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It would make it factually accurate, but then it would be a different argument than the false argument that Michaels made. Michaels said that he signed a statement that said "the CRU scientists are x." He actually signed a statement that said "Climate scientists, generally, are x." Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

First, I apologize for not noticing the section directly above this one in which you are grasping at straws to defend your deletion. Having now read it, I ask you to stop this wiki-lawyering that damages the integrity of our article.

Are you saying the CRU scientists did not adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity? Are you suggesting this statement applies to them?

Professor Slingo said the statement was carefully worded to avoid claiming all climate scientists were beyond reproach.

Let's think about mathematical elements and sets. Phil Jones is an element of the set of CRU scientists. That set is a subset of "many thousands of scientists across the world." Does the statement's broad sweep not include all subsets and elements, allowing, as Slingo took pains to point out, for exceptions? Either the statement applies to the CRU or they have not adhered to the highest levels of professional integrity.

In any case, there was no need to delete the fact of Boulton's association with the UEA. Whether or not his working there 25 years ago actually skewed his judgment is debatable and unknowable, but it's what the critics charge and we have no reason to suppress it. --Yopienso (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cease your personal attacks. This will be the last response I make to you if you continue your personal attacks. I make no comment on the CRU scientists, except to note that the petition also makes no comment on the CRU scientists. Do you have a unquestionably reliable source that states that he worked at the UEA? If so, that statement can be reincluded. Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Here you go: "lectr then reader Sch of Environmental Science UEA 1968-86" http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/b/8047/Geoffrey%20Stewart+BOULTON.aspx And here's the html of a download from Channel 14.

Please self-revert. --Yopienso (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Here you go, Yopienso, this material was cunningly hidden by being announced in full by Boulton at the inquiry's first press conference on 11 February, and allegations of bias raised the following day were dismissed in a statement. As the article now notes. Michaels is dragging up an old story, is this really news or does it say more about Michaels than about Boulton? . . dave souza, talk 17:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, removed as dubious BLP material with little or no notability. We've been reminded recently not to give undue weight to isolated complaints about people. . dave souza, talk 20:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you all please try harder to compromise on the suggested text? In my opinion it can be shortened in length and reworded in a way that makes it sound less partisan. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@Dave: It was not I who claimed ignorance of Boulton's CV; I merely supplied it. And I specifically expressed doubt that his previous association with UEA impaired his neutrality: "Whether or not his working there 25 years ago actually skewed his judgment is debatable and unknowable,..." My objection was to editing based on specious grounds.

The fact that Michaels includes "the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia" among the "many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity" does not disqualify him as a RS. The Times article on the signing of the petition defending the science of climate change states, "Met Office reports on temperature changes draw on the work of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit,..."

@Cla68 and all editors: As the "Media reception" section currently stands, there are brief examples from strictly RSs that run the gamut from "Yay! All cleared!" to "Cleared, but..." to "Unsatisfactorily reviewed...." All that's missing is any mention of the word "whitewash," which is the cry being taken up by some reliable conservative sources. And it may be premature to insert that now, since WP is not a newspaper. --Yopienso (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Yopienso, good point about the "whitewash" responses, but of course we mustn't exaggerate their significance. What's needed is a good quality meta-analysis commenting on media coverage rather than trying to pick out primary source examples such as the article by Michaels. . . dave souza, talk 04:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Media reception to CRU outside exams

A proposed addition:

Harsher criticism came from senior editor Clive Crook at The Atlantic, who wrote that "The climate-science establishment ... seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause."

Source: Climategate and the Big Green Lie, The Atlantic, Jul 14 2010. Crook's CV

I think this is a noteworthy criticism, as Crook, a veteran journalist, takes pains to note that he is not a climate-change skeptic. Rather, he believes the CRU inquiries have further damaged the public confidence in climate science. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's beyond silly. What has damaged public confidence in understanding the science behind climate change (the primary issue that nobody addresses) is the fact that the media outlets, which were used to attack scientists in round one, failed to follow up on those attacks in round two. Since retractions, corrections, reports and apologies don't bleed, they just don't lead. So, the complete and abject failure of journalists and the editors who control them, to accurately report this story is the problem. Stop blaming scientists and the ignorant and gullible public. Until journalism improves across the board and begins reporting according to the most basic standards and ethics of that profession, nothing will change. Sensationalism and misinformation is not news, it's poor reporting. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think with understanding your are really meaning belief of faith. The public rarely understands issues based on knowledge gained by personal in-depth study. The faith in the authority or projected truth of climate science has been damaged. Unfortunately this is bad for any branch of science.91.153.115.15 (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Understanding means just that, and it's the responsibility of the media to promote it. They have failed to uphold this role, and instead, have promoted a campaign of personal attacks against climate scientists and the science in particular, at the behest of special interests. The public understands a great deal when they are given accurate information. Basic critical thinking skills help, but these are discouraged of course, since they totally undermine the control mechanism. When people learn to think for themselves, they no longer require others to do their thinking for them. It's therefore incredibly ironic that the very charlatans who claim to preach the gospel of libertarian values, rugged individualism, limited government, and free markets, are the exact same groups behind the manufactured "climategate" farce which seeks to manipulate the discourse, confuse the public, and limit the freedom of the press and democracy as a whole. The public can understand the issues when they are presented with correct information. The role of the media is to inform society, so that citizens have the necessary information to make good choices. It is obvious that the media has failed and journalism reform is desperately needed. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So you are telling a correct functioning media should promote the truth? How do the media determine the truth? By putting blind faith into authorities? I think not. That sounds disturbingly like a socialist utopia. I agree with you that the media is the problem but my conclusions differ. The problem is that looking at the climategate affair I can not draw the conclusion that everything is fine.91.153.115.15 (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop distorting every word I write. I've said nothing about politics, political systems, or forms of government. And, I've said nothing about faith or beliefs, which are just more of your previous distortions. The only thing I've said, and what I'm continuing to say, is that in a democracy, the media has a specific role. Their job is to inform and educate, so that the citizen, the electorate, and society as a whole, can make good choices and decisions. In other words, the media is expected to function in the public interest, not out of loyalty to special interests. Others will go further, and say that the media should also act as a watchdog against abuses by government and business. Now, some people will twist and distort this and argue that the media is doing their job, and here, we see them protecting the public from the "lies" of the scientists and those who would claim that the Earth is warming due to human influence. But, we've already been down this road, and we know that this is another distortion. We know, that in this case, the media is representing special interests (coal, oil), and it is not a coincidence that the key people and groups involved are directly connected with these interests. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete, I'll add to that an article I read some days ago--can't remember if it was mentioned at some WP page or if I just came across it on the net--by Janet Daley in the Telegraph and quoted in the CS Monitor. Then there's the Pat Michaels opinion in the WSJ that caused such a ruckus here today.
What we want to avoid, though, is cramming a bunch of quotes into the present article. It's not an index and requires only a representative sampling, which it currently has. Perhaps later some brave soul will undertake a new article on the alleged whitewash. (Btw, what do you mean by "outside exams"?) --Yopienso (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, no comment. But since we're sort-of sticking to editorials by national newspapers, we should add something from this WSJ Europe editorial -- perhaps the bit that the Muir Russell report "amounts to a 160-page evasion of the real issues." But it's too late here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a copy of that article here in case anyone wants to read it without paying Murdoch and his band of science deniers any money. Clearly it's a biased opinion piece with not even a cursory nod toward science and/or reality. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A slightly-different version ran in the US ed. today. Here's a free copy. It is striking how much criticism the UEA reports are getting in the MSM. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As above, secondary analysis of news coverage is needed as a basis of the section rather than picking out examples that we ourselves see as significant. The NYT editorial is unusual in that it comments on press coverage rather than expressing its own views, we really need more reliable analysis rather than opinions for and against the outcome. . . dave souza, talk 05:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Impact of the controversy

How has 'Climategate' affected the battle against climate change? | David Adam | Environment | The Guardian presents various views on the impact. Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause | Full Comment | National Post by Jonathan Kay gives a conservative opinion on conservative perceptions, making specific reference to this controversy. . . dave souza, talk 05:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

An editorial at New Scientist, "Without candour, we can't trust climate science " argues just that. And it's late again... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the Royal Society meant to be looking at, or re-doing, the raw data processing? Was I wrong, or did the New Scientist editorial forget to mention that? --Nigelj (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question. What did they look at and what didn't they? Regardless it does not weaken what the New Scientists is actually covering in their story. P.S. Heads up while we wait for the news story on the following. The blog Bishop Hill has some new info today gained by a freedom of information request about the Oxburgh review. Apparently the 11 representative articles selected for review were both suggested by the UEA and approved by Phil Jones as being a "fair sample". Interesting basis for a non-biased and independent review.130.232.214.10 (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

New books

The following two books on this controversy were published in April and may be of some use. I myself would rather wait a few more months and use books which have more of the full story, including an assessment of the three investigations.

• Sussman, Brian, Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam, WorldNetDaily, April 22, 2010, ISBN-10: 1935071831. This book appears to be about as partisan as it can get, but it's author is notable enough to have a Wikipedia BLP.
• Spencer, Roy, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists, Encounter Books, April 13, 2010, ISBN-10: 1594033730. This guy has more credibility, as he is a climatologist. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an intelligent design advocate and a talk show host are obviously going to be reliable sources for climate science... And by the way, you can definitely cross Sussman off your list; anything that comes out of WorldNetDaily is automatically unreliable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I don't think Spencer's views on ID have any relevency here. I think you may be taking this topic a little too seriously and personally. Remember, we don't care who is right or wrong, we just report what the sources are saying. I don't think these two books have the full story on this particular topic, as not all the investigations were completed when these books were published. So, while they may have some limited use, I recommend that we wait a little longer for more books to come out. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know, when you seem to be on a mission to promote the most fringe sources possible there's reason to be concerned. It doesn't say much for your judgement of sources that you think a book published by WorldNetDaily and written by a talk show host could be "of some use" as a source on a science issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate that remark, ChrisO, and don't find it to be very helpful for us to collaborate and cooperate on this article. My point is, that you have to, and this goes for me too, try to leave personal feelings and biases "at the door" when editing a Wikipedia article. You have to examine each source by the information it brings towards improving the article. I have said that these two books probably don't bring very much, although they might provide more background on how the Hockey stick controversy is related to what is contained in the emails. This would be useful, as the mainstream press hasn't really explored this much although the Guardian article did to some extent. We'll see. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is that you show a little bit of common sense with bringing sources to the discussion. There's no point even mentioning Sussman's book, given its complete unusability as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that dismissing a source without even looking at it is unhelpful. I have used sources in other articles which were written by authors with which I didn't agree with everything they had to say on that or other topics. That's what I mean by leaving our personal biases at the door. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla, excuse me for butting it, but as I'm viewing this dialog from the outside, it seems you are pushing. You suggested the Sussman book knowing full well it would not be considered WP:RS, as well as the other which, although from a more credible author, would not readily find acceptance at WP. This follows on the heels of your promoting the Montford book about the CRU emails. Please hold up your end of the collaboration and cooperation you want to enjoy. I suggest you step back from bringing up material that would not be found helpful by many Wikipedians. Respectfully, --Yopienso (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Cla68 on this. Good or bad, dismissing a source without looking at it and understanding why we shouldn't use it isn't helpful. Yeah, Chris0's impatience is understandable considering what gets brought up around here, but I for one appreciate Cla68's open mind on the subject. Remember, it's the smell of garbage that reminds us to throw it out. I think it's necessary to get a whiff of it every now and then to keep us on our toes. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas. The more books we have on the subject, the better. It will be very helpful if, in the future, there are books written which take the CRU's side on this controversy. Hopefully, one or more will be forthcoming in a few months' time. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understood the point of Viriditas's comment. Re-read the last two sentences. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

SBHB, the discussion threads above have shown that there have been widely divergent opinions on the nature and significance of the email controversy in the mass media. The books that will be written on it I imagine will also contain many different opinions on the topic. One approach we could take to addressing this is to label any book written which criticizes the CRU and the hockey stick research as "trash" written by "cranks" and refuse to acknowledge it. Or, we could work together to use all the independently published sources to come up with a fair and balanced article which reflects what the sources in todo are saying. I think the latter will produce a better and more informative article. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Fair and balanced"? I think I've heard that somewhere before... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the most exasperating things about you, Cla68, is the way you constantly twist and misrepresent what others have said (Tony's complaint below deals with the same issue). Nobody is "labeling any book written which criticizes the CRU and the hockey stick research as "trash" written by "cranks" and refusing to acknowledge it." That is a complete strawman. Criticising the CRU and the hockey stick research is not an indicator of cranky trash. Authorship by fringe figures with no expertise in the field and publication by junk sources like WorldNetDaily is such an indicator. When I object to Sussman, I don't do so on the basis of his views of the CRU and the hockey stick (I don't know what they are, though I can guess from the title). I do so because the book raises every red flag possible - authorship by a non-expert (a talk show host, for goodness' sake!), a fringe POV apparent in the title, and publication by a source - WorldNetDaily - that numerous RSN discussions have found to be unusable. These days anyone can publish a book, but the mere fact that something appears in print does not make it reliable or worth citing. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, just a note that you have grossly mischaracterized my proposal with respect to crank sources. You were given an example of a crank source that you yourself believe to be reliable, even though it was written by a writer who later pleaded, when a grave case of false quotation was found prominently displayed on page one of his work, that he had been "misled by the internet." He had used the false quotation because of what some guy had written on the internet, even after he (the author) had checked the alleged source and verified for himself that his own copy of the source book did not contain the attributed quotation. And even when his error was exposed he didn't accept responsibility for the error but said he had been "misled". That's appallingly bad scholarship, and in the case of that particular author it wasn't an isolated case but one of several examples where the author had proven himself to be incapable of the most basic fact-checking.

That's what worries me: that you often argue that we adopt an idiosyncratic definition of reliability that would, if we followed it, result in our citing terribly unreliable sources on factual matters where in fact we, as an encyclopedia, demand the most reliable sourcing available. --TS 01:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the evaluation of sources rests on what I consider the worst guideline we have, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. IRS does nothing to help editors evaluate and identify reliable sources, and intentionally talks around the subject by introducing ambiguity. So, rather than blaming Cla68, why not help rewrite the guideline? Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Easier said than done. There's a troika who make a concerted effort to control the sourcing policies. They make it so difficult to change them that it's hardly worth the bother. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we have support for a major change; I've been testing the waters for some time. The major objection is any change must be compatible with WP:NPOV and WP:V, and any other relevant policy. But, I think the timing is right. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys still seem to be missing the central issue here, which is the way Wikipedia is structured. This is a project built by amateurs, if it wasn't, we would be required to identify ourselves and our qualifications, like Citizendium. For that reason, it is acknowledged that we are in no position to decide what can and can't be used as a source, besides the obvious ones, like self-published sources (blogs, self-published books, tracts, etc). Thus, our emphasis on verifiability, not truth. We report what the sources say and leave it up to the reader to decide on the credibility and truthfulness of it. Yes, that requires us to cooperate and compromise in contentious topic areas. I have faith that we can do so. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can evaluate a source based on criteria for reliability. You don't need to be an expert to do that. The emphasis on verifiability does not mean we can use creationist sources to write about evolutionary biology. One problem with the "questionable source" provision is that it is too weak and ambiguous. Same is true with the use of opinion and editorial pieces. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean we automatically use or include it. The fact remains, the "identifying reliable sources" guideline confuses new editors, discourages the use of expert sources, and attempts to muddy the issue. It's almost as if it was created to keep people busy arguing about sources and distracted from writing and improving articles. It doesn't work, it doesn't reflect the actual problems we face on this site, and it needs to be changed. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It would be helpful for all to read WP:V and WP:NPOV in their entirety. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course we have to decide what can and can't be used as a source. That is the whole point of WP:V and WP:NPOV - to provide criteria for deciding which sources can be used. You seem to be arguing that if something appears in print then it is a viable source, no matter how extreme, inaccurate or unrepresentative it is, or how unqualified the author is in that particular field. If that is your approach then I think there is a real problem with your editing, since that approach is totally incompatible with Wikipedia's most basic sourcing policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue this ChrisO, but I disagree with you. In most cases, we don't have a remit to decide on our own what is and what isn't reliable. If a source is inaccurate, we have to use other sources which tell us that. For example, when I write WWII articles, I find that the massive history that Samuel Eliot Morison wrote on the naval campaign is inaccurate in some cases. I still use Morison, but where he is contradicted by more modern sources, I use those instead, and if I think someone may question it, I either explain the discrepancy in the text or in a footnote. I don't throw Morison out completely, however, because he still has some good information. That's what we do here. The Hockey Stick Illusion, for example, has an excellent chapter on how climatic research uses proxies for determining historical temperatures. Unless another source tells us that the book doesn't explain it right, we assume it is reliable because it meets our V and RS rules. This is how Wikipedia works and why it works well when editors work on cooperating with each other. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing apples with oranges. Samuel Eliot Morison was an expert in the field, with a lengthy publication record and widespread recognition of his expertise and scholarship. He is not remotely comparable in standing to someone like Montford or Sussman, both non-experts with no previous publication record and no recognition of any competence in the field. The correct analogy would be using some random conspiracy nut who believes FDR conspired to allow the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor to provide "balance" to Morison's account of the Pearl Harbor attack. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have an example showing that you are incorrect in that analogy. One of the best books on the Guadalcanal Campaign is this one. The book's author was an attorney, with no experience as an historian. This was his first book. According to your criteria, we wouldn't have been able to use his book as a source in Wikipedia, even though it's probably the best book on the battle. That is why we can't do like you're suggesting. Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a middle way where you are both right depending on the circumstances. Cla68, clearly the history book is considered authoritative by RS, and the author probably isn't making many novel observations or conclusions, but is relying on the evidence of others, historical evidence not in dispute or controversial. OTOH, Chris makes a good point that not all sources are equal, and we must carefully evaluate for criteria such as expertise and authoritativeness when it's needed. In other words, a source being used simply to cite standard dates and other facts not in dispute, isn't going to be as closely evaluated as a source making claims about living people or suggesting novel theories or conclusions. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to get into a discussion of specific items here, but I think the problem here is largely behavioral. There's no reason why our comprehensive and well developed verifiability and neutral point of view policies should not be properly applied here. The behavioral problem, in my view, consists on trying to use a guideline that discusses how one might assess the reliability of a source, applying a very liberal interpretation of that guideline, and insisting that passing the resulting criterion is sufficient to require the inclusion of a source in the article. That's indefensible and disingenuous. Having said that I won't labor the point, as I don't intend to get involved in discussing this article's content further at this point. --TS 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The Sussman book meets V/RS on the issues of reactions to the CRU email controversy, criticisms of the socio-political aspects of the process of informing the public on global warming, policy formation, criticisms of the "consensus" process -- as well as inclusion as one of a list of growing sources calling into question the consensus view based on questionable research methods and data sets. On the issue of pure science of global warming, Sussman might merit a footnote at best and is clearly not as reliable as a peer-reviewed scholarly articles. There is no reason not to include the Sussman reference in the appropriate place for the principle: this guy wrote this book and this is what it says, these are his credentials and here is how it is treated in secondary sources. Agree that it should not be included in purely scientific articles. Minor4th 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Whether or not the Sussman book is a reliable source as to Global Warming or Climate Change is one thing, but it is clearly a reliable source as to the opinion that the Climategate scandal as to the covering up scientific data and/or skewing the data for a preferred result. WP:IRS clearly states that these sources "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution." The book, in the short time it is out, has already been discussed by Fox News, the Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the Canada Free Press, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Coast to Coast AM (a nationally syndicated radio show), among others. Clearly appropriate for the reaction to Climategate, if appropriately annotated. GregJackP Boomer! 16:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an example of the reaction to the email hack, and as such is a primary source. It's also part of the partisan campaigning without good academic credentials. On that basis it's reliable as a source of what its author says, but the significance and assessment of that needs to be established by better sources, and it's very questionable as analysis of the issues. Which is why we have to base the article on reliable third party sources independent of the "controversy". Similarly, an article by Michaels in the WSJ, both of them active skeptical propagandists with financial ties to energy industries, has to be treated with caution and not given undue weight. . . dave souza, talk 17:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither the WSJ nor Pat Michaels should be dismissed from WP as simple propagandists. WSJ is a major mainstream newspaper and a WP:RS, and Michaels is a climatologist. Both, it is true, publish from the denier stance, but we don't call Michael Mann or Rajendra Pachauri propagandists because they advocate the opposite views. As for the oil industry, the CRU itself has ties to it. (See my comment of 14:20, 8 July 2010 in Archive 34.) Lord Oxburgh went from being chairman of Shell in 2004 to chairman of D1 Oils, a biodiesel firm. My understanding is that the wood I burn in my barrel stove creates as much CO2 as the gasoline I burn in my car, and that burning corn products (biofuel) likewise produces CO2. Please instruct if I'm mistaken. (I'm being serious, not smart-alecky.) --Yopienso (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the Sussman book - WND is not considered a reliable source for factual information. So I'm curious as to why a book they published should be considered a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Because Sussman is saying things that certain editors agree with. Do keep up, Guettarda. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Been away from the pedia for a the better part of a week. Must catch up before I can keep up. :) Guettarda (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The opposite can be said as well -- Sussman is a reliable source for information on the socio-political aspects of global warming and the questions raised by the email controversy and the doubts in the media and public over the trustworthiness of the peer-review process and integrity of the research. So I'm curious as to why he would be considered unreliable. Answer: Because Sussman says things that certain editors don't agree with. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Minor4th 18:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sussman is a reliable source for information on the socio-political aspects of global warming - You can? On what basis? Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Don't mean that as a challenge to your statement. I know nothing about Sussman beyond what's in his WP bio, and there's nothing useful there. Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources cited in the book and his background as a meteorologist and science reporter, etc. I don't really want to get into it with y'all. Take a look at the book and the information and sources cited and see if you find it unreliable. This is why I suggested a proposal for the material that is to be included and the purpose of citing Sussman's book. Talking about it in the abstract is not very useful. Minor4th 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying that we should take the book seriously because of sources in the book is circular. As for his background - as I said, all I have seen is his Wikipedia bio, which says nothing useful about his qualifications, training or being a "science reporter". Hence my question. What reason is there to consider Sussman a reliable source? In fact, if, as Chris mentions above, he's an ID advocate (again, I have no source for this) then he has a background in disproven pseudoscience, which automatically undercuts his credibility. Guettarda (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's Roy Spencer, the author of the second book Cla68 promotes above, who's an ID supporter. Sussman is a birther - you know, one of those sad individuals who promote conspiracy theories that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and isn't eligible to be president. He's not just on the fringe, he's on the fringe of the fringe. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Guettarda (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, rather than talking about it in the abstract why don't we have a proposal about how to use this source and what material it will be cited for. Cla68? Minor4th 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like recentism to me. The article has so far relied mainly on press reports. Now the affair is over bar the shouting, books will be published about it. The best books will be great sources for the article. The first books published aren't guaranteed to be the best, probably the other way round. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The existence of this article is recentism. While press reports suffer from a number of problems, we should only replace them with more thoughtful sources when the quality of the sources exceeds the existing ones. Not to mention that, given the lag time involved in writing, editing and publishing a book, any book on this topic is certain to be out of date. Since it has been established that the early reporting was seriously off, when it comes to facts, anything based on the early reporting is likely to suffer from the same problems. Guettarda (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the Muir Russell inquiry

This section is to collect links and info for a future subsection on this topic.

For openers, Steve McIntyre has posted a detailed criticsm of the conduct of this rather pathetic inquiry here. It bears out the earlier WSJ comment that the MR report "amounts to a 160-page evasion of the real issues." Straight out of "Yes, Minister" ... Quite remarkable. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone here seriously believe that the denialist attacks on Muir Russell are unrelated to the fact that the inquiry didn't support the denialists' allegations? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

More to the point - we've got a blog post and an (apparently) unsigned opinion piece. Neither are reliable sources for facts. Why not wait for a secondary source to report on these primary-source criticisms, rather than trying to synthesise our own critique? Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"an (apparently) unsigned opinion piece".... Um, G, this means this is the editorial opinion of the newspaper. Like the NYT ""manufactured controversy" bit "your" side is so fond of? Sheesh.... </snark>, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying it's signed then? It's under "Review and Outlook", not "Editorial". Does the WSJ not use the term? Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Um-2, that's house style. It ran (in the paper copy) as a left-column lead editorial. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. But it's still a primary-source critique, it's still an opinion piece. We need to wait to see if anyone cares. Guettarda (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Wall Street Journal editorial needs to be in the article somewhere, as it is a notable expression of opinion by an influential US newspaper. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The WSJ editorial may be noteworthy - the paper's editorial page has been a bastion of the "skeptical" viewpoint. But how do we use it? You can see that Tillman's take on it is very different from ChrisO's. We could note that the criticised the report. But why one newspaper and not another? Why McI and not another blogger? If it's notable, secondary sources are going to cover it. If they don't, it sort of begs the question of whether it is worth including. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It belongs in the media reception section. Michaels' op-ed is noted there, but I think that is the wrong place. Michaels is not a media person. Another question: I've been away for a few days. What is the point of the neutrality tag? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, come to think of it, if the WSJ editorial is just added on, w/o moving Michaels, it would be a neutrality issue in its own right, as perhaps being overweighted toward criticism. The Col. Journalism Review article belongs there too. There should be a reasonable balance in the media section. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• McIntyre continues his analysis & criticism of the Muir Russell report here, concluding that Muir Russell "blatantly misrepresented the facts surrounding Jones’ notorious request to “delete all emails”, a misrepresentation that, in my opinion, was done, at a minimum, either recklessly or out of gross negligence." This is unusually strong language from McI, and it looks like he has good cause.

I agree, it's premature to post primary, blog-based material to the article -- though McIntyre is a recognized expert on the topic. But this should be picked up by a secondary RS soon. It's really quite shocking how shoddily this "independent study" was conducted. Consider this another "heads-up." Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

McIntyre is an active party to the dispute, so he's certainly not a secondary source. I've seen no evidence that he's a recognised expert on inquiries or independent studies, or indeed much else outside the mining business, though he's been described as a mathematician, apparently without qualifications in the field. . dave souza, talk 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you're trying it on again, having conceded already that McIntyre is a perfectly reasonable source - have you an agenda to push or something? Once more: McIntyre is an expert on Climategate because it is his allegations that are central to it. A statement about what he has said he thinks can be referenced by reference to his blog. Anything else is ludicrous. Please stop trying to be a gatekeeper here. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Dave

• Here (original German) is a secondary source for some of McIntyre's criticisms, in a recent interview by Die Weltwoche, the Swiss newsweekly. I haven't read it closely yet, but the double translation(?) makes for clumsy reading. Pete Tillman (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Media reception

I have boldly trimmed and rearranged this section. Rationale:

• There was redundant reference to The Economist.
• I judged the funding aspect of Michaels' report unworthy of inclusion. If others disagree, here's my suggested wording: He further suggested that since both the UEA and PSU are partially funded by the US government they would stand to lose those grants if found guilty of substantial scientific misbehavior.
• I like to present in this order:

1. a positive review, (position)

2. a negative one, (rebuttal) and

3. a "you-be-the-judge" one. (conclusion) I think the final sentence as I've left it is a good conclusion at this point.

• Recentism does seem a problem, so we should probably not rush to add developing stories. --Yopienso (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't. ArbCom has asked us to stop working on these articles. Can you please revert and wait until the proposed decision? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Where have they asked that? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

[15] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Risker says: "I hope everyone who has posted on these pages in recent weeks will make use of this break to step back from this topic area for a brief period." That is not remotely equivalent to saying that "ArbCom has asked us to stop working on these articles." There is no editing restriction to prevent Yopienso or any other editor from continuing to work on improving this or any other article in the topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, true, but it's still a bad idea. And I wasn't asking you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

[Second edit conflict] [Edit conflict]

I hadn't realized that. There's no such notice on either the article or discussion page. I'm going for a lunch break, and if others agree with you and provide a link to the request I will not hesitate to self-revert. Please give me up to two hours since I'm not sure I can be right back. --Yopienso (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PS--I'm out the door... PPS--Bye.......

When you get back, for the sake of harmony, can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why he should. He's not a party to the case - nor am I for that matter - and he's not posted on any of the arbitration pages, so he's not covered by Risker's suggestion. Risker hasn't pursued it or tried to enforce it as far as I can see and nobody seems to have taken any notice of it. I wasn't even aware of it until you pointed it out. It's not binding and it doesn't cover Yopienso anyway. If you want to follow Risker's suggestion then please go and do so, and leave the editing to others without badgering them about it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Risker posted that request at 04:51, 19 July 2010, this disputed edit was made at 11:33, 19 July 2010. A Quest For Knowledge, for the sake of harmony, can you please self-revert? dave souza, talk 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Well spotted. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice ArbCom's request until after I made that edit. Since then, I have not edited a single CC article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, Yopienso hadn't noticed it. Same principle applies. . dave souza, talk 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is your name Yopienso? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not "ArbCom's request." It's Risker expressing a personal "hope" (his words). If the ArbCom wants us to do something, it will tell us, but don't put words in its collective mouth. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is your name Yopienso? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso wrote "I hadn't realized that. There's no such notice on either the article or discussion page." Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand Risker's request. He wants everyone who has participated in the Arbcom to stop editing CC articles? That presupposes, if so, that everyone who participated is an active editor. I've almost exclusively participated in talk page discussions, with only rare edits in these articles. So am I covered by this request? I agree that there needs to be notice in the articles as practicable.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just a request. You don't have to abide by it if you don't want, but I am asking Yopienso to self-revert in the meantime. I'm not sure how closely you are following the case, but yesterday, several editors were edit-warring over contentious meterial in a BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, I'm asking you to self revert material that's, in my view, contentious. Neither you nor Yopienso has to abide by these respective requests. . . . dave souza, talk 21:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Michaels stuff deserves a brief mention, but absolutely not in the media reaction section. He's not in the media. To call that media reaction is not accurate. Also I'd like to see a broader array of notable reaction from columnists, etc. Quest, thanks for clarifying, but I'm still not clear on whether I'm covered by the request. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: I think he deserves a mention, too. The location doesn't matter much to me. It was already buried at the end of the article anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is where. The Journal editorial seems to say the same thing, and is a media reaction. Would anyone object to the editorial substituting for Michaels? 21:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the above, I've restored the older version of the article in the spirit of the comments made by Risker at 04:51, 19 July 2010. For some reason, A Quest For Knowledge felt the need to cross this boundary, and then had the nerve to come here and insist that everyone abide by it. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

[Yet another edit conflict!][Edit conflict]

Wow. First, I apologize for inadvertently failing to note either above or on the edit summary that besides trimming and rearranging I added Michaels' claim of a whitewash, which, in fact, was the main thrust of the article.

I'm not seeing a consensus or direction to self-revert so will wait a bit more on that. --Yopienso (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed there was again an edit conflict! I'll add that a Wall St. Journal opinion is certainly a media response! --Yopienso (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite secondary (or tertiary) sources describing the media response. Please do not cherry pick media responses. We have been over this several times. Find an article that talks about the media response. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely over-hasty and ill-advised, Viriditas. We were working on this. Wrt your edit summary, "Restore previous version per talk," it is neither the previous version nor "per talk." Please self-revert.

I'm taking a 24-hour break from this article. Anyone may stop by my talk page.

Oh, a new post--I am not cherry-picking: read my rationale above. We have no rule that a WSJ opinion piece cannot be used. Please self-revert. --Yopienso (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird stuff

We seem to have ended up with

The Economist said the Russell report "is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics. Nor does it, in some ways, fulfill its remit," noting that the report failed to discover who "chose the e-mails released onto the internet and why they did so."

This makes no sense. Finding out whodunnit was n't part of the Russell remit William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. the word "noting" is misleading here because it assumes that the Economist got it right. The investigation would obviously not have been competent to make any such determination, which is (as far as who did it) the job of the police force, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. The why of the matter might well be a subject for endless debate, even if the culprits are eventually identified.

But if the most the Economist had to say was clearly nonsensical, it would not be worth covering--we're not a press summary website. Why not look at what else the Economist had to say and see if it made some kind of sense? We're not here to make the press look bad, either. --TS 22:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the original which I paraphrased:

"The Russell report is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics. Nor does it, in some ways, fulfil its remit. One of the enduring mysteries of climategate is who chose the e-mails released onto the internet and why they did so. These e-mails represented just 0.3% of the material on the university’s backup server, from which they were taken. This larger content has still not really been explored." The part I originally added noted that only a small portion of the emails (0.3%) were explored. The remit portion is in regards to why they didn't check all the emails not the hacker.91.153.115.15 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a mystery at all. Any reasonable person can look at the timeline and see that the only reason the e-mails were released and the media outlets covered it in the way that they did, was to derail the climate talks at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which is what happened. If you recall, not only did the CRU allegations take away media coverage from the event, but climate scientists were attacked at the event using these allegations as ammo, and some countries began questioning the accuracy of the "evidence" for climate change at the conference using the just published e-mails as justification. There is no other logical conclusion for "why" the e-mails were strategically released at that time, and various sources have said just that. In fact, I would challenge you to find a better explanation; There isn't one. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears the most likely explanation based on the timing but others can not be ruled out. The Why can be deduced but the Who is not yet known. My comment was that the inquiry did not read all the emails.91.153.115.15 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'll list the sources which state that, this can be added to the article. There have been several speculated ideas on the motiviation of the person(s) who stole the emails (even if it was an insider, "stolen" is still an accurate description because he/she almost certainly did not have authorization to take the data) and to derail Copenhagen is one of them. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the mystery is that this is just a bad paraphrase. I'll remove it, is omseone lese hasn't already William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC, I thought us ArbCom parties had accepted a voluntary topic ban on contentious edits until the case was decided. Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What made you think that? If you believe it, I invite you to discuss [16] with MN (no, I'm not holding my breath). Anyway, I've corrected that error, which hopefully even Cla won't think a bad think. I've also removed the bit about no science checks, which is wrong: Muir-Russell repliced the temperature curve, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if ArbCom could clarify who falls under the aegis of that request. I'd step in and edit the media reactions section myself, but I don't want to disregard the request. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've added media reaction from Columbia Journalism Review and the Wall Street Journal, and also added a bit from the Economist, thereby fleshing out the media reaction section in a roughly balanced way. I'm not sure if this is against any arbcom request; I can't find it, there is no notice here, so I thought I'd take the plunge. I think this improves the section. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate image

File added on 18:37, 23 July 2010 [17] deleted on 18:50, 23 July 2010 [18] Lasted a whole 13 minutes? Apparently some folks around here don't like this image. If some one would like to help me with the copyright page to satisfy everyone, I'd be pleased to add it again.--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No chance, clearly fails WP:NFCC#1+8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The article only states "(dubbed "Climategate" in the media)". Their is not a section as to the Etymology, yet there is over 2 million hits on Google. NFCC #1&8 states, "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The screenshot clearly illustrates the media (FOX News) using of the phrase. So if there is no written section about the media "dubbing" the Incident it can only be represented by a photo, how are we to get one that is for free/fair use (Note: that almost half of the ref used in the article use the word climategate). As far as Contextual significance [19] Climategate became very controversial and garnered lots of media coverage, a screenshot of that term in news coverage would likely be appropriate.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been explained to you on your talk page, at User talk:Duchamps_comb#Climategate image. Please take the time to read it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not only was it explained, but the image was deleted when he tried it the first time in November 2009.[20]. He was then blocked for a week, then indefinitely blocked, unblocked, blocked for a week, and now this crap again. Any reason why we are still dealing with this? Hasn't this guy had enough chances? Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't around here in November 2009, not to mention several other editors. Let us have some time to examine the issue and figure out how best to handle this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)