Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

New reliable sources, for later use

*Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails, BBC, 11/27/09 "BBC News understands that senior individuals at UEA have acknowledged the potential damage to the university's reputation from the CRU affair and are anxious to clear the institution's name." BBC finally gets a clue. GardiaP (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

A reference to this is already in the article, due to the consensus of discussion reached after the article was protected. --TS 23:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should reference the source. We could also add the quote "A petition is running on the 10 Downing Street website calling for CRU to be suspended from preparation of any government climate statistics until the allegations have been fully investigated". GardiaP (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

This is another Scibaby sock. Ignore it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are a three more. [1], [2] [3] --Duchamps_comb MFA 23:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The networkworld piece is on network security, only tangentially relevant to this hacking, and perhaps not even appropriate for an academic environment. The second source is a UPI wire story reporting Jim Inhofe's announcement of his investigation. We already report on that in the article. The third piece is an opinion piece on the left wing blog site, Washington Independent. I'd put that way down the pecking order of material for this article. --TS 01:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the first cite is an opinion piece. Also, it's a specialized publication devoted to computer networks. I don't think it's a good source for climatology issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This from the wsj should be included: Keith Johnson; Gautam Naik (November 24, 2009). "Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails". The Wall Street Journal. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

UAE now says they threw away original data back in the 80s due to lack of storage

I don't think anyone's mentioned this, but the UAE is now saying that they permanently destroyed some of their their raw data in 1980s due to lack of storage.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be completely unrelated to the hacking incident. As I've suggested elsewhere, it may be appropriate to describe this announcement at the Climatic Research Unit article itself. --TS 23:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but this is a reliable source that has made the synthesis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Completely unrelated? Of course it's related, as anyone who has paid attention to this issue knows.--SPhilbrickT 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue really is a completely separate issue, and would require SYN linkage in numerous RSes before we could consider inserting it. ► RATEL ◄ 23:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This article covers more than just the hacking incident itself, it also covers its aftermath. I don't accept your argument that we need numerous WP:RS to address synthesis. WP:SYN says nothing about requiring multiple reliable sources, and I think that if someone attempted to modify WP:SYN to require this, it would be rejected. However, I would accept this as a WP:WEIGHT issue, so I'm fine with tabling this for now. I suspect that now the Guardian The Times has broken the story, there will be plenty of other reliable sources within the next 24-48 hours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's already been refuted. This is basically something that the Competitive Enterprise Institute has made up. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What's been refuted? That data's been destroyed? Or that data's been destroyed rendering the reports and policies based on those reports unreliable? I said nothing about the latter, only the former. In any case, if E&E is a WP:RS, we now have a second source for this story. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a more direct reference: "Climate change data dumped" at The Times. --GoRight (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A truly remarkable version of "The Dog Ate my Homework." Your UK tax pounds at work. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As editor Stephan Schulz remarked on this subject earlier: Why would we, on this page, talk about stuff that is ~25 years old, i.e. that happened before the formation of the IPCC, at a time when e.g. Michael E. Mann was in high school, and when global warming, while already recognized by scientists, was not a significant topic in the public or political arena? --TS 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The relevance is that this is/was the final reason/excuse that CRU supplied in rejecting one or more recent FOIA requests -- we can't supply the data because "the dog ate my homework." This topic is also discussed in the leaked emails. So, no, it isn't ancient history, as the Times story makes clear. Good try, though. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In terms of moden global warming theory, this is almost prehistory. The "dog ate my homework" comment, which you have repeated, suggests that you're unaware of the nature of the missing datasets. The Times' writers are journalists, not scientists. --TS 05:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not ancient history, it is being discussed today.

The point, of course, is that science is supposed to be reproducible. The CRU has admitted that they did not use the raw data directly, but rather they made adjustments to it. Regardless of whether those adjustments were justified, or not, or whether they inflated the recent warming trends, or not, the scientific validity thereof rests firmly on the notion that independent investigators can review the adjustments which were made (and therefore underlie everything else the CRU has done) to determine IF they were appropriate, or not, and whether the CRU had made them correctly, or not.

Without the raw data and at least some minimal description of how they manipulated them so that they can be adequately reviewed and assessed for accuracy, they might just as well have made up a random set of numbers for all the good they are. We are being asked to accept these adjusted inputs on pure faith which, as should be obvious, is clearly NOT very scientific. --GoRight (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• As several editors have mentioned, this seems more directly related to the CRU itself, so I have added a brief new section there, Climatic_Research_Unit#Climate_change_data_discarded. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:52, 30 November 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.

Phil Jones being the Director of the CRU is mentioned twice in lede

Phil Jones being the Director of the CRU is mentioned twice in lede. Once in the first paragraph, "Later, Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, confirmed that all of the leak..." and again in the second paragraph "Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, called charges...". I suggest we change the second instance from "Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, called charges that the emails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous"" to simply "Jones called charges that the emails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous"". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Y ► RATEL ◄ 23:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Agreed, an uncontroversial tweak. --TS 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I also made a minor change so that a <ref> tag was at the end of a clause instead of after the "and" starting the next one. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet I suggest that an unsourced statement either be sourced or removed, and that hasn't happened. Why is that so controversial it cannot be addressed?--SPhilbrickT 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We need strong consensus to perform edits to protected articles. --TS 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Further proposed addition: UEA's official response to charges of withholding information

Relating to accusations that the Climatic Research Unit had colluded to withhold raw data, the University of East Anglia has made an official response which was mentioned earlier on this talk page but it appears to be in danger of being lost amid the noise.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

I suggest that a brief mention of this response be added to the second paragraph of the lead section, including the University's statement that "It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years."

--TS 00:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Y ► RATEL ◄ 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors should keep steadfastly in mind an org may not be a reliable source as to its own activities, moreover when those activites have come under question, see Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Given that one of the main themes of this controversy is that the CRU may have misbehaved, it is exceedingly ironic that their own claims are being cited uncritically. I have NO problem including their responses in the mix, but they should be properly caveated and balanced. They've been accused of fraud. Serious charge, and I hope it turns out to be false, but to simply accept their own statements without even acknowledging the COI ought to be astounding. I predict we will be revisiting some of these comments in the future. It will be interesting to see who has behaved honorably.--SPhilbrickT 01:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask for this addition to be made to the protected article unless we had a very strong consensus.

That said, the notion that CRU has been credibly accused of fraud is simply false. The statement by UEA moreover deals with fact that are well known and it isn't necessary for them to lie about the wide availability of the raw data. --TS 01:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That post is your uncited original research. However, the pith is that following the policy (so long as... there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity and given there is widely noted and verifiable, hence "reasonable" doubt), that cite isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here we have a clear statement of fact from the UEA. No original research or synthesis is involved. To describe the UEA as a questionable source is silly and pointless. --TS 02:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, it isn't "uncited original research" at all, but a statement of fact supported by sources in the current article. Who has officially accused and brought charges against the CRU for fraud? As the CRU states, 95% of the data is available in other places and is similar to the data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. There isn't any credible accusation or case for fraud. That's a distraction from the underlying issue, which is the criminal theft and release of documents and emails intended to embarrass climate researchers weeks before the major summit in Copenhagen. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"That's a distraction from the underlying issue, which is the criminal theft and release of documents and emails ..." - Weird. I wouldn't consider that to be the main issue here at all. The underlying issue here is what the contents of these materials reveals about the reliability and credibility of the science being conducted at the CRU, at least IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is any of the science in question? If so, by whom? And since 95% of the data is already public and correlates with NOAA and NASA data sets, what does this reveal? Answer: nothing. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk subpage

This talk page has been semi-protected in response to this ANI report. A subpage has been created to provide a venue for non-autoconfirmed users to comment at. Can the regulars at this page watchlist that subpage and keep a lookout for any legitimate suggestions that are posted there ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

---

This issue is being addressed at the Climatic Research Unit article at present. Discussions of the merits (rather than how Wikipedia is to be edited) have been removed from this section per WP:FORUM. --TS 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for noncontroversial tweaks

Reactions: "Climatologist Hans von Storch (who concurs in the consensus finding of human-influenced global warming) said that...

Needs a wikilink for VS, which would also allow dropping the awkward qualification in parens. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the wikilinking. I suggest adding an editprotected tag here if there are no objections by 0500 GMT (which will be 0000 Eastern, 2100 Western). Not sure I agree with removal of the qualification in parentheses, at least until we agree a form of words that describes the whole affair better than our current effort. --TS 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We should organize the comments into "reactions in the press," "reactions from scientists," "reactions from skeptics" and the like. Right now it's all a jumble, which makes such qualifiers necessary. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! I was thinking the same thing yesterday.► RATEL ◄

Also support this -- article really is a jumble. Would it be worth posting a "dummy" page here to try out reorganizing it? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If so, should we also remove the "Climate change sceptic" descriptions for Lord Lawson and Jim Inhofe? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if their opinions fall under a sceptic rubric. ► RATEL ◄ 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that would help. For instance Lawson and Inhofe appear in a completely separate section about proposals for an inquiry. Although they're both climate skeptics, it is the small but significant political power that they both wield that makes their opinions significant. And the section on responses is, I think. well organized, with the most significant responses first. Having a separate section for the opinions of skeptics, in particular, would tend to give rise to undue weight on those opinions, which are far outside the mainstream. Likewise overemphasis on the often quite poorly written and ill-informed press coverage, at this early stage, is to be avoided.

In short, I think we should stick with a strong emphasis on reporting the reactions in the mainstream scientific community, which are likely to be the decisive factor in how this issue plays out. The skeptics have little influence and the media are just doing their best. --TS 00:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to put some subheadings into the page. The Reactions section is a jumble. It would be helpful to many readers if the many opinions and responses could be grouped somehow. Tony, how would you group them, if you had to? ► RATEL ◄ 00:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reaction from skeptics would be a POV-fork. But you can have sections based on occupation (Reaction from scientists, Reaction from politicians, Reactions from political commentators, etc.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that might work. --TS 01:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

At present there is an informal organization that goes something like this:

* UEA, CRU official responses.

* Other major climatologists

* Major professional bodies

* Hansen, Monbiot and Curry (two climatologists and an environmental campaigner)

* RealClimate (via Computerworld) and science historian Spencer R. Weart in the Washington Post, on the conspiracy-minded nature of much of the affair

* Statements by assorted skeptics

* A brief Peter Lilley/Ed Milliband exchange on the floor of the House of Commons early in the affair

So this is not really a jumble at all. The most relevant and most reliable responses are placed early in the section, the least relevant and least reliable responses are placed later in the section.

I don't think subheadings would improve this organization, indeed I've given reasons above to avoid use of subheadings. --TS 00:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

There is no objection to the original suggestion that there should be a wikilink to Hans von Storch in the sentence starting "Climatologist Hans von Storch..." in the "Reactions to the incident" section. I suggested an "editprotected" if there were no objections by 0500, so here goes. --TS 05:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I only added the wikilink, as there does not appear to be consensus for any rewording at the moment. Please make another request if there is. von Storch is already linked in the section Climate Research Journal, but I do not think that this violates WP:OVERLINK. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any refrence to Realclimate should be removed. If a source is not WP:RS (A Blog like RealClimate)... then why would anyone trust the word of a RS that quotes from a blog? thats like saying "Well, Billy isn't a Nazi, he just quotes things from Nazi's alot, so what billy says is totally reasonable." Realclimate is a blog, it is not fact checked nor peer reviewed. just because other media outlets are okay with sourcing a sub-standard source, doesn't mean wikipedia should start accepting those who quote those who aren't WP:RSs as acceptable. I can't believe RealClimate BLOG's validity as a source is even still up for discussion. Its a blog people. and if a Blog is not a WP:RS, how is an article that quotes froma blog WP:RS? --Zeeboid (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources, such as blogs, are acceptable as reliable sources when the author is an established expert writing within their field of expertise. RealClimate is referenced in many other places in Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Of course RealClimate is one of the more reliable sources cited on this article: more reliable than any of the newspaper articles and opinion columns, certainly. It also has unique information about this matter, since the site was hacked by the criminals in an attempt to lock out the owners and use the site server to disseminate the stolen material. --TS 21:59, 30 November 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.

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.

---

While suggestions to improve the article are welcome, this discussion has degenerated into a discussion concerning an arbitration case completely unrelated to this article. Such discussion, if appropriate, should continue elsewhere. I suggest that the original proposer try "rebooting" his proposal in a separate section untainted by discussion of the arbcom case. --TS 22:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the suggestions in Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles may also work for this article

The essay Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles was not written with this sort of article in mind. However, it seems to me that sticking to many of the points made there would work a lot better than the way things are going so far here. Count Iblis (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific ones in mind? --GoRight (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with point 1 and reformulate it slightly to make the wording more relavant to this type of article:

Check any statements you intend to insert into an article. Determine on what assumptions the validity of the statement depends. To find out, you may need to study other sources. If you find that the statement is valid only within a specific context, you should take the effort find out what this context is, and to include that context in the article.

This e.g. means that claims of scientific fraud should always be made in the context of an a priori assumption that the scientists were deceiving everyone and that has to be made explicit in this article. Count Iblis (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

??Did you mean "a priori assumption that the scientists were not deceiving"?--SPhilbrickT 16:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question. --GoRight (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read the hacked emals, the interpretation of what you read depends on certain assumptions. Those assumptions have to be made explicit. If a source says X, then it is usually not as simple as that. What are the assumptions that the source assumes under which statement X is valid? Count Iblis (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Editing scientific articles#Proposed policy — this proposal is being pushed by about 3 crackpots (several of whom are under Arbcom sanction) and has been rejected by everyone else in the community. Count Iblis's post here constitutes trolling. *** Crotalus *** 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not constitute trolling. Wikipedia's Kindergarten mentality (which is all too apperant in this article's talk page) was a factor in the rejection of the essay. If Arbcom members, most of whom in real life are lawyers who know little about science, decide that this person is a crackpot who should not edit physics articles, then what does that tell you about Arbcom's competence? Count Iblis (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Electrical engineering is not physics. A great deal of crackpot "science" occurs when people with some scientific credentials step outside their area of expertise and start throwing their weight around. Linus Pauling (chemist dabbling in pseudomedicine) is perhaps the archetypal example of this. *** Crotalus *** 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Brews ohare has made many positive contributions to Wikipedia. He was wrong about some specific issue about the speed of light. He was sanctioned for dominating the talk pages there too much. But he was treated as if he were a crackpot in all physics topics. Why else the physiucs topic ban and why would his restrictions regarding editing physics articles be far more severe than those imposed on User:David Tombe who was the real crackpot in the room?

This stinks of incompetence by Arbcom and of the wider Wikipedia community. Therefore, arguments like: "This essay has little support" are neither here nor there. It has the support of a few professors who happen to edit the kind of articles in which they are an expert for which it has been useful. It is rejected by the editors who don't edit such articles and are used to playing games with wiki-rules. They see the essay as a threat for obvious reasons.

E.g., User:Jayjg has been one of the strongest opponents of this essay. But what what is exactly the background of this editor? He is someone who has been thousands times more disruptive than anything Brews ohare or Likebox may have done. However, because he edits in the realm of politics topics, he gets off with a minor slap on the wrist. Note that he even abused his Administrative tools and he is still an Admin.

You have to wonder if User:RickK was right all along about Wikipedia when he left in frustration in 2005. Count Iblis (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Is Jayjg a problematic editor? Absolutely! Which is why ArbCom placed restrictions on his editing on subjects that he couldn't handle in a neutral manner. (And I personally would have been in favor of even harsher sanctions in that case.) But that doesn't justify other forms of biased editing, by different editors on other articles and policy pages. The fact is that this essay is a dagger aimed at the heart of WP:NOR, inviting editors to "sort out the scientific issues from first principles" (that's a direct quote from WP:ESCA). Every crackpot claims that their positions can be proven from first principles — so accepting this essay means that WP:NOR would lose all meaning with regards to scientific topics, and it would be open season for Wikipedia editors to push their own idiosyncratic POVs. *** Crotalus *** 19:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first principles are always the relevant first principles as can be found in the relevant sources for the article. Crackpots precisely can't argue on such a basis. Another thing is that there isn't that much of a crackpot problem on Wikipedia. There is far more of a problem with editors (ab)using the Wiki rules to defend their POV, as we see on this talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is straying a long way off-topic, and now appears to be focusing on conduct issues of editors who are not involved in editing this article in any way. Focus, please. --TS 19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we strayed off topic. Discussion about WP:ESCA should continue on its own talk page. In this section we can debate whther or not we should edit this article on the basis of WP:ESCA. Count Iblis (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to continue the offtopic discussion but a comment was made here that appears to be clearly untrue based on the evidence at hand (and no evidence was presented to the contrary) so I feel it's only fair to point it out. Of the current WP:Arbcom - User:Carcharoth* education in science, employment involving writing Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Carcharoth/Questions for the candidate#Questions from UninvitedCompany; User:Cool Hand Luke trained as a chemist worked in QC before taking up law Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Cool Hand_Luke/Questions for the candidate#Questions from UninvitedCompany which he is either still studying or just completed, so had a legal background but perhaps not a lawyer yet); User:Coren* sysadmin for 18 years (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate_statements/Coren/Questions for the candidate#Questions from UninvitedCompany); User:John Vandenberg various IT related jobs and training [5]; User:Newyorkbrad* lawyer; User:Risker "work in an administrative capacity where I am a subject matter expert" Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Risker/Questions for the candidate#Questions from UninvitedCompany - responded; User:Roger Davies educated in law/economics but appears to have primarily worked in publishing which has included negotiating contracts but otherwise not primarily in legal areas Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Roger Davies/Questions for the Candidate#Questions from UninvitedCompany; User:Stephen Bain* studying arts/law could be completed by now and even a lawyer but a new one in any case, User:Vassyana/temp* currently a writer, education was primarily in electronics and communication Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Vassyana/Questions for the candidate#Questions from UninvitedCompany; User:Wizardman* student, field not mentioned Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Wizardman/Questions for the candidate#Questions from UninvitedCompany; and of the inactive User:FayssalF education in Business Administration, worked in management, was setting up their own business Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/FayssalF; User:FloNight* former nurse Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for FloNight#Three questions from Carcharoth; & User:Rlevse/playground* sysadmin Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Rlevse/Questions for the candidate#Questions from UninvitedCompany. In other words of the active we only have 1 lawyer, 2 law students, 1 person who has a background in law but who's work has been predominantly outside the legal field, 2 writers, 2 sysadmin or other IT related jobs; 1 administrative work as a subject matter expert, 1 student in an unknown field. Even if for someone reason you want to describe someone who studied law but hasn't really worked in the legal field at all and want to presume that a student who's field you don't know must be studying law, then you still only end up with 5/10 which is most by any normal definition of the word. You may still think this is too many, but that's a different thing. And of course, once you add up the inactive you end up with 5/13. And if we count the 8 who actually took part in the decision who I marked with an asterix * Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Proposed decision we end up with 2/8 or at most 3/8 if you do the student=law student trick. Perhaps the arbcom was mostly 'lawyers' (I'm guessing people are including law students when they make such claims although I'm also guessing law students would be happy to point out they'd likely get into deep shit if they call themselves lawyers) in the past but it's clearly not currently the case and was not the case for the User:Brews ohare case by a long stretch. While I fully accept this claim was simply an error, editors should be careful when making such strong claims and ideally actually research their claims before making them. (Again, I don't wish to discuss other things like whether the current numbers count as too many nor whether the lack of science background arbcom members is a problem.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:59, 30 November 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.

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.

---

We're not about to link to partisan sources that carry purported copies of stolen documents. We're an encyclopedia.

Databases of CRU Documents

Following are links to repositories and databases of the CRU emails and documentsDLH (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• ClimateGate Document Database
• US ClimateGate Coverage
• EastAngliaEmails Searchable

Strongest oppose possible Prohibited external links include "Links to blogs... except those written by a recognized authority." Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Watts Up With That was 2008 Science Blog winner. It has a Technorati Authority of 775. It is in Technorati's top 100 overall, Top 100 Green and Top 100 Science. It has an Alexa reach of 0.014%, more than double that of Realclimate.org. (RealClimate does not appear to be ranked by Technorati). Pajamas Media has 25th in Technorati's ranking with an "authority" of 813. Why are you acting POV by pushing RealClimate and rejecting WattsUpWithThat and Pajamas Media which objectively have much higher Technorati ranking? DLH (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We are not going to be linking to those under any circumstances. WP:LINKVIO prohibits linking to works that are being reproduced in violation of the creator's copyright, which is unquestionably the case in this instance.

Second, links and citations are not determined by Technorati ratings but by Wikipedia policy. RealClimate and Climate Audit are both cited as sources because they are both involved in the hacking incident (RealClimate was hacked, Climate Audit was used by the hacker in a failed attempt to publicise the hack). They are both reliable sources for information about themselves (per WP:SELFPUB). Other blogs are not involved in the affair and have nothing to offer but second-hand commentary, which we cannot include because they do not satisfy the conditions set out in WP:SELFPUB. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Following Climategate outbreak, RealClimate now has a Technorati Authority of 731, up from 605 earlier and lower than the 775 [Technorati Authority of [http:www.WattsUpWithThat.com WattsUpWithThat].DLH (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WattsUpWithThat was DIRECTLY involved in the release of the CRU emails. Whoever obtain the FOIA2009 file first posted it at RealClimate and placed the Its a miracle link to that at WattsUpWithThat Though RealClimate deleted the file, WattsUpWithThat publicized the location of the files and the ongoing development, and was the primary cause that ClimateGate rapidly became public.DLH (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No reliable source says anything about that. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers ongoing news stories, not just themes. e.g. see 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. So both the content and the news development are directly pertinent. Recommend making ClimateGate News vs scientific issues be put into separate entries to break this log jam.DLH (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Exposing corruption and the public interest in AGW global warming override "violation of the creator's copyright". See Wikipedia's Pentagon Papers. This provides direct links to the full documents. These CRU documents are now the subject of civil and criminal investigations and will formally be entered into the public record by legislators and/or courts.DLH (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

First, you presume "corruption" when there is no sign of it in the emails I have read so far. Secondly, as discussed before, copyright does not apply to the Pentagon papers as they are in the public domain as creations of the US federal government. This is definitely not true for the stolen emails and computer code. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you object to the copyright policies of the Wikimedia Foundation then I suggest you complain to them. In the meantime, we have to follow those policies. Copyright violations via hyperlinks are forbidden across all Wikimedia projects, including the English Wikipedia and all other versions of Wikipedia; it's a non-negotiable issue. See m:Copyright. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on linking to the sourced documents themselves, but three big, reputable news organizations have published excerpts of the more widely quoted documents: The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Post (Canada) and The Daily Telegraph. We should be able to quote from the emails and link to any article that quotes them, and perhaps link to the excerpts at the websites of these three newspapers. The authors don't seem to be asserting copyright, and there certainly is no copyright on normal quotes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, note that m:Copyright only says "Providing external links to material in violation of its copyright is discouraged". That doesn't sound like a non-negotiable prohibition to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, it is. Linking to copyright violations is well-established in law as a form of contributory infringement and it is not permitted on Wikipedia. I've had occasion to block a few people for ignoring that prohibition, and admins in general are not sympathetic to wilful copyright violations. It's one of the highest-risk legal issues that Wikipedia faces; the legal penalties are quite draconian. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That may well be true; I'm just surprised that you didn't point to a policy stating this clearly and unambiguously, and would be grateful if you could do so. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LINKVIO may be what you're looking for, then. I pointed to the meta copyright page to illustrate that it's a foundation-level policy, not just something that the English Wikipedia has cooked up. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thanks, though I note with interest the comments about the Wayback Machine. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the legal reasons behind non-linking. However, the cat (email) is out of the bag and freely available elsewhere, so there are no practical privacy reasons anymore. Many will cite ethical and moral grounds, but just as many people will say that the release is normal whistleblowing and thus morally justified. That said, were there any precedents in WP for non-linking linking (e.g., linking to a Google query that produces the desired results?). Current situation seems pretty strange, as the ultimate source of knowledge on the planet refuses to provide perhaps the most reliable information on the subject available today. Dimawik (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is basically the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If other people choose to violate copyright, that's their business, but Wikipedia has its own imperatives. Remember, Wikipedia is not news or a news organisation. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 1 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.

Reliable sources

I'll add some reliable (non-blog) sources below as I find them. These are preformatted so that they can be dropped into the article as needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Hackers target leading climate research unit". BBC News. 20 November 2009.
• Revkin, Andrew C. (20 November 2009). "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute". The New York Times.
• Hickman, Leo; Randerson, James (20 November 2009). "Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists". The Guardian.
• McMillan, Robert (20 November 2009). "Global warming research exposed after hack". Computerworld.
• Staff (21 November 2009). "Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data'". The Daily Telegraph.
• Stringer, David (21 November 2009). "Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate". The Associated Press.
• Webster, Ben (21 November 2009). "Sceptics publish climate e-mails 'stolen from East Anglia University'". The Times.
• "East Anglia University Statement on Hacking of Climate Research Unit Emails". UEA CRU. 21 November 2009. Retrieved 21 November 2009.
• Eilperin, Juliet (21 November 2009). "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center". The Washington Post.
• Macrae, Fiona (21 November 2009). "Hackers 'expose global warming con': Sceptics claim that leaked emails reveal research centre massaged temperature data". Daily Mail.
• Johnson, Keith (21 November 2009). "Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor". Wall Street Journal.
• Eilperin, Juliet (22 November 2009). "In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes". The Washington Post.
• Overington, Caroline (23 November 2009). "Hackers expose climate brawl". The Australian.
• Hickman, Leo (23 November 2009). "Climate change champion and sceptic both call for inquiry into leaked emails". The Guardian.
  • Climate change scepticism A dedicated news site of The Guardian. Seems to follow the case quite closely.

Google now has quite a few stories on this now...its gone "mainstream" google.Smallman12q (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but note that many of the articles listed by Google are from blogs and other non-reliable sources; some care needs to be taken here. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a cite to BBC for the name "Climategate": 'Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications, by Paul Hudson. Called a blog, but appears to be one of the exceptions we can use, "blog" by RS. It's an important source, as it confirms the authenticity of many of the "hacked" emails: "The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic." -- Pete Tillman (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Personal comments on the blog of a TV weather presenter to not constitute a reliable source.

In Mr. Hudson's blog post of 23 November[6] can be found his personal attestation to the effect that "I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October." This should be acknowledged in the Wikipedia article on Climategate if only because it gives good reason to understand that the data dump from the UEA/CRU server had occurred more than a month before 17 November, on which date someone is alleged to have hacked into the RealClimate Web site and uploaded this archive. For those inclined for some odd reason to wish that the Wikipedia reader believe this hacking/insider exposure to have occurred in mid-November rather than sometime prior, it should be remembered that Mr. Hudson's statement is that of a BBC employee speaking by way of a BBC Web site. Can there be any more "reliable source" in the MSM than such an individual reporting in such a forum? 71.125.155.89 (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And if you read his later post[7], you will find that he was CC'd or Bcc'd the correspondence ("and I was copied in to them at the time") - this has nothing to do with the hacking. (to me more clear: He received the emails as part of the correspondence). So your assertion/speculation that the site was hacked more than a month before - is entirely without substance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If that were the case, the blog Realclimate.org ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate ) would not constitue reliable source due to it being a website of personal comments (IE BLOG) but we all know how hallowed that blog site seams to be.--97.92.93.161 (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Realclimate blog reference should be removed, per reliable source rules. Alister Kinkaid (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Sock puppet blocked.[8]

Here's a "blog" as reliable as any, which is usually to say very when coming from about any professional person. Tom Perkins 2009/11/24, 14:04 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.212.7 (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Varying Concerns About Climate Files Revkin has another update at the NYT. This looks more blog-like than the first one though, so maybe it should be excluded. Thoughts? Ignignot (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• It looks to me as if [9] is a reliable source for something like BBC climate correspondant Paul Hudson stated that he received the chain of e-mails on 12 October. Similarly [10] would be a reliable source for something like RealClimate contributor Gavin Schmidt stated that someone placed the FOIA.zip file on the RealClimate server in the early morning of 17 November and it was downloaded four times before being removed. These are neutral statements attributed to individuals which describe the timeline of events without being POV or OR or worrying about BLP. The secondary sources appear to be much less reliable than the factual statements made by the actors involved on their blogs. --Rumping (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular quotes "'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."", Wall Street Journal should be a reliable source, I suggest as an opinion article it fits best in reactions.174.3.145.178 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

PLease consider adding this to the list of reliable sources;

While the name 'climategate' moniker does not appear in the headline, the news article covers the deletion of the 'raw' data ( unadjusted historic temperature records). Such deletions were discussed within the 'climategate' E-mails; indeed, data deletions were threatened therein. RampnatDiselxia (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would we, on this page, talk about stuff that is ~25 years old, i.e. that happened before the formation of the IPCC, at a time when e.g. Michael E. Mann was in high school, and when global warming, while already recognized by scientists, was not a significant topic in the public or political arena? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Rennie, John (30 November 2009). "Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense". Scientific American.

If there were a massive conspiracy to defraud the world on climate (and to what end?), surely the thousands of e-mails and other files stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and distributed by hackers on November 20 would bear proof of it. So far, however, none has emerged. Most of the few statements that critics claim as evidence of malfeasance seem to have more innocent explanations that make sense in the context of scientists conversing privately and informally. It is deplorable if any of the scientists involved did prove to manipulate data dishonestly or thwart Freedom of Information requests; however, it is currently unclear whether that ultimately happened. What is missing is any clear indication of a widespread attempt to falsify and coordinate findings on a scale that could hold together a global cabal or significantly distort the record on climate change.

Although it deals mainly with other questions relating to climate change, as quote above indicates it mentions the CRU data theft, so I thought it might be useful?
—Apis (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal Regarding statement characterizing the vast majority of the email

The Contents section has the following sentence:

The vast majority of the mail was innocuous plain scientific correspondence.

I submit that this sentence has several problems:

1. It is irrelevant to the issue.
2. It is Original Research. Short of an accepted definition of the term "scientific correspondence" or a reliable source using this wording, it should not be here
3. It is unsourced.

Option 1

• Leave it in if someone can find a reliable source to support the claim, and if talk page consensus can agree on why this claim really is relevant to the article. (But change "mail" to "email" "e-mail" )

Option 2

• Remove it, as unsourced

Option 3

• Reword it to resolve the irrelevancy problem, and possible rewording if the best available citation doesn't support this exact wording. (But change "mail" to "email" "e-mail")

My current preference is Option 2, but I'd like to hear discussion of why other options might be better.--SPhilbrickT 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait - We can't find a source that says most of the conversations were mundane conversations (or words to that effect)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with 2, see my earlier proposal Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Tiny proportion?. To A Quest: yes we cannot, as the WMC team would not allow us to refer to actual emails :-). On a serious note: there is a strong suspicion that the archive was originally prepared as a response to an FOI request by one of the skeptics, so all emails - at least in the eye of the preparer - must be somehow related to the controversy. Dimawik (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We might be able to find such a statement. However, what does it add to the article? The vast majority of a puffer fish is edible, but that's hardly relevant if the discussion is about whether parts of a puffer fish are toxic.--SPhilbrickT 04:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is, actually, because it provides context -- we care about whether a puffer fish has toxic bits because they're used as food. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"...vast majority..." and "...innocuous plain..." are value judgements not supported by a reliable source. This needs to be removed, and we need to reference a summary of the e-mail provided by multiple reliable sources. GardiaP (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

"Climate skeptics claim a few bits extracted from those generally innocuous discussions among climate scientists – misunderstood or taken out of context – constitute a scandal" [11]. ► RATEL ◄ 08:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece by a columnist who believes in AGW; thus value of it is less than WMC's OR (granted, WMC is personally involved in controversy, but he is a science practitioner, so he understands the links better). Dimawik (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, we should be using e-mail not email per Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 1#E-mail/email IMHO. (I mentioned engvar there, I haven't actually worked out what the first contributor expressing a preference used, the first contributor here used both and is a banned sock but the UoEA used e-mail in their quote we cite which is probably a good a reason as any.) The article appears to use both at the moment for consistency all non quote, non title usages should be changed to e-mail. Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of the hacked correspondence is innocuous. Without that statement or a similar characterization, the relevant section of the article would be giving a distorted and very selective view of the content of the hacked material. If we change it we should take care to do so in a way that doesn't unbalance the article. --TS 18:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion they are innocuous. We rely on reliable sources here at Wikipedia. GardiaP (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

It's a fact that they're innocuous. Of over 1000 emails only a few have raised any concern at all. --TS 23:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You (and I) cannot make this judgment here about the vastness. This is simply your (and WMC's) opinion. I will repeat my opposite position: it is highly probable that the archive was compiled inside CRU as an answer to an FOI request. If so, almost all emails should have something to do with the controversy in the eyes of the person doing the compilation; we just do not know enough of insider information to understand the link. Therefore, until reliable sources (outside of CRU) tell us otherwise, I would not agree to classify a majority of emails as innocuous. This will be an original research at its finest. Dimawik (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pure speculation, whereas the fact that most of the emails are uncontroversial is obvious, by virtue of the fact that they have provoked no controversy. --TS 00:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not challenging that most of the content of the e-mails is innocuous. But what is the value in mentioning it? Is it a piece of information that a reader might not otherwise know? There seems to be insistence on it being a fact, but as we all know, WP is not an indiscriminate collections of facts. It's a fact that the word "university" is contained in the e-mails, but I hope we would all agree it would be silly to include if even if sourced.

So far, no one has offered a source supporting the current wording, and the one source offered appears to be an opinion piece. Does anyone want to offer alternative wording with a good source, or should we simply delete the reference. --SPhilbrickT 00:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Sphilbrick, I do challenge the line of thought "no one commented so far means it is innocuous". I tried to read the archive from the beginning, and the very first letter (Thursday, 7 March 1996 08:41:07; Filename: 826209667.txt) was quite controversial; it was a request to Keith Briffa from a Russian researcher named Tatiana M. Dedkova to make the grant payment into her personal account to avoid Russian taxes. The press right now is concentrating on the most amazing soundbites, but there is a lot of juicy details lurking underneath the unturned stones, it seems. Dimawik (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with its removal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dimawik's challenge is pure WP:OR which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Dimawik admits as much with the comment that "The press right now is concentrating on the most amazing soundbites, but there is a lot of juicy details lurking underneath the unturned stones".

Dimawik, in order for something to even be considered to be including in Wikipedia, it must be published from reliable sources. Our own personal opinions and personal research are irrelevant. Instead, we must find reliable sources who have said such a thing, and the more reliable sources you find, the better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear A Quest, There must be some misunderstanding. I did not suggest my OR to be included into the article, quite the opposite, I wanted (and still want) for the "innocuous" OR by WMC deleted from it. All I expected to show with my example is that the statement by TS the fact that most of the emails are uncontroversial is not just far from obvious but is quite possibly incorrect. We are allowed by the WP rules to provide our own view of the sources on the talk page. Dimawik (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe we're in violent disagreement. I'm fine with the sentence being removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Time to remove unsourced material

{{editprotected}} Upthread here I initiated a discussion of an unsourced statement in the article.

WP Policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability is quite clear:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

1. I'm challenging it
2. It has no source

I request that an admin remove it. (The usual requirement that modifications to a protected page require strong consensus before acting do not apply to blatant violations of policy.)

Edited here to add the sentence in question so any sysop looking here doesn't have to follow the link: The vast majority of the mail was innocuous plain scientific correspondence.

TS expressed concern that removal would create distortion. While no one concurred, if that is a legitimate concern, we should immediately discuss ways to add cited material to address the concern, but the unsourced material should be removed immediately.--SPhilbrickT 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we can remove the text if we can replace it with a statement along the lines, "of more than 1000 stolen emails dealing mostly with the business of the Unit, a small number have generated controversy." I do think the text would be unbalanced if we didn't set the controversy in perspective. --TS 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One would need to give a citation for that. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. We already cite the small number of emails that have caused controversy. Job done. --TS 19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, one would need to cite an independent and reliable source for the assertion "a small number have generated controversy." Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No. If we only have reliable sources for controversies arising from a small number of the emails, and we know the number of emails. then the statement that "out of over 1,000 emails, a few have generated controversy" is an appropriate and well-sourced summary of the facts. --TS 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be your own original research (synthesis) since, say, editors may have missed sources dealing with other emails, or may not be allowing cites to widely read blogs dealing with other emails and indeed stirring controversy, as those blogs may not otherwise be taken as reliable sources here. If an assertion is made, it must be very straightforwardly and wholly attributed to an independent, reliable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that this sentence should go. Your new sentence should be backed by a reliable secondary source(s) if it should be included. Nsaa (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. After reading this discussion I agree that the statement should be removed and have done so. If consensus emerges for an alternative sentence, please replace the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Image

Image:Climategate.jpg (FOX news screenshot displaying the term "Climategate".)

Here is an image I think we could use. --Duchamps_comb MFA 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not?--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion on "23:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC), Non-free image, no earthly chance of inclusion in an article, no justification for use" Thanks Tony Sidaway. --Duchamps_comb MFA 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice picture documenting that a major tv network uses it. Maybe a section in the article named Name where this article is referenced in an explanation on when it was first used, etc Climategate: how the 'greatest scientific scandal of our generation' got its name (http://www.webcitation.org/5lesgkqXp). Nsaa (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content. Your upload is not remotely compliant with the criteria for fair use. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't edit others post like you did here. That's not proper behavior. Nsaa (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the image from this talk page as a copyright violation. Please don't restore it again or I will have to report you. Wilfully violating copyright will earn you a block. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The image named "climategate.jpg" that keeps being removed form this talk section can be seen here [12]. I am not Willfully violating copyright, the main Licensing is under a screen shot. Please allow the Administrators to do their jobs.

• This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots:

• for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents.

--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use picture should never be used on talk pages. In any case there is good reason to believe that it doesn't even qualify as fair use. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please show ignorant people like me where this is stated? Nsaa (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, criterion 9: "Non-free content is allowed only in articles". Images are only considered FU if they meet all ten criteria. This one violates at least four of them. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It should not be removed but linked (as stated in the paragraph above "images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion"). Nsaa (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Modification of original screenshot Please describe the modifications you made to this image. The graphics in the foreground do not match the graphics in the background, as one would expect. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no modifications except contrast and saturation. I dislike your tone in assuming bad faith. The background has books behind his head, and a window to the right of the frame everything else is just graphics and the pundit. If you have a problem with the graphics I suggest you contact Fox news. --Duchamps_comb MFA 03:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The image doesn't belong on Wikipedia and it doesn't belong in this article. If you have a secondary source talking about the unique nature of Fox News' treatment and coverage of this subject, then yes, you might have a reason to add it. But, you don't. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello tiger thanks for your input. The image shows the MSM calling the incident "climateghate" there is no need to have a secondary source for Fox News' coverage. There are 100s of news articles that will attest to the term in the headlines. Your Wikilawyering is really quite astonishing. Please try to find ways to respect and incorporate others' viewpoints and material as well as your own --Duchamps_comb MFA 06:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Google test 34,100 hits for "ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox". Just one example [13]--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Blog. Yawn. Come back when you have something other than blogospheric hysteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One reason for using a fair use image is if that's the only source of information. The image is not needed because there are plenty of other sources, one of which is Fox News's web site, so the Fox News image is not needed due to Fox News. U.S. News & World Report's Education staff says "Take "Climategate" at Penn State. That's what people are calling the controversy surrounding leaked E-mails among climate change researchers that climate change opponents say expose the researchers' falsification of data."usnews.com Or pick over the Google News "climategate" headlines for an acceptable source. Remove the headline restriction for a wider selection, but that includes comments so you'll have to confirm that the term is in the body of the article. I don't like the term either, and came here once to remove it, but as U.S. News mentions we're stuck with it thanks to Watergate. -- SEWilco (talk)

Readability

The structure of this article is hard to follow if you have not heard about the incident before. Most of the reactions to the "incident" are quite uninteresting, and hard to understand if you have not read the documents. The article over and over again refers to some emails, but the reader does not have a clue about the content about these emails until the very last section. Concrete suggestions:

• Move the last section "Content of the documents" up, and put it immediately after section 1.
• In the article lead, summarize the content of the most discussed quote from these documents, and the response to the accusations. (Which is the most discussed quote? The first mentioned? Google hit statistics might help.)
• The article lead should exemplify some of the most common or severe arguments from both sides. The word "conspiracy theory" should therefore be mentioned in the article lead, since this is the main criticism against the alleged incident. Mange01 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly a knee-jerk reaction, but when I see a proposal to include a reference to "conspiracy theory", my immediate reaction is to oppose. The term gets thrown around all too quickly, and I don't think we should join the crowd without very solid evidence.--SPhilbrickT 15:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We're not going to treat those pushing a conspiracy theory as "the other side" that needs to be "balanced". That isn't how neutral point of view works. --TS 19:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Magne01's first bullet point. The "Content of the documents" section is not in the right place. As it stands, the "Reactions" section comes before the "Content" section, which is crazy. How are readers supposed to understand the reactions when they don't know what the content is? In fact, it used to be before the "Reactions" section but somebody moved it. Can we please move it back to where it used to be? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It was originally before "Reactions". I moved it to the end because it seemed to me that we hadn't enough analysis of the actual content of the articles at the time. Even now the section on content is sketchy, and there is a strong emphasis on what little controversial material exists in the dump. In my opinion it's still in the correct place. The significance of this event is primarily the attempt through criminal means to make a political splash before Copenhagen, and the various reactions by different parties. With some rare exceptions, the content seems to have little import. --TS 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your opinion that WP:RS haven't done enough analysis is irrelevant. We're supposed to write articles based on what WP:RS have to say about a subject, not based on our personal opinions. WP:RS don't bury the content of the e-mails to the very end of their articles; neither should we. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually our editorial judgement ("opinion", if you prefer) is relevant. It's my editorial judgement that the actual content, as analysed so far, isn't a major part of the story. If our reliable sources were leading lots of their stories on the content of the emails then we wouldn't have trouble writing about them. They're not doing that, so our article shouldn't place a heavy emphasis on the content. --TS 11:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the content of the e-mails is the major part of the story. Have you read how WP:RS are covering the story? Here are just a few:

Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists

Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute

Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate

Stolen E-Mails Sharpen a Brawl Between Climate Scientists and Skeptics A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Credibility

To improve the credibility of the article, the affiliation of the referred authors should be clarified. Which of them claim a world-wide conspiracy among climate researchers? Which are affiliated with what political party, company, country or newspaper= Mange01 (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Which of them claim a world-wide conspiracy among climate researchers?" Well, which?? Don't leave us in suspense ;-] --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article as it stands, for instance, we have a comment from Myron Ebell alleging "unethical conniving". However it would not be appropriate to give undue weight to these accusations so detailed analysis would be inappropriate. The conspiracy nonsense is in the vast number of comments you can read on blogs and news websites that are not going to make it into this article because they're, quite frankly, incredible. --TS 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Nice and simple, I've created Climate Research (journal). Can a link be added to this article? Cheers

PS any help with finding out more about the journal would be great. :) Smartse (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification requested: where, exactly, should the link be added? Is there consensus for this addition? Please reactivate the editprotected template when consensus has been reached. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We haven't actually discussed it yet. I'd rather not add a reference to a completely new article, particularly if the person announcing its creation is using smilies (sorry, but that doesn't inspire confidence in its quality). --TS 19:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I red linked this article earlier, but someone obviously thought it wise to remove it. I suggest changing this: "In one e-mail, as a response to an email indicating that a paper in the scientific journal Climate Research had questioned assertions..." to "In one e-mail, as a response to an email indicating that a paper in the scientific journal Climate Research had questioned assertions..." -Atmoz (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, a new article to argue about! Seriously, as long as it's not AfDed, we should WikiLink the mention of Climate Research in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

:) Sorry for being happy! I didn't think adding a wikilink really needed consensus - if the article exists then why not link to it? Admittedly there isn't a great deal of info around about the journal but it is a notable journal in itself and I feel if more could be found out about the journal then it would place the comments in this article in a greater context. It certainly isn't finished which is why I asked if someone could help out in improving it. I should have been more specific with the request, Atmoz's suggestion would be great. I'll let someone add the {{editprotected}} if you agree with this. Smartse (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no substantial objection to linking this article. Let's go ahead if there are no objections. --TS 01:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Since nobody seems to object to the proposed wiki-linking, could an admin please perform the edit suggested by Atmoz above at 21:10? --TS 02:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done - 2/0 (cont.) 04:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Smartse (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

IPCC co-author Eduardo Zorita

NOTE: Material in this section was originally in two separate sections on the same subject which I have merged, so a bit of duplication may be evident. --TS 12:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Eduardo Zorita, Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, specialist in Paleoclimatology, Review Editor of Climate Research and IPCC co-author has on his site published the following CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process (http://www.webcitation.org/5ldKoftbO). Should this be worked into the article? Nsaa (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, at least not yet. We need some third-party reliable sources cover it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Quest For Knowledge (talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Will this [14] do? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, columns, op-eds, editorials and other opinion sources are only reliable as to the writers opinion. Note btw. that Booker gets Zorita's nationality and/or location wrong[15], which doesn't reflect well on the general reliability of Booker's column. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it somehow controversial that Zorita actually wrote what is written on his site? Are you challenging that Eduardo Zorita really said that Mann et al should be banned from the IPCC? Why isn't including Zorita's opinion a reliable source about Zorita's opinion? I hope not because that would get you into strange conspiracy territory. TMLutas (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Zorita blog entry seems to be popular with bloggers and opinion columnists but so far doesn't seem to have hit the mainstream news. This is a matter of editorial judgement, but as we're already got way too much opinion and way too few facts in the article and this reaction doesn't seem to have hit the mainstream I'm not pressing for its inclusion. --TS 11:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process - Eduardo Zorita, November 2009 [16] ,not only worth the read, but also should be inclded under the reaction section of the article.

Zorita is one of Mann's IPCC co-authors. WVBluefield (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely worth reading, but it clearly doesn't meet the requirements of reliable sources. If he is interviewed by a reliable source, and the results are published, then the issue could be revisited.--SPhilbrickT 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Do these count? [17], [18], [19], [20]. WVBluefield (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Add [21] blog written by an employee of the paper, and RS as to this sort of thing, to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

People, please adhere to WP:RS and WP:BLP. Opinion sources may never be used for anything other than the opinion of the writer of the opinion source. It certainly can't be used as a reference to someone else's opinion. This btw. is already an open subject above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Which means Zorita's blog can be used as a source for his personal opinion. Right? Collect (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really - since as has been noted above it hasn't been addressed in a reliable source. If it is a notable opinion then it will be cited in a reliable source at some point... please remember that we haven't got a deadline here, so we can afford to wait to find out if its notable or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are only acceptable sources for statements of fact if they are under the full editorial control of the newspaper. Do we know for a fact which of these blogs are under the editorial control of their paper? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinion sources (columns,editorials,op-ed's,...), no matter if they are published in a normally reliable source or not, are not reliable to anything other than the authors opinion. Which in most cases is enough, since when these are usually used, they are about something that the author has expertise knowledge about (or is a notable commenter on). They are never reliable to BLP material (which another persons opinion is). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, personal blogs from the person whose BLP concerns are involved, are generally allowed. He is talking about his own opinion only, and a person is a valid source as to their own opinion. In fact, they are quite likely the most reliable source as to their own opinion. Collect (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as i replied to AQfK i missed your reference to his own blog - but the first comment still applies... We still need secondary reliable sources to gauge its importance/notability. If it is notable, we'll get it, if its not then so be it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Where on Earth Are the Reactions of The Daily Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, etc…?!

I am appalled to see how pro-political correctness this article is. You will forgive me for making this section so long, but 80 to 90% of the article as it now stands is apologia ("Oh it wasn't that bad…") by the scientists or for the scientists (better call them the "scientists" with quotation marks) and the rare doubters are referred to with what can only be called derogatory expressions (no, "climate change skeptic" is not as innocuous as it sounds). The least that can be done is to add the following — or at least excerpts from the following:

"The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start" is the subtitle of an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. "The response to this among the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science we've got. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. … Even so, by rigging the rules, they've made it impossible to know how good it really is. And then, one is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place, if their science is as robust as they claim."

"This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation" writes Christopher Booker in the Daily Telegraph. "There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach … is the highly disturbing series of emails … The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to 'adjust' recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming … The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports."

"The stakes are incredibly high" says Paul Driessen, author of "Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death". The alarmists’ "bogus, biased 'science' is being used to justify expensive, intrusive, repressive, abusive treaties, laws and regulations. The new rules would undermine economies, destroy jobs, close down companies and entire industries, impoverish families and communities, roll back personal freedoms and civil rights – and enrich the lucky few whose lobbyists and connections enable them to corner markets for renewable energy technologies, carbon offsets and emissions trading."

I repeat: I am not trying to editorialize; in order to provide a balance between pro and con, these pieces (or excerpts therefrom) need to be added to the reactions section. The way it stands now is a travesty! Asteriks (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Once this article is unlocked, there will be a great deal of material that is re-added. While I though the sp-protection was probably warranted, I cannot fathom why it was given full protection. Sure there was edit warring from individuals who were bound and determined to OWN|control the article and wipe it clean of sourced material, but if this was so damaging, why were there no blokes given for the edit warring? Its high time the protection was lifted and a real enforcement effort was made to smack down the edit warriors who are all too quick to revert and far too slow to talk. WVBluefield (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

While discussion of the press coverage is part of the story, the main story is the hacking and the reactions of major parties (as reported by the press). The Telegraph is among the sources cited, and so is the Wall Street Journal. The editorials opinions of those newspapers, however prominent, are relatively minor parts of a larger picture. Wikipedia is not news, and editorial opinions are not as important as the newspapers might want them to be. --TS 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia strives to be a respected encyclopedia and articles are supposed to be based primarily on third-party reliable sources. As such, I am against including every mudslinging opinion-piece from politicians and political pundits – regardless of which side of the fence they sit on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

response to email from the blog

Copied from Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Subpage by - 2/0 (cont.) 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

it is not quite clear to me who is responding in whose name? was a 'blogger' also the author of the email? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody understand the question? I've asked for further clarification on the subpage. --TS 02:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Subpage by - TS 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

email from this section. who is the author of the blog post 'response'? who is the author of the email? same person(s)? or different ones. if different, why is a response relevant? why not include other responses also? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

also, i don't understand why is there a separate 'emails' section, when criticism in 'incident' section deals also with emails. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The source referenced in our article indicates that the blockquote from the RealClimate blog is a "group" post, authored by several of the RealClimate bloggers.

The emails section you refer to is part of a general section dealing with the actual content, or rather, analysis of the content, of the stolen and leaked documents. Several of the reactions to the incident refer in more general terms to the emails, so they're mentioned there too. --TS 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Subpage by - TS 11:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

is anyone from this "group" author of the email? if not, why is their response more relevant than responses of some other scientists? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

i think that analysis of some scientists of the part of content that deals with deleting data in light of Freedom of Information requests is far more relevant than analysis of the decline of temperatures... 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC?

This entire disaster area is slowly spreading onto edit wars o a variety of pages and I'm not convinced it will get better of itself. One argument is to hope the media storm a fickle skeptic interest will pass onto the next bauble; but more likey not. So rather than fight the same arguments across n different talk pages and 3RR reports it would probably be better to have one RFC (before we proceed on to the inevitable arbcomm case). Anyone feel like starting it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly might provide all these newcomers with a single place to put their questions about why Wikipedia doesn't reflect the views of their favorite blogs, TV stations, newspapers and whatnot. --TS 22:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are different criticisms

As we write this article, we should be cognizant of the fact that there are several types of criticisms involved. One the one end, you have respected scientists such as Eduardo Zoria and journalist George Monbiot who aren't criticizing the science of AGW, but are criticizing the actions of Jones, Mann, etc.. One the other extreme, you have the conspiracy theorists who think AGW is a hoax. And there are people who criticize the science behind AGW but don’t believe scientists are intentionally cooking the data. We should be careful not to lump all these people together into one group. Just something to keep in mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Which calls for better subdivision of the page, something Tony Sideway vehemently opposes. ► RATEL ◄ 01:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't vehemently oppose--or indeed merely oppose--better subdivision. I've agreed that some forms of subdivision could work. However I've strongly opposed dividing matters up in any kind of adversarial way because that would cause undue weight to be paid to fringe points of view. I don't think Quest is suggesting such a subdivision, and I think he's had another good idea. --TS 02:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Crime

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.

---

There's enough soap on this page already. -Atmoz (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Yes, stealing emails is a crime. Not as big a crime as bypassing the data protection act, threatening the reputation of other scientists and lying about global warming so that they can bring in cap and trade taxes to fund the new world order. Let's get things in perspective here.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is about the content of the Wikipedia article. Please remain on topic. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the new world order?
—Apis (talk) 00:15, 3 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.

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.

---

We're not about to link to partisan sources that carry purported copies of stolen documents. We're an encyclopedia.

Databases of CRU Documents

Following are links to repositories and databases of the CRU emails and documentsDLH (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• ClimateGate Document Database
• US ClimateGate Coverage
• EastAngliaEmails Searchable

Strongest oppose possible Prohibited external links include "Links to blogs... except those written by a recognized authority." Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Watts Up With That was 2008 Science Blog winner. It has a Technorati Authority of 775. It is in Technorati's top 100 overall, Top 100 Green and Top 100 Science. It has an Alexa reach of 0.014%, more than double that of Realclimate.org. (RealClimate does not appear to be ranked by Technorati). Pajamas Media has 25th in Technorati's ranking with an "authority" of 813. Why are you acting POV by pushing RealClimate and rejecting WattsUpWithThat and Pajamas Media which objectively have much higher Technorati ranking? DLH (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We are not going to be linking to those under any circumstances. WP:LINKVIO prohibits linking to works that are being reproduced in violation of the creator's copyright, which is unquestionably the case in this instance.

Second, links and citations are not determined by Technorati ratings but by Wikipedia policy. RealClimate and Climate Audit are both cited as sources because they are both involved in the hacking incident (RealClimate was hacked, Climate Audit was used by the hacker in a failed attempt to publicise the hack). They are both reliable sources for information about themselves (per WP:SELFPUB). Other blogs are not involved in the affair and have nothing to offer but second-hand commentary, which we cannot include because they do not satisfy the conditions set out in WP:SELFPUB. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Following Climategate outbreak, RealClimate now has a Technorati Authority of 731, up from 605 earlier and lower than the 775 [Technorati Authority of [http:www.WattsUpWithThat.com WattsUpWithThat].DLH (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WattsUpWithThat was DIRECTLY involved in the release of the CRU emails. Whoever obtain the FOIA2009 file first posted it at RealClimate and placed the Its a miracle link to that at WattsUpWithThat Though RealClimate deleted the file, WattsUpWithThat publicized the location of the files and the ongoing development, and was the primary cause that ClimateGate rapidly became public.DLH (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No reliable source says anything about that. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers ongoing news stories, not just themes. e.g. see 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. So both the content and the news development are directly pertinent. Recommend making ClimateGate News vs scientific issues be put into separate entries to break this log jam.DLH (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Exposing corruption and the public interest in AGW global warming override "violation of the creator's copyright". See Wikipedia's Pentagon Papers. This provides direct links to the full documents. These CRU documents are now the subject of civil and criminal investigations and will formally be entered into the public record by legislators and/or courts.DLH (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

First, you presume "corruption" when there is no sign of it in the emails I have read so far. Secondly, as discussed before, copyright does not apply to the Pentagon papers as they are in the public domain as creations of the US federal government. This is definitely not true for the stolen emails and computer code. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you object to the copyright policies of the Wikimedia Foundation then I suggest you complain to them. In the meantime, we have to follow those policies. Copyright violations via hyperlinks are forbidden across all Wikimedia projects, including the English Wikipedia and all other versions of Wikipedia; it's a non-negotiable issue. See m:Copyright. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on linking to the sourced documents themselves, but three big, reputable news organizations have published excerpts of the more widely quoted documents: The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Post (Canada) and The Daily Telegraph. We should be able to quote from the emails and link to any article that quotes them, and perhaps link to the excerpts at the websites of these three newspapers. The authors don't seem to be asserting copyright, and there certainly is no copyright on normal quotes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, note that m:Copyright only says "Providing external links to material in violation of its copyright is discouraged". That doesn't sound like a non-negotiable prohibition to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, it is. Linking to copyright violations is well-established in law as a form of contributory infringement and it is not permitted on Wikipedia. I've had occasion to block a few people for ignoring that prohibition, and admins in general are not sympathetic to wilful copyright violations. It's one of the highest-risk legal issues that Wikipedia faces; the legal penalties are quite draconian. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That may well be true; I'm just surprised that you didn't point to a policy stating this clearly and unambiguously, and would be grateful if you could do so. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LINKVIO may be what you're looking for, then. I pointed to the meta copyright page to illustrate that it's a foundation-level policy, not just something that the English Wikipedia has cooked up. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thanks, though I note with interest the comments about the Wayback Machine. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the legal reasons behind non-linking. However, the cat (email) is out of the bag and freely available elsewhere, so there are no practical privacy reasons anymore. Many will cite ethical and moral grounds, but just as many people will say that the release is normal whistleblowing and thus morally justified. That said, were there any precedents in WP for non-linking linking (e.g., linking to a Google query that produces the desired results?). Current situation seems pretty strange, as the ultimate source of knowledge on the planet refuses to provide perhaps the most reliable information on the subject available today. Dimawik (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is basically the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If other people choose to violate copyright, that's their business, but Wikipedia has its own imperatives. Remember, Wikipedia is not news or a news organisation. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 1 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.

External Links

Recommend an External Links section for major links to further information in the following sections. Please extend as appropriate. Recommend leading blogs be on at least a 100% increase in web traffic between Nov 17 and Nov 20, 2009 (or traffic increase to 200% of base).DLH (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Blogs leading ClimateGate

• Watts Up With That
• Real Climate
• Climate Audit
• CAmirror
• Climate Depot
• Bishop Hill
• Andrew Revkin Dot Earth

ClimateGate Aglomerators

• ClimateGate
• ClimateDepot

Blog Traffic

The tripling of WattsUpWithThat.com is the key story in spreading this information. The traffic increases in RealClimate and ClimateAudit followed. See the 350% increase in WattsUpWithThat traffic at Alexa which was about a third higher than RealClimate.org and ClimateAudit.orgDLH (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Of all the above, only RealClimate and possibly ClimateAudit have any relevance to this article, and those will be referred to if appropriate in the references. Wikipedia won't be adding a list of the above type to any article on scientific matters. --TS 02:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO, blogs (except those written by a recognized authority) are links to be avoided. RealClimate is already in the cites, so it shouldn't be an external link either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wattsupwiththat.com was not involved in the incident. It's just an opinion blog, and not one that we would ever regard as reliable except for the opinion of the blog owner, a former weatherman. Its blog traffic is not material to this story. --TS 11:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions from blogs, columns and editorials by people not directly involved in the incident

Although the opinions of some people and organisations are highly relevant, such as those of involved parties like the CRU (obviously) or RealClimate (also targeted by the hacker attack), some of the cited opinions seems less relevant. I think we need to consider carefully what and whose opinions to cite, so as to not introduce bias (by only citing those critical of AGW for example). We need to establish that the notability of the person is relevant to this case and to the opinion expressed. We should also consider weight, so that we do not cite an unreasonable proportion of opinions from one side of the issue. I'm rather sceptical to most of the opinions that have been cited throughout the article history, and I don't think an encyclopaedia article should read like a list of opinions expressed by different commentators. Shouldn't the article primarily try to reflect well established facts, supported by reliable sources (and in these cases blogs and opinion pieces cant be used as RS at all of course). I think this should be kept in mind before citing even more opinion pieces.
—Apis (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think an encyclopaedia article should read like a list of opinions expressed by different commentators." - Interesting. If this is the case, Apis, perhaps you could visit Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and see about cleaning that up as well. It's a mess. --GoRight (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be the whole point of the article so it seems reasonable there. I'm not going to put that page up for deletion if that's what you are suggesting. As I (think I) said, some opinions might be relevant, but not every opinion from whoever happens to write an editorial on the subject. It's not what I would expect to find if I where to look up the subject in for example the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
—Apis (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That article is about the scientific opinion, and it doesn't list the opinion of individual (cherry picked) scientists. Other articles shouldn't be discussed here, if you have any concerns with another article, you should take it up on that articles talk page.
—Apis (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Apis. The addition of screeds of ill-informed waffle, from both sides of the argument (Monbiot comes to mind), tends to obfuscate rather than illuminate the salient facts. Perhaps all opinions should be relegated to the bottom of the page, signifying minor importance, and facts (just the facts, ma'am) should hold pole position. ► RATEL ◄ 01:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this is "relevant", essentially, to everybody on the planet. It isn't only an article about science, it's just as much an article about public policy research. Anything that attracts so much editorial comment from so many obviously should have a representative sample of that comment. We should favor various things in picking that representative sample, and some of the things we should favor are editorials from major newspapers and other highly respected or influential commentators, comment from various points of view and comment from scientists and others particularly knowledgeable. Here's an interesting one: [22]

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. [...] Remember that this is not an academic exercise. We contemplate outlays of trillions of dollars to fix this supposed problem. Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot. These people are willing to subvert the very methods--notably, peer review -- that underwrite the integrity of their discipline. Is this really business as usual in science these days? If it is, we should demand higher standards -- at least whenever "the science" calls for a wholesale transformation of the world economy. And maybe some independent oversight to go along with the higher standards. The IPCC process needs to be fixed, as a matter of the greatest urgency. Read David Henderson or the Wegman report to see how. And in the meantime, let's have some independent inquiries into what has been going on.

I think this, from one of the blogs at the influential Atlantic magazine, adequately conveys why it's important to get a wide sample of influential, authoritative opinions: A lot is at stake. (and this is from someone who accepts the mainstream view on climate change, although this episode is giving him doubts). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia article, not a news blog. It will take weeks and possibly months for the dust to settle and for us to begin to see if this will have any lasting effect. Writing about what people are saying on blog sites and in newspaper editorials won't help the reader to understand the facts. The news coverage is part of the facts, but a rather small part. --TS 03:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Writing about what people are saying on [influential magazine] blog sites and in newspaper editorials won't help the reader to understand the facts. What a curious statement. What makes you say that? The news coverage is part of the facts, but a rather small part. Are there other third-party sources for us to use besides news coverage? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Straight news coverage is one thing. Partisan editorials and blog bloviations are another. I think we have too little of the former and (much) too much of the latter. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in terms of space, not in terms of references. We should have more references to various opinions but do it in about the same space or somewhat less. I'd prefer to see a longer section delving into what's been revealed in the released documents. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

JohnWBarber: Generally speaking, blogs aren't reliable sources (nor are they appropriate for the external links section). Why do you keep bringing this up? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AQFK, where did I suggest using a blog not in compliance with WP:RS for facts? And what's that got to do with my point here? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you've done it repeatedly, I'm not sure when you first did it. But the latest example is in this very thread (scroll up) where you argued for inclusion of the blog from Atlantic magazine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If I've done it repeatedly, you should be able to find examples of it. What makes you think I was suggesting that something from that blog post go anywhere but in the "Reactions" section? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You've completely missed/ignored the point about that other third-party, reliable sources are required to cover the opinion to make the opinion notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Also, is there a policy or guideline that says reliable sources are required to cover the opinion to make the opinion notable? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you quote the passage there that supports the idea that "reliable sources are required to cover the opinion to make the opinion notable", because I can't find it there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to start excluding partisan blogs and editorials we should exclude RealClimate.org as well.

Allegedly...

I'd like to get rid of the word allegedly in the Hacked and leaked documents section. It's clearly a weasel word (the first one listed!), and is not backed up by the source. -Atmoz (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Curious. It's not alleged that the hack was done, but when/if they find who did it, it would be "allegedly".--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 09:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it would still not be alleged, but there would be (until a after a trial) "an alleged hacker"(named) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "allegedly" should certainly be removed--there isn't any doubt on this matter. --TS 11:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This illogical nonsense is being persistently promulgated by a small group of editors, Kim D. Petersen being one of these. They attempt to convince us that because the owners of the data have reported it as stolen via a hack, then that must be axiomatic, i.e. our baseline. To them the possibility that what the owners of the data present is incorrect is what should constitue inapplicable speculation. Of course any intellectually honest or sound mind immediately recognizes that here is our factual baseline: The papers got away of the owners. The owners assert they were stolen in a computer hacking incident. This is now being investigated. __meco (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You ignore the point that the police are pursuing a criminal investigation, which requires a crime to have been committed in the first place. You continue to ignore the point that no party other than the UEA is competent to state whether the files were stolen, and you continue your failure to provide any sources of any kind - let alone reliable ones - to support your position or explain why any such sources would be competent to challenge the UEA's statement. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Police pursue alleged crimes. The existence of a criminal investigation does not necessarily imply a crime was committed, at least not in a free society. This has been addressed before, but Ive seen no coherent rebuttal.--SPhilbrickT 17:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. There have been multiple coherent rebuttals, but you have chosen to ignore them. Big difference. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that you haven't bothered to answer my other points about the lack of sourcing and why any other source would be competent to dispute the UEA. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, yes this is exactly the nonsensical position which I was referring to and which you and Kim are the most vociferous protagonists of. You obviously do not understand that the police investigate a lot of reported crimes that turn out not to be crimes at all. For the police to instigate a criminal investigation they must find it reasonable that a crime has occurred. That's all. __meco (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There obviously isn't a strong enough consensus to merit an edit of the protected article. We'll have to wait until it's unprotected. --TS 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there will ever be a consensus while some editors insist on pushing their unsourced personal opinions into the article. That's an unacceptable situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. On many contentious issues we will get a resolution reasonably quickly by just waiting. Climategate label will either become popular or sink in few weeks, either way it will stop being so controversial. Emails will become matter of public record (and thus linkable) during the very first related lawsuit filed in the US (which is pretty much inevitable). Police will investigate the hacking, and we will have statements on the subject that will feel more trustworthy than that of CRU. Dimawik (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already said (way above in this discussion) that mentioning the "Climategate" nickname in the article is inevitable given its appearance in reliable sources. The article will, however, never be titled "Climategate" since that name would not be compatible with the article naming policy. Copyright policy means that e-mails will not be linkable from Wikipedia unless they are released by the content owners. Your opinion of the trustworthiness of the CRU (or I assume you mean the UEA, since it's the publisher of the statements in question) is irrelevant - as the verifiability policy makes clear, it's a definitive source for its own affairs, whether you like it or not. I shouldn't have to keep repeating this and you shouldn't keep pushing for things that violate Wikipedia's policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear ChrisO, The only thing I "push" here is to keep the protection, so that the issues burn out on their own; this is no reason to get personal. Now comments on your opinion (which, BTW, according to WP rules is only as relevant as mine): 1) Nobody proposes to rename the article, the fight was going about using the word "Climategate" in the first sentence. 2) During the lawsuit in the US (which will inevitably happen), the proceedings will become public records, so we will be able to link to the most juicy emails legally pretty soon (few years) using the court site. 3) Note that I proposed to add to the hacking allegation words "As reported by CRU" - why do you think this is wrong? Now I have a counter-question: what was your basis for accusing me of pushing for things that violate Wikipedia's policies. Please stay within WP:CIV in the future. Dimawik (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is there an article on this topic?

Copied from Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Subpage by - TS 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Wikipedia. You seem to have left out the important part, you know, why there is concern over this horrible, horrible crime of stolen e-mails. OK, since you might not actually know, it's because there was a lot of sexy details involving scientists and lab equipment. Just kidding. No, it's because some of the leading climate scientists were exposed as frauds--definitely scientific frauds, and quite possibly criminal frauds as well. It's hard to take Wikipedia seriously if the first paragraphs of the article say that Climategate is really just a "hacking incident." "Climate change sceptics have asserted that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to withhold scientific information," says the article. Oh, really? Just "climate change sceptics"? This is also a deeply important political event, as you can see from all the political commentary on the political scandal, and you don't get to that until very far down in the article. JusDeFax (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The notion that fraud has been exposed has been used to defend the theft since the first days. No credible instance of fraud has emerged. --TS 11:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's way too early to draw those types of conclusions. More importantly, it isn't the function of WP to draw those conclusions. If reliable sources reach those conclusion, then it can be reported. So far, we have far more heat than light.--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Usually on a climate article the euphemism of reliable sources is used to mean "peer reviewed articles by the very people writing these emails". Sphilbrick, can you assure me that you will allow non CRU peer reviewed sources on this article? Isonomia (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no more power to make such an assurance than you do, but it is not my position that reliable source equates to peer-reviewed by writers of these emails. Roughly speaking all peer-reviewed papers are reliable sources but many reliable sources are not peer-reviewed articles.--SPhilbrickT 16:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are far, far more scientists (and data) involved in climate science than the few who wrote these emails. The scientific basis of man-made global warming is not in any doubt. Also, don't forget that these are named, living people and so under WP:BLP, like everybody else, they are assumed completely innocent of every crime unless they have been charged, tried and convicted of it. That is non-negotiable. --Nigelj (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Times on original data dumped

{{editprotected}} This should be added to the article. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece This loss (destruction?) of data will make it virtually impossible to check the models of Mann et al. If there is consensus on the addition of this fact, I will propose a new paragraph. If not, its just a waste of time, so I wait for the decision. Northfox (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Meets RS to be sure. And since the NOAA data set has "erroneous" data removed, I suspect this is the tip of the iceberg. Collect (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, its twaddle. And its also irrelevant to this issue William M. Connolley (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, it is not for us to claim we "know" something -- and asserting this is "twaddle" therefore it should be left out is not in any guideline I can find. WP is to report what is found in reliable sources, not to assert magic expertise on the part of its editors. See Josh Billings. Collect (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Collect on the twaddle comment; the sole argument should be about relevance. People unfamiliar with William M. Connolley might wish to browse here.

On a different issue the editprotected template seems wildly premature and should be deleted. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, if you can't read it well enough to know its twaddle, can you read it well enough to know it is irrelevant? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me as borderline. As such a consensus is unlikely to develop around its conclusion. Hope this helps. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the "dumping" of the original data is irrelevant to this page. I think yuo've just answered "No" to my question above William M. Connolley (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I suspect that WMC is calls it "twaddle" because it is :) The data hasn't been lost, its just not available at CRU (you can find it at NOAA (see discussion here)). CRU has "thrown" away the data that they didn't use. Which is quite normal practice as long as the original is still available. I haven't checked but i would suspect that it is also documented exactly which station data that was discarded as UHI points. Its a journalist gone overboard from knowing too little, and extrapolating beyond that knowledge which is quite common when regular media reports on science. (to be short: It raises a red flag on the reliability of that particular Times article) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We haven't discussed this yet, to my knowledge, so an "editprotected" tag is premature. Actually there are problems with the above Times report. The author is a journalist, not a scientist, and seems to think that the discarded data is crucial to establishing global warming. --TS 12:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Leake's article is poorly written for our use, however, the information about Roger A. Pielke and his relationship to this incident may be relevant. I also think this might be a good angle to pursue. If, as the article suggests, Pielke is responsible for discovering the lost records while asking for the raw data, that is significant and can easily be mentioned. In other words, we stick to the facts of the matter, and avoid the sensationalistic coatracking. This has the added benefit of satisfying both sides. For balance, we can also mention the opinion of CRU scientists in this regard. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Errrmm, yes, but as I've tried to say above, what exactly is the supposed relation between the "lost" records and the email hacking? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Leakes "news" is "old news"[23] He apparently cherry-picked a quote from Pielke Jr.'s blog and forgot to mention that it was >3 months old. As WMC i'd like to ask what this has to do with the hacking. (which this article is about (ie. its not a coatrack for whatever things someone wants to blame the CRU for (note: that is a general comment not directed at anyone specific)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be a relationship between the dumped data and the leaked e-mails, but the linkage is extremely tenuous, and, more importantly, not for us to make. Someone else needs to make it. Even then, this is not the only article relevant to climate issues, and doesn't purport to, nor should it be a repository for everything on the subject. To the extent that the data dumping is relevant, there surely is an another article where it is more on point.--SPhilbrickT 15:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Nature is good enough [24] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've attempted to add a brief summary of this Times article at Climatic Research Unit. Editor Ratel keeps reverting it out. At any rate, that seems the proper place to discuss the issue, and (hopefully) come up with a consensus-acceptable paragraph or two. What's there now is clearly non-consensus. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No. 10 Petition

There have been a number of people asking why there needs to be a wikipedia entry suggesting that it is not notable. It is worth noting that the No 10. website petition on this subject has already received 2000 signatures in the first week - which according to cutrent projections of signature growth would mean that there would be around 24,000 signatures in total.

This should be added to the entry! Isonomia (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this refers to petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/. Which reliable source makes the "cutrent" (or should that be "CUtrend?") projections and how good is their global climate popolation model? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephan very good! And does anyone happen to know at what point does the petition itself become notable enough to warrent an article - presumably it needs news media coverage and not just numbers of mouse click! Isonomia (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

When it is adressed by reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant really, as the UK government just sacks scientific advisers it doesn't agree with anyway[25]. --Nigelj (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the Current status?

I've been going through the comments (with a view to putting together my own article on the subject) and I can see that the whole subject is a complete mess - and unfortunately, many of the comments may now be out of date. So, perhaps it would be useful to hear what people now think should be in without starting more argument so not saying what should be out (put such comments in another section please). Perhaps if we can agree what we disagree on, it would be a start!

My suggestions

• climategate name
• The theft of emails
• the "hiding" of data
• The "can't explain why temperatures have not risen"
• Press coverage
• timing relative to Kopenhagen
• Police being called (what happened?)
• Was it a hack or e.g. an internal disclose?
• Inquiry/petition
• The apparent attempts to block some people from publication
• The attempts to withold data from others like McIntyre
• The suggestions that people intended to prevent FOI requests getting information
• What was lacking (add your conspiracy here)

Isonomia (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick reactions:

* climategate name In

* The theft of emails It's e-mails and other data, not just e-mails. It should be alleged theft until such time as theft is certain.

* the "hiding" of data problematic without good sourcing

* The "can't explain why temperatures have not risen" agnostic

* Press coverage of course, but not as separate section

* timing relative to Kopenhagen in

* Police being called (what happened?) in

*Inquiry/petition Inquiries in, petition, not yet

*The apparent attempts to block some people from publication limited see below

*The attempts to withold data from others like McIntyre limited see below

*The suggestions that people intended to prevent FOI requests getting information In

*What was lacking (add your conspiracy here) not following

* Was it a hack or e.g. an internal disclose? let's wait until resolved, then cite result

By "limited" I mean that there should be a broad survey of the nature of the contents, but to go into details is to rehash the GW debate which belongs elsewhere.

--SPhilbrickT 16:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

By: "What was lacking (add your conspiracy here)" I refer to the quote no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP' [Medieval Warm Period], no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords., admittedly a rather poor attempt to find some pro-warming elements to add to the article. Isonomia (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect to "alleged theft" vs. "theft", it should simply be "theft". This is a case where we should generally follow the lead of the mainstream media, and almost no news organizations are using "alleged" with regards to the theft. Not every potential crime has to be charged and prosecuted to be considered as an essentially undisputed fact. Accusations about a person responsible can be somewhat different because of the protections given to accused persons (hence "alleged hacker", for example), but we don't need to append caveats to every description of what facts occurred. Dragons flight (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged" is entirely the unsourced personal opinion of a few editors here. I've repeatedly challenged them over the last few days to provide any source to support their opinion but they haven't. That, I think, is a pretty clear indication of why the term shouldn't be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to provide support for "alleged" - it is pretty normal to consider self-reported crimes to be alleged, until there is evidence. A removal of this word, however, requires some proof other than just a statement from the CRU. I would support a more neutral opinion-like "As reported by CRU" if this helps to resolve the conflict. Dimawik (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree re "theft" (This is a change of opinion.) While some sources are taking the more prudent route, many are not. While I think they are wrong, that's not a WP issue. We strive for Verifiability not Truth.--SPhilbrickT 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-read what Dragons flight has said above. The fact of the theft is virtually undisputed in the mainstream media. Without any source to support the inclusion of "alleged" there is no valid reason to include it. I must say, though, that it's curious that the people pushing for the weasel wording to be included are so eager to declare allegations against individuals as fact when it suits them. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dragons flight's assessment seems reasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Isonomia, I find it helpful to try to organize things in a small number of broad categories. I don't know if that's useful here, but one way to categorize the items in your list (organize mostly for thinking purposes, maybe indirectly for article purposes): (1) mechanics of revealing the emails & the ethical/legal implications of that; (2) whether or not the emails & documents show misconduct on the part of their authors; (3) how this might affect the overall controversies about global warming (not how it should but how the politics of this are thought to be affected); (4) what others think about this. I think there's broad consensus that all four of these elements are essential parts of the subject, but most of the tension here seems to be over how much emphasis to give these elements (and the items you mention within them). I find #3 is not worth much space at all, and whatever we have in the article will quickly be overrun by events. I also find #1 is one of the least interesting and least important aspects of the subject -- yet it is emphasized the most, both in the lead and in the placement of the section in the article. But #2 and #4 are the elements that involve why this whole subject is important to the vast majority of the readers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just slightly off-topic, but still GW

If you are frustrated that you cannot edit this article, but interested in GW, and interested in contributing with a NPOV, I need help with this problem. (Admin - if it is inappropriate to direct people to another page, please feel free to delete this section.)--SPhilbrickT 23:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate

The word "climategate" is a loaded term used by global warming skeptics and deniers and their associated pundits and opinion peddlers. Looking at every major controversy since Watergate first occurred, we can see that some pundit or another has added "-gate" to their incident du jour, from Clintongate[26] to Gatesgate, to Bushgate[27] to Bankgate[28], the result is the same. The politicization and polarization of a topic, resulting in loud headlines, but little substance. None of these terms that I have just mentioned are in any wide use and fell quickly to the sidelines once the press got tired with the stories. And this is just a small sample. We should not be following the lead of "if it bleeds it leads". We are an encyclopedia that takes a NPOV. It is not significant or important that pundits and crackpots are reframing and renaming this incident to suit their agenda. What is significant is that we remain neutral, and do not play into the hands of those who wish to manipulate history. I am removing this non-notable term from this article. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "global warming denier" is a loaded term, to attempt to paint people who don't believe false data to be the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers, you partisan flack. As for global warming skeptics... SCIENTISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SKEPTICS. No scientist has EVER taken the word of someone else's research on blind faith. In fact, the first step of doing any experiment is to use the equipment to perform another experiment so as to calibrate it. And it was by this repeated performance of the "charge of an electron" experiment that the initial value reported was discovered by over-estimated by around 30% of the actual value. If it wasn't for "cold fusion skeptics", we would be right now wasting BILLIONS OF DOLLARS right now building cold-fusion power plants that would never produce a single watt of energy.

Veriditas, your words here indicat that you are a very a partisan editor with both an agenda and a refusal to look at facts, and only facts. Akulkis (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Revkin of the New York Times can hardly be termed a skeptic. --GoRight (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

More deception. Revkin wasn't using the term. He was reporting that the term was being used, in this case, by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a known anti-global warming group. You are basically astroturfing for them here, much as you have done for your entire Wikipedia career, as your user contributions show without question. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"He was reporting that the term was being used ..." - No offense, but isn't this exactly the point? --GoRight (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He was reporting that the term was being used by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Why should this appear in the lead section? Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is noted. However, Climategate is well-sourced and widely-used, so it's here to stay. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Others apparently agree with me, as the same thing has been said in the thread above this one, titled Unused references. We simply do not use sensationalistic terms to frame an article, and that's what "Climategate" is, and I've given you examples above regarding past uses of "gate" appended to many controversies. They simply do not hold up historically, and are soon forgotten, so they are a good example of recentism. We need to avoid short term perspectives and focus on the long term benefits of writing articles that stand the test of time. The sources you and others provide as support for using "Climategate" simply don't meet the criteria. I suppose some mention of the term might be possible in the article given better sources, but placing it in the lead is not neutral, as the term is primarily used by global warming skeptics and deniers. On Wikipedia, we try to stay away from using sensationalistic terms in the lead, especially if they are primarily used in partisan blogs and opinion pieces. Let's describe the article in the most neutral language possible, and if necessary, talk about what terms specific people are using. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"They simply do not hold up historically, and are soon forgotten, so they are a good example of recentism." - And yet you have managed to produce an extensive list of terms that use it. Hmmm. Regardless, it is well established as a term that refers to this incident and so it is legitimate content. --GoRight (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See the link provided by User:Schizombie below: List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. How many of those are redirects and make no mention of the term in the lead section, GoRight? I've already proved below that the term "climategate" is an artificially created talking point used by partisan anti-global warming lobby groups funded by oil companies. It has no place whatsoever in the lead section of this article. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

None of this matters, of course. The primary questions are: Is the term used in WP:RS? Answer: Yes. Can this be WP:Ved? Answer: Yes. You personal WP:OR analysis of anything beyond that is not relevant to this discussion. --GoRight (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

All of it matters, of course. Fringe and lobby groups using the term "climategate" aren't important enough for us to cover in the lead section. Just because a reporter says "some groups like CFACT are using the term" doesn't mean we place it in the lead. It means we look at who is using the term, and when we realize that they are not neutral and are paid by outside interests to promote a singular POV to spin this topic, we either discard the term entirely, or write about it using the best sources we can find. Since there are, at this time, no sources that describe the use of the term other than in passing, we have nothing to go on. The fact is, it is you who is performing OR, because you are claiming that the term is important and representative of the topic, when we have no such indication. The burden of proof is on you, as the editor who keeps adding the word "climategate" to the lead section. Since this word is being used by anti-global warming activists and pundits to push their POV and does not seem to be widely represented in neutral sources, there is no reason for us to include it. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"The burden of proof is on you, as the editor who keeps adding the word "climategate" to the lead section." - And I have provided it in the form of 3 citations, all from WP:RS, and all from DIFFERENT, widely respected media sources. --GoRight (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you have cited discuss the term, they only mention it in passing. It isn't appropriate for the lead unless it is notable. Aside from skeptics using it as a sensationalistic talking point, I don't see why you are obsessed with it. We're primarily focused with describing the incident in the most neutral terms possible, and that should be your concern as well. Can you tell me why it is important to add "climategate" the lead? I don't see many sources using the term. Viriditas (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have more than adequately sourced the term using WP:RS. You personal aversion to the term does not negate its use or existence. I will remind you, Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We do not simply drop a word into this article merely because a source uses it. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy, and we write articles in a different way. The so-called reliable sources you are using actually say something entirely different than what you are claiming. Let's take a closer look at the sources you are using:

• In the NYT, Andrew C. Revkin writes: "Some see in the e-mail correspondence...evidence of a conspiracy to stifle dissenting views and withhold data from public scrutiny, or, as some have put it, 'Climategate.'"[29] To support this claim, Revkin links the word "Climategate" to a website, climatedepot.com, which is owned and run by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which according to Wikipedia, is a conservative organization whose funding partially comes from or came from The Exxon Mobil Corporation and The DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund. CFACT is a "member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which aims at "dispelling the myths of global warming through sound science and analysis." The Cooler Heads Colation is described by Nicholas Confessore as "an Astroturf group funded by industries opposed to regulation of CO2 emissions." CFACT is not a neutral source for an article on Wikipedia, and their deliberate reframing of this article using the term "climategate" is a talking point passed on to other conservative and partisan blogs. It should under no circumstances be represented in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

-gate is a rather idiotic, lazy and overused suffix as List of scandals with "-gate" suffix shows. Putting it as the main AKA of the article is maybe overdoing it at the moment, and the sources are somewhat overextended. The NY Times, for example, notes that the conservative Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow calls it that; the NY Times or the NY Times writer do not themselves employ it. Reuters doesn't identify who dubbed it that, so that source is relatively useless. And then conservative James Delingpole of the conservative Daily Telegraph calls it that. So one conservative organization, and one conservative writer, and it gets a redirect and featured in bold in the lede sentence. POV push much? Шизомби (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"The NY Times, for example, notes that the conservative Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow calls it that; the NY Times or the NY Times writer do not themselves employ it." - And in so doing they highlighted the term's notability and legitimized its use.

"Reuters doesn't identify who dubbed it that ..." - Doesn't matter. The entire point here is that they TOO have noted the term's use and thus legitimized it.

"And then conservative James Delingpole of the conservative Daily Telegraph calls it that." - Gee, you seem focused on the political leanings of those employing the term. I don't recall WP:RS or WP:V stating that if a conservative states it that it doesn't count. Can you point me to where they do? --GoRight (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a conservative talking point. They are deliberately using the term to reframe a crime against scientists into a crime by scientists, and they are turning the original meaning on its head. The Watergate scandal originally referred to the Republican-funded breaking and entering of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex. The goal of the burglary was to place electronic surveillance equipment in the Democratic offices to get information which would help the re-election of then, U.S. President Richard Nixon. In this case, the word is being turned on its head, and its meaning is being reversed. This is propaganda, pure and simple. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"It's a conservative talking point." - No it isn't. It is a term being used and discussed in the WP:RS media. That makes it notable. --GoRight (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on now, GoRight. The New York Times may note that some groups compare Obama to Hitler, or his health-care reform package to the operation of Dachau. That does not automatically "legitimize" such terms, or validate a decision to use them as "AKAs" in the lead of Barack Obama or related articles. MastCell ^Talk 06:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your analogy is not really analogous to this situation. Comparing Obama to Hitler is not at all the same thing as simply coining a term to refer to this incident. Even so, if the NYT DID discuss those things according to WP:RS and WP:V they are fair game to be used in an article. No? --GoRight (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"And in so doing they highlighted the term's notability and legitimized its use." Hardly. Maybe you could make a case for it being notable insofar as it was noted, but it wasn't highlighted, and... legitimized? How do you see that? "'Reuters doesn't identify who dubbed it that ...' - Doesn't matter." It absolutely does matter, that kind of terrible sourcing may do for journalism but not here. "they TOO have noted the term's use and thus legitimized it" No, they didn't. That's no way to write an encyclopedia. "Gee, you seem focused on the political leanings of those employing the term." Logically, we should be. "I don't recall WP:RS or WP:V stating that if a conservative states it that it doesn't count." Here at least we agree. That a con or a lib says something doesn't mean it doesn't count. However, see e.g. WP:PROMINENCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I'm not saying the word shouldn't appear in the article somewhere, if that can be justified, or that there shouldn't be a redirect, if that can be justified, and perhaps both of these things can be. But right now having it in the lede as an alternate name for the article is really not justifiable at all; that's a prominence that among your sources only James Delingpole gives it, which again reflects his own admitted bias. Шизомби (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Google news (US) count for Climategate is now at 377. We have a week to cool off and check if the number goes up (my bet) or down. After that, we can resume this (third on this page) discussion. Dimawik (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems the term is totally appropriate. We can hold off on using it now, but its eventual inclusion is inevitable. GardiaP (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

Maybe, although WP:GOOGLETEST. A count doesn't tell us what kinds of news outlets are using it, article or opinion, featured or mentioned, whether the article's author employs it or attributes it to someone else and if so who, etc. Шизомби (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Jonsson, Patrik (2009-11-28). "As Copenhagen summit nears, 'Climategate' dogs global warming debate". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2009-11-28. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That CS Monitor article shows the term is one of the widely used names for this subject, used by more than just one POV but by reliable sources trying to avoid POV. We put alternate names in the lead to inform readers, and a reader who had vaguely heard of "climategate" and wanted to know more about it should be able to be told, in the lead, that this subject is what's referred to. It's NPOV rather than bias for us to recognize that this term is being widely used and seems to have stuck. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it notable that someone somewhere used the term to describe the controversy? Conservapedia uses the term "fascism lite" to describe the Obama Presidency, however I don't see the Obama Administration page on wikipedia headlined as such. Just because a group of fringe extremists are using a certain word to produce sensationalism and try to dress up their claims as something they are not, does not mean that this is somehow the accepted colloquial name of the event, even if the media reports that such extremist groups are using this term. Anyhow, the colloquial term for sexual intercourse is f***ing and you don't see a wikipedia page introduced as such. This is a factual arena. Of course some form of redirect is useful, indeed I typed in "Climategate" to get to this page, and of course it should at some point be noted that some have referred to the issue as such, but as a major part of the article's lead it has no place. Duster (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Worth noting: [30] "Climategate" has surpassed "global warming" on Google. At least according to one experiment. Feel free to replicate the experiment. The data and the means have been openly and freely shared with the public, following the best scientific practice. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I support including the term Climategate as a reference for this incident. Whether you like the term or not, it is how the incident is being called in the press, from the left and the right. For example, the Huffington Post has an article on this topic titled "ClimateGate: The 7 Biggest Lies About the Supposed "Global Warming Hoax" "global_warming_hoax"/ She argues that the term is a misnomer (she'd rather call it "SwiftHack") and yet she ackowledges that this is what people are calling it, in the text and in the headline. To leave out this label would be a bad omission. If I were looking for information on Climategate I would expect something in this article, in the lead paragraph, to clearly indicate that I was reading the right article. To leave it out is clear POV bias.--Coastside (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate" should be mentioned because the use of the term has contributed to the notoriety of the scandal. If newspapers described it as "Climate Research... incident" it wouldn't have gained so much attention. "Climategate" is the fist and only widely used title for this 'incident.' If anything there should be a section describing how authors overwhelmingly refer to climategate. Techn0scho0lbus (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)