Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Name of article

"Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is a poor title for two reasons:

1. it's far from clear that there was any hacking involved
2. much of the information is composed of files other than emails.

I renamed the article to the more defensible "Climatic Research Unit e-mail file release incident", but it was named back to the less defensible title without discussion. TJIC (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 issues with the name. The CRU has in the past put non public data on the public side of its servers. The previous "leak" in July 2009 turned out to have been done by the director of the CRU while fighting a FOI request by Steve McIntyre. This current "leak" is a FOI2009.zip containing all the information requested by Steve McIntyre in a second FOI request. The CRU could simply have made the same mistake again and put the FOI information on the public side of the server.

The Second issue is that there is more than email in the file. The is also source code and data in the file. A better name would be "Climatic Research Unit incident of November 2009" Michael Ring 24 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J Ring (talk • contribs) 05:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the name of the article supported by reliable sources? I did a search in the sources, and find that the neologism 'climategate' is only mentioned in blogs and other non-reliable sources. Is there an alternate name that is reasonable, more neutral in tone, and that is supported by reliable sources? LK (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The employment of the term "ClimateGate" is now widespread among the ex-Journalism school types whom the Wikipedia apparatchiki consider "reliable sources," including branded offerings by the New York Times,[1] the Washington Post,[2] the Atlanta Journal Constitution,[3] and the London Telegraph papers.[4]
There's no need - at the moment - to change the title of the page, but there's no reason why the word "ClimateGate" should be totally absent from the bloody Wikipedia page when that term has manifestly come into common usage. 71.125.136.27 (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the reasoning and the move by ChrisO to the new article name. LK (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal deprecates -gate in article titles ("[It] should not be used in article titles on current affairs"); I've therefore changed the title to follow our usual practice in similar cases, e.g. Rathergate → Killian documents controversy. I've not been able to find any reference to "Climategate" in non-blog sources, though I expect it will probably show up in due course. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree a new name is needed, as there is data coming in that it was not a hacker, and there is more involved than emails but the tweeking of research numbers not just name calling.--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added at least tree sources (three first refs) that's not blogs using the term Climategate. I've just added it as another term used for this incident. Nsaa (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's look like I'm starting an edit war on this, why do a well documented name for the event been completely removed form the article?

(also known as Climategate)

comments from Real Climate have a conflict of interest, and should be presented with disclaimer

The article cites that the RealClimate website is downplaying the importance of the files. Which is good information to have in the article.

However, it's hugely relevant that the folks responsible for this RealClimate statement (Gavin Schmidt, Michael E. Mann, Eric Steig, Raymond S. Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Rasmus Benestad, Caspar Ammann, Thibault de Garidel, David Archer, Raymond Pierrehumbert ) are all DEEPLY involved in the incident - they all have emails that have been released.

I have added this information into the article, and it has been removed, with WP:OR.

The problem is that this is ** not ** original research - the list of folks behind RealClimate is taken straight from the Wikipedia article.

I'm adding the data back in. If you have problems with it, please hash it out here before reverting yet again (3RR). TJIC (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that what you think is not a WP:RS, nor is Wikipedia, that makes it WP:OR. What is relevant is what WP:RS' says.
—Apis (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Real Climate" is actually mentioned in the emails as being a friendly source that will hold up publishing embarrassing comments for screening and review. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt 173.168.129.57 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree...the Realclimate comments need to be removed, per POV pushing. Pullister (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

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)

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 [5] 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 [6] 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)

Politically Incorrect Sources

• Times Online by Nigel Lawson -- I believe this quote from the Times should be added to the page and the article linked to regarded as a reliable source, as this paragraph fully encapsulates what was done by these human caused global warming proponents at the CRU which was controversial; "Atonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals." -- Added by Tom Perkins 2009/11/23, 07:12 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.69.27 (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, guest columns and other opinion based pieces aren't reliable sources.
—Apis (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. This is an opinion piece by Nigel Lawson, a UK politician who is a well-known critic of the Stern Review, the Kyoto Protocol etc. This may be a WP:RS as to his own political views, but not with regard to the incident under discussion here. --Nigelj (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So if you are honestly implementing Wikipedia rules then, you'd have no troubles with the inclusion of the citation or the paragraph if emails were quoted which directly backed up the quote? Or are you just trying to prevent the materials which damage the concept and proponents of AGW from the wikipedia record? Tom Perkins 2009/11/23, 12:47 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.212.7 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that would violate a whole new level of Wikipedia policies, not to mention be unbelievably biased?
—Apis (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how is quoting an email from a person biased as to what the email says? What was written was written. It appears you think reality violated Wikipedia's "neutrality" and policies. If so, Wikipedia makes itself of less worth than needs be--and to what purpose? So far, in this case, it isn't to be unbiased. The bias is quite evident. Tom Perkins 2009/11/23, 19:02 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.69.27 (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this email cited by a reliable source somewhere? Because we cannot cite unpublished emails. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

tree ring data

From reading round this the key issues all seem to be about tree ring palaeotemperature data. The FOI requests which apparently lead up to the email leak/hack were for tree ring datasets and the most embarassing/ambivalent responses were about tree ring data. If the scandal does have significant potential it is to discredit this method of historical temperature reconstruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy Young (talk • contribs) 13:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

How can FOI requests possibly lead up to the hacking of emails? That doesn't make any sense. --TS 13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The CRU has repeatedly refused FOI requests. The best source of this is unfortunately both "unreliable" and currently down (http://www.climateaudit.org). However, one such refusal is recorded at http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/. The reason FOI requests are suspected to be linked is circumstantial. The file is called FOI2009.zip and the leaker used the name FOIA (see http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowjoe17 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

FOI? That's kooky talk. If there were any FOI requests the scientists would have answered quickly and fully. Science is all about getting the data out there. In fact, they probably took care to make the data easily accessible on line, so everybody could look at it. No scientist would hide behind technicalities, deliberately make data hard to get, or delete material to avoid releasing it. Right? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony, there's a conspiracy theory doing the rounds that the university was hiding data rather than releasing it under FOI, and that the hacker was attempting to expose all the data that the university was supposedly hiding. The university has denied the claim, stating that the data isn't theirs to release in the first place due to copyright issues. See the Daily Mail story linked above for the details. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientists hiding data? Bah, that's like the ridiculous canard that journals were pressured not to publish critical articles. I can't think where people get these goofy ideas. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Tom: How about from the emails themselves(presuming they are legit, and this isn't the only one in the archive that discusses hiding or ignoring FOI requests. Bellis (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, there is that, but it doesn't count because it's stolen, and copyrighted, and taken out of context, and probably made up by global warming deniers conspiring with Big Oil to make the scientists look bad. Plus, it's forbidden to link or quote that on Wikipedia, so it doesn't really exist anyway. So there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Forbidden to link why? Is it not relevant to the discussion to see the actual content of the emails? For anyone interested (and without a link) the relevant emails are 1107454306.txt 1228330629.txt (sorry I missed the sarcasm before) How about linking to a news article that contains the content? Is that also illegal? (Oh, nevermind, the Illuminati are also blacklisting those sites, too!) Bellis (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If we find whoever hacked the emails, any chance we could do a swap with the Yanks for that young Scottish chap who faces a possible 70 years in a federal prison for hacking the Pentagon to find out the truth about Roswell? --TS 15:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice from these edits that, based on WP:ENGVAR, it's already been decided that, for the purposes of this article, East Anglia can be considered to be part of the USA. --Nigelj (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I thought it had been determined to be part of Afghanistan... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not to stop on minor things, folks :) I personally would be interested to insert a more recent opinions of, say McIntyre or Michaels into the article, as soon as they give out one. --J. Sketter (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WMC: As a party to this conspiracy against science, I think it's appropriate for you to pipe down. i.e. your name is in the whistle blower files.65.12.145.148 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If for nothing else, to give some face for these mysterious sceptics who claim this and that :) Altho I understand that whatever is the truth, 4,000 files takes some time to leaf trough. --J. Sketter (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

But McI had nothing to do with the hacking? Oh anon, I recommend reading my mails in there, you might learn something William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read a lot of those emails, and I have to say I didn't learn a thing, but it confirmed a few things.67.141.235.203 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

agreed, WMC your published emails as well as your activity on wikipedia over the last 5-6 years have highlighted your religious views in line with the Church of Global Warming. Your work to silence scientific information while claiming to be in the field of science is very sad.--97.92.93.161 (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A further note regarding to sources

I've taken quite a strict line on using blogs in this article, of any political complexion. McIntyre presumably posted his comments on his blog, but they are sourced to a reliable secondary source which quotes him; likewise for the RealClimate quote, which comes from a secondary source. If prominent bloggers' comments are quoted by mainstream sources then fair enough, but we shouldn't be going to blogs looking for convenient quotes. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Let's be patient. --J. Sketter (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem that should be noted here. If only "mainstream" news sources are trusted by wikipedia, and these sources have a bias to go along with the fellows at CRU and their compatriots without further investigation, wikipedia will be subject to that bias. As well, if a "reliable source" like Reuters provides proof that reuters is reliable, would wikipedia be bound by that assertion? If wikipedia is to be a truly objective source of information, it really needs to grow up about how news is controlled through political means. Epistemology would be nice. Recognize that your politics may be faulty and your worldview shaped by incomplete data.

Secondly, where are the references to Read Me Harry.txt? If ye editors are trying to control this story by promoting the straw men arguments like "tricks" and "hiding the decline" then shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.34 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is a highly notable event about public institutions -- it is not covered by BLP.

This classification is a blatant attempt at censorship. This is a very notable event about extremely important public institutions. It is clearly not covered by the BLP. Stop the censorship now. EggheadNoir (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Read BLP - it applies in all articles, and even outside article space. You cannot use unreliable sources like blogs to make negative statements about living people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

EHN is a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Very obviously so. Scibaby again? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User:EggheadNoir seems determined to engage in a quick-fire edit war here, without reading, let alone joining in, any discussion on this page. If it is a sock account, how quickly can it be blocked? --Nigelj (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Quicker than I thought. Already done, although not for long.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. I'm not certain whether it's a Scibaby sock or a tentacle of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tinpac sockfarm. Either way, though, hopefully a checkuser will get to the bottom of it soon. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Twyla8 appears to be part of the same sockfarm. I've reported it at the link above. Could someone please block it for repeated disruptive editing? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:13, 22 N

I also fail to see how an article about an institution is BLP. I read all the BLP stuff I could find and just don't see it. Nevertheless, I don't support the use of poor sources. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

See the Biographies of living persons policy, which emphasizes repeatedly the the onus is on the editor adding material about a living person to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia policies (and with the law). Since dishonest actions by persons currently very much alive are being alleged by some interested parties in this matter, great care is merited. --TS 13:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues - a reminder

I noticed that an anonymous IP editor just added a link to the leaked files in this edit. Could editors please refrain from doing this. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works specifically states: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. ... Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." Since this material is not only copyrighted but stolen, it should not be linked from this article or any other on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Pentagon Papers were not to be released either, I see Wikipedia quotes them. Will you claim the difference lies in the Pent.Pprs. having been read into the Congressional record? Or simply in years having passed? Whistleblowing is legally protected and socially lauded activity, exposing frauds places Wikipedia in a good light. 16:38, 2009/11/22 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.69.27 Tom Perkins(talk) 21:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from your nonsensical misinterpretation of the material, the Pentagon Papers were prepared by the US government and hence are in the public domain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, there's a difference between "public domain" and "non-private". By definition, all of these emails were created, stored and maintained on workplace -- not personal -- systems. They are not private to the individuals. They are owned by the entities that pay those workers. An email received is subject to the privacy conditions of the recipient. Thus, your assertions are completely incorrect. This material was held by a public institution. It is not private data even if at this point it were not considered public domain. Yes, there is a question of whether the material was released by a whistleblower, was stolen by an intruder, or was accidentally made public by the employees of the organization (as occurred earlier this year!) Those are significantly different acts, of course, but that doesn't change the nature of the materials themselves, nor does it change the nature of the statements and activities brought to light by the disclosure. It is quite clear that some of these scientists have gone to great lengths to bias the scientific process. For this, they are going to be investigated -- the process has already begun. I'm not predicting something, I'm stating a fact about a process already in motion. The longer you and others try to defend their actions, the more it speaks of your own anti-science bias.Mr Pete (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest specificity, which material, what misinterpretation? The Pentagon Papers were Top Secret, discussing them or being in possession of them without authorization was treason--they were emphatically not public domain--yet their release is held to be the sine qua non of whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is certainly now a legally protected activity. The CRU emails contain what are now involuntary and inadvertent admissions by proponents of human caused global warming of acts on their part which are illegally avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests for documents and suggestions such documents should be destroyed instead their being released. Tom Perkins 17:08 2009/11/22 EST

Apart from your nonsensical misinterpretation of the material, public domain is a legal concept. Things can be both top secret and in the public domain at the same time. Distributing them may be illegal, but it is not copyright infringement. Moreover, the pentagon papers have been irrevocably published, and hence secrecy considerations do not apply. It's well-established that the government cannot use secrecy claims to prosecute people who spread already available material, even if it originally was obtained illegally by a third party. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The "hacked" CRU emails are now irrevocably published, so by that criteria of yours they are now in the public domain. BTW, "Top Secret" and "public domain" are both legal concepts, and yes they are mutually exclusive--unless it has changed from the last time I filed, an aspect of filing for copyright in the US is making public copies available to the Library of Congress. Obviously, that excludes "Top Secret" info from being copyrighted, hence it cannot be "public domain" in the sense that formerly copyrighted materials are. I note you have yet to attempt dispose of the "whistleblowing" aspects of this--the release of these emails is clearly such. Tom Perkins 18:06, 2009/11/22 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.69.27 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I don't know when you last "filed for copyright", but copyright is automatic in the US since 1989, and in most of the world since the 1980s or earlier. It does not require registration or filing of anything, although registration of a work will increase damages in the case of infringement in the US. Works by the US federal government are always automatically in the public domain. Things don't have to be copyrighted to become public domain - where does that misbelief come from? Anyways, existing publication is a defense against claims of secrecy violations (which may or may not have protected the pentagon papers, but does not apply to the CRU emails), but not against copyright infringement (which does not apply to the pentagon papers, but definitely applies to the CRU emails). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the first time was in 1979 when I was 8. The second and so far last time would have been about 1983. The notion of public domain is that it has been copyrighted and the period has lapsed or the privilege abandoned, or the work predates the modern concept of copyright altogether. There would also certainly be "fair use" exceptions to quoting a limited fraction of the "hacked" data as being exemplary of criminal activity--copyright protects no crimes. And you are still ignoring the "whistleblowing" aspects of this. And of course there is the issue that none of these persons owned the copyright to them in the sense you mean anyway--they were government employees doing government work--if the Pentagon Papers were in any sense in the public domain although Top Secret, then these certainly are also in the public domain by virtue of government employees creating them on government time. Tom Perkins 19:08, 2009/11/22 EST

You may be surprised, but not all countries have the same policies about copyrights. CRU is in the UK, not in the US. What's more, even in the US, only works by the federal government automatically fall into the public domain - and not due to a lapsed period, or abandonment, but simply because that is the law of the land. This does not universally apply to US state governments, and certainly not to universities, even if they are public. So far, the only crime in this has been the illegal hacking and the distribution of private data. And no, most of the people in question are not "government employees doing government work" - most are academics from various countries around the world, working for different research institutes and different universities under different legislative systems, different ownership, and different copyright policies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also note that much of this data was the subject of a FOI UK law request that was subsequently sidestepped by those inside (if you believe the discussions in the emails) and that the University of East Angila is a PUBLIC university. As such, the emails are owned by the public (presuming FOI law in the UK is similar to in the US)Bellis (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Big assumption, and certainly mostly wrong. Many of the emails were not written by employees of CRU, anyways, and hence are not CRUs to divulge in the first place. Also, the UK FOI act only came into force in 2005, so a large amount of the email archive is not covered by it. Moreover, as far as I can tell there has been a lot of noise about FOI, but there is no evidence that a valid request has ever been made. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not such a big assumption apparently, after reviewing FOI for EA University. I work in a college IT dept and can tell you that if someone walked in requesting archives of all of our emails relating to a specific person or subject (or a date range), I would be REQUIRED by law to remit them. Seems quite similar in the UK: See here: http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi Theoretically anyone could request the entire email archive from CRU. Universities are generally required to maintain archives of all communication relevant to all operations related to public funds, and those communications are generally subject to FOI retrieval. To be honest, I'm not certain about email in the UK, but in the US, emails are considered correspondence and as such are required to be archived and open to retrieval request. PS I know for a FACT a FOI request has been made, because I made one, and got subsequently ignored. Note, one can google "CRU FOI requests" and find that there were numerous requests filed (probably into the thousands after the initial requests were shot down) In the AGW community it is common knowledge that there have been requests, and all of them have been subsequently denied or completely ignored. The likelihood that this is a whistle-blower event instead of a hacking event is also a pretty distinct possibility Bellis (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you check [7]. Even data released under a FOI scheme remain under copyright by the university. If you made a FOI request and got ignored, I suggest you follow proper procedure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you understand that, yes the copyright is held by UEA, which is a Public institution, hence the publications are in the end owned by the UK public -- much like in the US.Bellis (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The copyright rules are very different from in the US. The mere fact that it is a public institution does not mean that everything it creates is in the public domain, or indeed that the UK public owns its materials. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced this is the case in the US. I suspect people are still confused about copyrights and right to access data, correspondence etc, which are completely different things. For example, what does 'owned by the UK public' even mean? If Bellis means public domain then he/she should say so because 'owned by the UK public' (the same as 'owned by the US public') sounds like something someone who doesn't understand copyright would say (IANAL and don't pretend to have a lawyer's grasp on copyright but I have enough experience to usually tell when a statement is pretty much meaningless or implies a lack of understanding of copyright). Incidentally in case anyone is not aware, most stuff from the UK government is not in the public domain but rather has Crown copyright and indeed anyone who wants to understand how things work in the UK or a number of other Commonwealth realms need to understand the concept of The Crown. In any case, if Bellis' claim that everything by a US public university is in the public domain is correct, that would imply no US public university can expect much benefit from publishing books, journals etc, since anyone and everyone can legally copy whatever they publish as there is no copyright for their work. This seems rather unlikely. Indeed as others have pointed out, state government material in the US is often not in the public domain yet for some odd reason anything from public universities is? Does the federal government in the US even own any university (not counting military ones)? If not, this mean Bellis is claiming that anything from state government owned universities (which is I presume what Bellis is talking about in such a case) is in the public domain despite the fact actual government published stuff is often not, which seems to me to be unlikely to say the leastr. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Huge red herring. There is a large difference between 'everything' a university produces and email communication archives and archived data from a research institution. The later two are almost certainly subject to FOI law requests, and if you read the emails (and believe they are real) the admin were working under the assumption that they were required to submit to the FOI requests until CRU convinced someone to basically ignore the law (the denials seem to be classified under the 'vexatious' category). Colleges are required by law to maintain archives of every email that comes in and out of the institution specifically for FOIA requests. I know this for a fact, as I help maintain the backups at the institution I work for (in U.S., as I've said before, from reading the UK FOI laws -- things appear similar there too).Bellis (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, we have to go by what reliable secondary sources publish - the Washington Post, CNN, BBC, etc. My own snark aside, there are legitimate questions about context, and maybe authenticity. We may not, and should not, try to analyze a primary source, which this is. We have to wait on the journalists and researchers to do that. As they report, we summarize their reporting, in neutral language -- and to whoever put in "claim" for "say," anyone who has been around here for a while knows better than to play the Smith-claims-but-Jones-notes game, so let's avoid that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it 'ok' to link to news media sources that quote the emails, or is that also considered out of bounds? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230122/How-climate-change-scientists-dodged-sceptics.html Bellis (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I see some looming problems with that. But, I wonder how the fact CRU and it's researchers are mostly funded outside the university, by very varied instances, affects to copyrights of documents and emails? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Sketter (talk • contribs) 05:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Quoting excerpts from the emails, as the Washington Post and many others have done, is quite legal under fair use. Since some of these quotes have become (in)famous, and are central to the event and the ensuing public debate, Wikipedia guidelines will undoubtedly compel us to post some of these excerpts. The hack itself is trivial, there are dozens of hacks every day that don't make it into Wikipedia. This one is not about the leak it's about what the leak revealed to the public. Having a Wikipedia article on this event banned from quoting the emails would be like having an article about Christianity banned from quoting the Bible. It would be oddly circuitous. Flegelpuss (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you actually read the discussion? Nobody claims we cannot quote from the emails under fair use. What is under discussion is an external link to the complete archive, which is forbidden via WP:EL. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Bellis asked above "Is it 'ok' to link to news media sources that quote the emails, or is that also considered out of bounds?". The above is just a response. I think that such links are OK, as long as it results in a quality article. Short quotes are fair use, and if a respectable third party does the quoting, then I think we should trust that decision. Similarly, if some part becomes widely quoted, it may make sense for us to quote it too, if it is a good way to describe the debate. As I see it, the question about quotations is more about being encyclopedic and tasteful than a legal question (which is good, since about those it is not for us to wonder why). -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Many of the e-mails are related to government agencies such as NASA, and as such, should be made available. Alister Kinkaid (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

NASA is not any part of the UK government. --TS 13:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Scibaby involved in the hacking?

Should Wikipedia notify the police about Scibaby's activities here, the IP addresses he uses etc., so that they can investigate his possible involvement in the hacking? Count Iblis (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that Scibaby is involved in any capacity, other than the usual one of making a nuisance here. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The headline says it all about the paranoia revolving around "scibaby" in these parts. No matter how awful scibaby may have been, please don't project it onto the billions of other climate skeptics on the planet, or onto the small fraction of those who are now coming to these articles to see how fairly Wikipedia is documenting the CRU leak and, on occasion, engaging in edits to restore what they see as NPOV, due weight, and coverage of all the important aspects of the event. And please don't use scibaby fears to try to ban editors whose edits you do not like. Thank you.Flegelpuss (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Does your checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet agree with you? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What? Is there a mod-bot on me. Everytime I reply to Boris it gets wiped. Let me try this again. I agree with Flegelpuss. Not every skeptic should be related to skibaby. It's a non-falsifiable way to eliminate dissenters. If you go watch the talk-page of the global warming article, it's like Boris has a personal agenda to wipe out any non-conforming data. Non-conforming data gets blocked simply because scientific propaganda limits it to the opinion section. We don't need hacked emails to figure that out.Cflare (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want your comments to stand, abide by WP:TPG and WP:NPA. As it turns out, Flegelpuss seems to have been from an independent group of sock puppets. But we have on the order of 600 Scibaby socks, and new ones nearly every day. Of course this invites suspicions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

F has been blocked for socking, astonishingly William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

comment: is above a legal threat? wp:nlt 93.86.205.97 (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington Post

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's already in the list above at #Reliable sources. Please add any further articles you come across to that section, to keep them all in one place. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

fyi

Bah, CA has a mirror now. Only now noted --J. Sketter (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not News

I know this policy is never followed, but this minor news event is not material for an encyclopedia. Bleh. -Atmoz (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, it is extremely far from being "minor". However, time will tell. Meanwhile, this article will exist, and will reflect the state of the facts as they are discovered. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Malicious redirects

There are some malicious redirects popping up - Mike's nature trick. Can someone delete them please? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OI, that isn't malicious! It's legitimate. Several articles use that as their title. People will be entering those words in the search box. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

People have written all kinds of things we don't put in wiki. We have BLP after all. The redir is not legit and should die William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

-caugh- Bias. -caugh-. Deal with it Connolley.--97.92.93.161 (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WMC is dealing with it - he has a conflict in this matter, so he's asking others to look at things in his stead, which is the correct and commendable way to do things. Having said that, It's not obviously a BLP issue (I'm aware of basically all the context here, thanks), so it's a content dispute that shouldn't be hereAlternately, it's possible that I don't know where I'm posting things. WMC, if you think such redirects are malicious, I'd advise discussing them at RfD instead, so others can have their say. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've speedied a couple of bogus redirects already. I suggest using the speedy deletion process to deal with other obviously bogus ones. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please respect Wikipedia more than you respect your own views.

Recent edits to this article are partisan. Editors rmv as "No source, and wrong" something that is easily sourced, and correct. Please respect the facts that exist, not the ones you wish to exist... If the whole thing is revealed as a fraud later, then you can say the facts are wrong. meanwhile, the emails do suggest that data was fudged. Please respect Wikipedia more than you respect your own views. I do it all the time. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP strictly requires that unsourced negative information about living people (and an accusation of fraud is such) is deleted immediately. If you can find reliable sources for deleted statements, feel free to re-add them with proper sourcing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it would be nice if Wikipedia had some respect for the posters to the site. I am a climate skeptic with a scientific background and I have found that Wikipedia has some kind of surveillance system which is used to delete any remarks which are not following the popular view that man is causing global warming be burning fossil fuels. Now if those supporting this view had any evidence, never mind proof, that this is true it would give me comfort. But, as it is, Wikipedia is just another propaganda source. So, why am I censored, while climate crazies are not? Arthur (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha! We are more cunning than ever you thought. You see, I've *not* deleted your useless post above, just to demonstrate that it is self-contradictory. Mwahahaha William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually both climate crazies and people like you are routinely 'censored'. This isn't a site which welcomes 'posts'. We are an encyclopaedia and you should only discuss ways to improve the article or the encylopaedia in general, not your personal views in support or against global warming or anything else. The removal of such discussions is completely legitimate regardless if they support the 'popular view' nor does it matter what 'evidence' or 'proof' is provided nor what your background is. Policy encourages WP:Civility and WP:AGF and WP:Don't bite the newbies however all contributors do have to respect wikipedia rules and guidelines and several of them make discussions on wikipedia concerning editors personal opinions or other subjects unrelated to ways to improve the encyclopaedia largely taboo (except in a small number of circumstances). While we usually allow some leeway, this is limited in hot button topics because otherwise it is likely to get out of hand. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

One finnish news article, please edit and add if you feel so

"In Finland, MEP Eija-Riitta Korhola is going to present a written query to European Commission about the credibility of IPCC climate reports. Her husband, climatologist and Helsinki University professor Atte Korhola says that published e-mails show some concerning signs, and expresses the view that the current political weight of climatic research has led the climatology to lose it's rules." (not a quate, but my summary, sorry)

From a finnish online newspaper Uusi Suomi

• Ovaskainen, Teppo (21 November 2009). "Korholas went on to a climate war". Uusi Suomi.
• Google translate of the finnish page: [8]

--J. Sketter (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (sig. added)

I am going to revert this addition on two grounds:

1. The English of the contribution is not clear in some important areas: I'm not sure what "and express the view that the current political weight of climatic research has led the climatology to lose it's rules" actually means, for example.
2. What I can make out from the contribution does not seem directly derived from what I can make out from the Google translation: I can see nothing in the translation about a "written query to European Commission about the credibility of IPCC climate reports", rather it says, "MEP Eija-Riitta Korhola (cons), [of] the European Commission intends to make a written question to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC reports are reliable", which is very different - she intends to write to the IPCC, not the EC. It also says that "Korhola and her husband, University of Helsinki, environmental change, Professor Atte Korhola, [have been] shot down by the government's climate policy expert, MP Oras Tynkkysen". None the less, "Professor Atte Korhola, European academies of science of environmental panel member, as interpreted by the alleged manipulation of the messages is 'normal scientific debate,'", so it seems that her husband, the Professor, actually said that the the emails show 'normal scientific debate'.

In the light of our strict responsibilities regarding living persons and their views, I think there is enough doubt to us English speakers as to what has been reported and what has been added to this article that it should go, at least until we have more reliable translations and summaries to base our reporting on. --Nigelj (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also note that such items only would be of interest when it transcends from the "i want to" level, into "has done so" with an additional "has been accepted by". My initial reactions here was that this was a politician wanting to ride a news-burst to some self-promotion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhhuh! I accept your decision. Absolutely. I have to admit only now I read the translation more closely. Every single argument in Nigeljs #2 is based on wrong translation (except for the assumption that Mrs. Korhola would be a member of both parliament and commission). GT still is worse than nothing when dealing with these two languages. Also Kim D. Petersens point is fair. If Korhola really acts, maybe we can return to subject... at least then I may have a source in official EU English :) But as I said, I should have paid attention to the machine-translation before deciding to offer the thing here. Very stupid by me. I think I better restrict myself to minor edits in this article, just like before... Thanks for your politness. (after google: restrict minor by myself, article think hemmaglutinin she this, just like before the edits...) --J. Sketter (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

another reference that should be added

another reference: <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/story/0,1,26386720-2702,00.html>

Page name

We seem to be in danger of random POV moves. I think it would be a good idea if page-move was locked William M. Connolley (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

as opposed to intentional POV 'moves'??lol?? (Keep up the good work! pj)67.141.235.203 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The title of the page is now a problem in two ways. It is now apparent that the leak is less than half emails. (~1000 files or 7MB of emails vs ~3400 files or 149MB of other documents.) It is also apparent that the other documents are also controversial. For instance, there is log which appears to criticise the quality of CRU data management and software: http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html (clearly not an RS, of course). Should the title reflect this? Currently the title is email-centric. Secondly, it is not clear that this is a hacking incident. What it is is a data leak. Much speculation suggests that it may be an insider leak, rather than external penetration. Should the word "hacking" be removed? Slowjoe17 (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Page move and other edits by User:Tjic

Please do not try to change the slant of this articled by quick-fire dramatic edits: rather, please engage with the discussions on this talk page. Considerable effort has been put into keeping this page neutral and based on published facts, secondary reliable sources etc. Please engage with the consensus philosophy that makes WP work so well. --Nigelj (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Date error on release and link to release notification?

Slowjoe17 (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC) This is my first time writing for Wikipedia, so I may be asking dumb questions.

The article says the release at the Air Vent was on the 19th, but the actual link is dated the 17th.

Should the actual release comment be linked? It is http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917

Well you could start by reading this page. #Copyright issues - a reminder will answer your question and give you links to various WP policies that you should also look at. The issue's getting an airing below too. --Nigelj (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html#ixzz0XwqOqKHw"

This is from: BrianSkeptic (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Content of Emails

I am surprised (well not really) to see that the actual content of the emails is not discussed. Certainly many reliable sources have gone into some detail about the contents and which ones are significant and why. Is there any objection to creating a section detailing the notable contents of the emails? WVBluefield (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate that. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's going to be a lot of work, as, for balance, for every point you want to quote from an email, we're going to have to go right back into the science and the papers, diagrams, datasets etc under discussion, find the context, understand the theory, the statistics and the data and explain not only what the conspiracy theorists have made of it, but also what the original author actually was talking about and what s/he meant by it at the time. All this with reliable sources. And just trying to put one side of the argument in, will just lead to it getting removed on the basis of WP:WEIGHT and balance, unfortunately. --Nigelj (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Between copyright problems and the fact that both blogs and op-eds in recognised newspapers (see Lawson article in Unreliable Sources above) are apparently disallowed here, it seems to be unrealistic to get the content of the emails onto the page ATM. It seems clear to me that the copyright issue can't really be worked around.

Since http://www.climateaudit.org (currently at http://camirror.wordpress.com) and http://www.realclimate.org are primary discussion actors in this controversy, is there any mechanism to provide an exception for them for this page? Slowjoe17 (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nigelj: what concerns quotes about climate science i agree with you, but please realize that a big portion of the email has actually nothing to do with diagrams and datasets. there are other important issues raised by those emails that could (and in my opinion should) be adressed: the attempt to hijack/abuse the peer-review-system, lack of confirmation-bias-awareness, the priority of political issues over scientific ones, insults, etc. To elaborate these points is of course not the job of wikipedia, but if reliable sources point at these issues, wer have to include it. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

SlowJoe, are you saying that realclimate isnt am RS for BLP's? On the other matter, several non blog sources go into detail about the specific contents of the emails. I see no reason to excluded these. WVBluefield (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is ClimateAudit an RS? It wasn't listed in the section above. IMO, either both CA and RC are reliable sources, they both are not, or someone needs to explain the difference. Slowjoe17 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that RC has been positively reviewed in a number of scientific publications, and is written by acknowledged experts. CA has not been treated similarly, and McI's qualification is a 30+ year old B.Sc. and 30 years experience in mineral exploration. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"The difference is that RC has been positively reviewed in a number of scientific publications ..." - No doubt by the very people that run the site. "30 years experience in mineral exploration" - as a statistician for the same ... and of course the material he is commenting on is inherently statistically based ... a little something you left out. --GoRight (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Climate Model Source Code Comments

I believe that some of the most revealing material may be the programmer comments embedded in the climate models' source code. Here's an example:

printf,1,’IMPORTANT NOTE:’
printf,1,’The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density’
printf,1,’records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer’
printf,1,’temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set’
printf,1,’this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and’
printf,1,’this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,’density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,’observed temperatures.’

It's kind of hard to spin that isn't it? FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro from the released docs is the original source. The source code itself was created and maintained using public funding and can thus be presumed to be in the Public Domain.

Is it acceptable to add sections quoting source code from the original ClimateGate docs and if so, would anyone be willing to assist a newbie in doing it properly? GrouchyOldMan (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

leading climate change scientist

Why not adressing him by his name - Kevin Trenberth? And as this seem rather an obvious attempt to discredit those who leaked the files, we should perhaps also mention, that trenberth is appearing in the leaked emails more than a 100 times. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're fast, thank you. about the phrase 'allegedly named in the emails': 1. it would be nice to have a source for that, but as I understand, the emails itself can't act as a source, right? 2. i would more much more prefer the term 'appears' or 'whose name appears', as 'named' could be misleading as he is also the author/recipient of several emails. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The real reason this was not there was included in my edit summary last time I re-simplified this sentence: "The lede summarises the article's main points. Specific details and links are contained in the main body, no need to repeat here."--Nigelj (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I can not see how the name of a person is a specific detail. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

climate-sceptic blogger Stephen McIntyre

In the Stephen McIntyre Wikipedia-article he is not adressed as climate-sceptic and as far as I know, rightly so. To critisize works of climate scientists doesn't actually make you automatically a climate sceptic. I'd like to see that removed (or at least sourced). 84.72.61.221 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This cited source says that he "has for years been challenging data used to chart climate patterns". What other kind of climate sceptic is there? --Nigelj (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree: 'challenging data used to chart climate patterns' does not imply someone is sceptic. Actually, finding errors and faults is propably the most important scientific task. A climate sceptic, in my understanding, is someone who is hesitant in accepting the theory in its whole, not someone who critisizes particular data. if we would take your interpretation of the word, we would have to label every single person who corrected/critisized any data used to chart climate patterns. this would obviously include the majority of climate researcher. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can find one source that says he spent his time looking for examples of where the warming was faster than the professional scientists were claiming, then I'll believe you. --Nigelj (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually it is the other way round: it is you who has to provide a source for calling him a climate sceptic. So, it's not about you believing me, it's only about you sourcing your claims. please respect the rules. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The statement in the article is already adequately sourced, he has spent years challenging the data in use by professional climate scientists, I've patiently explained that. The only possible exception would be if his scepticism was the other way round, which is so unlikely, I don't know why I bothered to mention it to you. Maybe because I hoped you'd go away for a week or two trying to find that source? --Nigelj (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's blatantly ignorant. 'if his scepticism was the other way round' -> so if he would be SCEPTIC, but the other way round, you wouldn't call him a SCEPTIC? I don't see how that makes any sense. Further, it is clearly not adequately sourced, as the source doesn't call him a climate sceptic. I think you're being too one-sided on this subject and unavailable to sound arguments. I therefore would very much like to hear the opinions of others. If there is consensus with your position, then that's fine and we should change the article about McIntyre in that regard. Being a 'leading climate sceptic' is surely something noteworthy, don't you think? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Calm down both, please. 84.72.61.221 is right, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's another RS, really labeling McIntyre a "sceptic"; and finding a RS explicitely stating the opposite may be hard, indeed. :) --J. Sketter (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the sock-detection experts would like to look into this trolling? --Nigelj (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed your WP:OR name calling and added a reference to McIntyre's blog for context. --GoRight (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Will you please avoid personalisation and personal attacks?! I did not add this stuff to this article, it is not 'mine'. I am simply defending the material on the basis that it was properly sourced (until you removed it). I am not prepared to put up with fellow editors who get personal or who can't behave like adults. Understand? --Nigelj (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"I did not add this stuff to this article" - I stand corrected and apologize on that count. As for personal attacks, where exactly have I attacked you personally? I merely used a factual description of what the offending text was, WP:OR and name calling. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Haven't tried to attack you personally. As this is not the place to talk about McIntyres possible motives for critisising the data and methods used, we have to stick to the sources. It's pedantic to make the difference, but it still exists. Could he be called "a statistician"? (math)--J. Sketter (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO we should simply stay with what the source actually used, i.e. blogger. If you want to call him something else then simply provide a source to back it up. That's all the IP was asking for above and I agree, and apparently you do as well. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, user WVBluefield has reinserted 'climate-sceptic blogger' (altough this seems to be a compromise between him and user Verbal), neglecting this discussion. Nevertheless, I think this is not the way wikipedia is supposed to work. I hope someone who has the right to edit the article will make the necessary edit. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that some users continue to reedit without discussing the matter here. this is very disappointing. The majority here sofar thinks, that the no OR-Rule should be respected, so please re-edit again. Take Wikipedia a little more serious please. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Reactions

This seems to be a reaction that should be added to the article as it is a claim that has been made often, denied often and now proved true. --

Mojib Latif, a climate researcher at Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, said he found it hard to believe that climate scientists were trying to squelch dissent. Mr. Latif, who believes in man-made global warming but who has co-authored a paper ascribing current cooling to temporary natural trends, said, "I simply can't believe that there is a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical papers from being published."[9]67.141.235.203 (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but not really a reaction, is it? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph in the == Reactions== section includes a phrase ... selected deliberately to undermine the strong consensus that human activity ... Does it strike anybody else as odd that the words "strong consensus" appear without quotation marks in the middle of so many references to skeptics? Maysmithb (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Autochthony writes, This has stirred up a hornets' next, hasn't it? One link, that may give background to the article, and to the statements on this page, is http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/must-see-video-climategate-spoof-from-minnesotans-for-global-warming/#more-13179 Whatever the truth - and does anyone have a direct line to the truth (I don't, I don't think) - we need perspective. Autochthony wrote. 2250z 25.1.09.86.151.60.238 (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Title

The Climate Research Unit does not officially label this action as a “hack”, only that data was illegally taken from the servers[10]. There has even been some speculation that this was an internal leak from some whistleblower inside the CRU or the university[11]. This being the case, I propose we rename the article to Climatic Research data theft, or something along those lines. WVBluefield (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stick to whatever the WP:RS are calling it. Are they calling it a data theft or a hack? --GoRight (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Some call it a hack and others call it data theft, but the CRU is only calling it theft. WVBluefield (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe neither? [12] Time will time, for now we should leave it as it is. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal 23 nov

Settled Science? Computer hackers reveal corruption behind the global-warming "consensus" (quotes the Washington Post). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this WSJ article is not notable, not an RS, violates CW laws, and fill in another reason here. WVBluefield (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is an 'opinion piece': far from being a reliable secondary source re this incident, it is a primary source as the personal opinions of one Mr James Taranto, who wrote it. --Nigelj (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It can be cited as reaction to the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research (from The Hill) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you just going to keep posting links here, so that we have to read each one and tell you over and over that opinion pieces and blogs are not reliable sources? --Nigelj (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is reliably published news and commentary on the topic. Editors are welcome to look for more sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Opinion pieces are perfectly acceptable as long as they are attributed as such and as long as they are from otherwise reputable sources, of which these all are. --GoRight (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know CRU fell under the remit of the United States Congress... -Atmoz (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The US Congress funds stuff worldwide, they likely give them money (or give money to orgs which cite CRU publications). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A hearing can be regarding anything at all. They could talk about handballs during Irish soccer games if they wanted. Ignignot (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation' (Telegraph.co.uk) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate (Wired article published by CNN) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• E-mail leak turns up heat on global warming advocates (Bostonherald.com, quotes NYT) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting these links. I'll repost this one, which may have gotten lost upthread:

• BBC: '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 (ie, BBC). 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." This is also the first RS I've seen to use "Climategate",--Pete Tillman (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It didn't get 'lost' up there - it got 'criticised'. We already did this under #Reliable sources. These unreliable sources (blogs, opinion pieces etc) will not be useful in the article, unless it's going to get very much longer. They can be used in the sense, "X has claimed A", but for each of these we will need "Y has counter-claimed B" or "Z has denied A" etc. for balance. Please see WP:WEIGHT, of course some of these 'theorists' that you want to quote, like Nigel Lawson, and TV weather presenters, are so close to being Flat Earth proponents that there will have to a lot of balancing, truly scientific, material. --Nigelj (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The topic is notable, these sources, some of which are articles from reliable publishers, others which are blogs under the editorial control of a reliable publisher, deal straightforwardly with the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

NigelJ writes, "They can be used in the sense, "X has claimed A", but for each of these we will need "Y has counter-claimed B" or "Z has denied A" etc. for balance" No we won't need any such thing, not with respect to the authenticity of the emails, it is a closed subject. The persons in the 'to' and 'from' lines in the emails have only affirmed their authenticity, and never yet disputed it, and they have had plenty of time to do so. Waiting for a contrary opinion on that score is delaying the inevitable, and not unbiased or neutral. On other questions, these emails are just as bad as they seem, they are evidence of fraud and gaming the scientific method and community. Tom Perkins, 2009/11/23, 20:28 EST

I didn't think that a one-line, unsigned post constituted much criticism. Was that you?

And you seem to be attempting to tar the BBC's Paul Hudson and others as "Flat Earth proponents" -- watch that POV, please. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's true, I didn't see anything about flat earth in any of those sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As for "there will have to a lot of balancing, truly scientific, material," the pith of this notable topic are emails which (according to the sources) show much of that scientific material has been manipulated and is hence unreliable. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Only according to the climate change sceptics, who are (predictably enough) spinning a handful of the 1,000-odd leaked e-mails as somehow discrediting an entire field of science. It's an illogical and frankly dishonest argument. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)That may be your opinion, but that seems to be the problem here, as demonstrated by your disruptive editing in this section. We try to proceed by discussion and consensus, not by flooding talk pages with our personal opinions and with lists of unreliable blog and opinion pieces as potential sources, generally, here on Wikipedia. I would have thought that a sysop would know that. --Nigelj (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In my mind this article is about a political issue that relates to science, so the standard of RS is different. Obviously there will be very few (if any) scientific journal articles about the incident. Instead I think we should be on the lookout for some kind of investigative journalism. Ignignot (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A personal blog by Paul Hudson is not a RS, not even in the darkest pits of wikipedia.
—Apis (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd that this "personal blog" is available at www.bbc.co.uk/. Try again? Pete Tillman (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is odd. However, I meant personal as in expressing his personal opinion.
—Apis (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I hate to burst your bubble, but according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, opinion pieces can only be considered reliable sources for statements about the authors opinion.
—Apis (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Which of these are opinions? I dont think any of them are. WVBluefield (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's little things like "top stories in Opinion" (as in the very first source posted) that gives it away.
—Apis (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are meant for discussing sources and improving articles. I'm citing sources from reliable publishers which support the topic's notability, which is about reliably published assertions that the scientific sources themselves have been manipulated. You're welcome to say you disagree with any reliable source, but otherwise your assertions are supported neither by the cited sources nor the policies of this website. Please also try not to stray into personal attacks. Meanwhile, Apis O-tang is mistaken, WP:RS notes that as to opinion, "it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are just as many hundreds of reliable blogs and opinion pieces on the web at the moment saying that the stolen material proves absolutely nothing about the science or the existence of man-made global warming. A "reliably published assertion" that a weatherman or a conservative politician is excited by the theft supports only the fact that that person got excited. It means nothing about the science or the facts, and that will have to be shown for each climate-denier or climate-sceptic blog or posting you want to highlight. Which will take time and effort, and make the article very long and rather dull to read. There is no way that you will get away with reporting some bloke's personal take without the rest of us getting enough air-space right next to it to provide balance and WP:WEIGHT. --Nigelj (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it would be perfectly unbiased to post quotes from the emails and follow with two contrasting opinions and let people draw their own conclusions. Tom Perkins 2009//11/23, 20:18 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.69.27 (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

All true, but of course that means we need to be selective ... which in turn means we should examine the available options in some detail ... etc, etc. --GoRight (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Climate Emails Stoke Debate: Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming, news story from WSJ, 11-23-09. Includes a link for those wishing to download the hacked archive. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Global Warming With the Lid Off: The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science., WSJ lead editorial, 11/23/09. Sample: "For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions." Obviously also pertinent to our Michael E. Mann article. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans von Storch on Climategate

• Personal site of Prof. Dr. Hans von Storch, an established expert in climatology, re Climategate: "...scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC." Nov.21, 2009, under "News"

You have to take it with a grain of salt because he has a history with those involved at the CRU. Ignignot (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, note he repeatedly refers to them and himself as 'adversaries'. He would be more credible if he thought of his peers as 'colleagues', I think. --Nigelj (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk about selective quoting. "Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC." (emphasis mine). And while you are at von-Storch's site, check out his account of the Climate Research controversy and his opinion on the contentiouscrappy Soon & Baliunas article that exemplified CR's problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at this email, which van Storch has confirmed as legitimate: "Hans von Storch is partly to blame -- he encourages the publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'." ... "... -- must get rid of von Storch too ..." -- Tom Wigley, copied to Phil Jones

Interesting reading, especially for those who feel this will blow over. Many more topics indexed here. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there something strange to call your opponent in a scientific debate an adversary? von Storch speaks about ethics, what imho is the main thing in this whole incidence. --J. Sketter (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly also this was already 3 days old (quite soon after the incident). As a side note: any idea dividing the "reactions" -section to first reactions and later ones? --J. Sketter (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)J. Sketter (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the consensus here is clearly that this is not very important or relevant ('grain of salt', 'would be more credible if', 'selective quoting', 'already 3 days old' etc) Yet a para has appeared on it in some detail, with its own heading! Worse than that, it is only sourced from von Storch himself - primary source: von Storch on von Storch. And he is only 'mentioned' in the stolen documents. So I removed it, but it ia back again with 'please discuss on talk'. So here I am. How can you possibly justify a whole section on this one man: sourced to himself; undue weight? --Nigelj (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the section is continuing to get elaborated, but those who say, "pls use talk" are making no attempt to do so, just continuing to edit contrary to consensus here.

--Nigelj (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is disappointing, why this unwillingness to participate in discussion?
—Apis (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Not to mention that the reactions section is getting out of proportion, we can't quote every kooky person who has an opinion or the hundreds of people that happens to be mentioned in the stolen correspondence. This also raises wp:blp issues, storch is accusing the others of trying to destroy "Climate Research". How about we add that von Storch "encourages the publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'." Should we quote people slandering away at each other? that would quickly get ridiculous.
—Apis (talk)

Apis: By calling Storch a kooky person, you have discredited yourself. please restrain from insults. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't: "[...] every kooky person [...] or the hundreds of people that happens to be mentioned in the stolen correspondence". Please be more careful before making accusations.
—Apis (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You did. "we can't quote every kooky person" was your argument against including storch reaction, so you obviously implied him being kooky (As you can see, I'm reading VERY carefully!). Please stop these attempts to mislead and let's forget about this ot, on the grounds that we'll hear no more insults from you. thank you. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Van Storch is a central figure in current climate science; his opinion carries real weight. And it does appear that the "Hockey Team" targeted him: "must get rid of von Storch". I think that VS's opinion belongs in the article. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

While he might be notable in this context? we need to consider the balance of the entire section, and I think we should be careful before we start quoting and spreading a bunch of speculations, especially with regard to wp:blp. I would feel more comfortable if we rely on high quality sources for that kind of accusations.
—Apis (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fox News and CNN are not RS's?

Its like some editors aren’t even trying to hide their POV pushing anymore [13]. WVBluefield (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly true, but probably not in the way you think William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits related to research ... spelling, missing edit explanation, and sourcing

I accidentally hit "enter" while trying to restore the phrase "and keeping skeptics' research out of peer-review literature.". My intention was to add the phrase, and a citation. As I typed it in, I realized I was using the spelling"Skeptic", rather than "sceptic". (Is this an English issue?) While deciding how to handle the spelling, I accidentally hit enter, and added the phrase without an edit summary, thereby breaking my 100% edit summary streak. My next edit was to correct the spelling (except in links - I think I did it correctly, but if it is an UK spelling, feel free to revert.) I then added a WSJ source to back up the phrase. I gather that the phrase was removed because it was supported by Fox News. As per my read of this discussion Fox is acceptable.

I see Connolly has reverted the spelling. Sorry about that, I thought sceptic was simply an error, but apparently not.--SPhilbrickT 23:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is what we call "English", Brck William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, sorry. My spell-checker agreed with my practice to use skeptic. Which doesn't make me right. However, while reverting the spelling change, you also removed a phrase supported by the citation I added. You questioned whether three are need? I haven't read the other two, but the statement about keeping stuff out of the literature was removed by you when you removed the Fox cite. So I found an alternative cite. I haven't checked to see if my cite covers the rest of the sentence, or if the other cites cover all points.--SPhilbrickT 23:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an accident. Though as it happens I don't think it should be included, as unjustified William M. Connolley (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Removal of citation in response to Connolley edit summary query

WMC wondered whether three citations were needed for a single sentence. That sentence asserts six points. I've confirmed that the first five are covered by the Revkin article, and the sixth point is covered by the WSJ article. Accordingly, I removed what was footnote nine, also a WSJ article, as redundant.--SPhilbrickT 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Balance? or not?

I hastily added a sentence "Storch has been critical of Mann in the past." in an attempt to provide balance to the prior sentence in which Storch called for the recusal of Mann and Jones. My intention was to make it clear this was not someone making an unbiased call, but someone with a history of conflict with Mann. However, I'm not sure whether it is proving the balance I want. If anyone has any suggestions, please feel free to improve.--SPhilbrickT 23:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the problem lies not in balance but in your notion that being critical about someone is equal to have a conflict with that person. second, your source, at least as I understand it, is more about scientific stuff and storch's critic of mann's work, not about the person himself (or did I overlook something?). to me that doesn't justify judging it an unbiased call. sources that go into the personal relationship between the two would be more appropriate. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there little-to-no coverage of the actual contents of the e-mails?

Is there any particular reason why there's little-to-no coverage of what the e-mails actually said? By that, I mean actual quotes from the e-mails? Without that, it's difficult for the reader to understand what exactly all the fuss is about. If it's a question of sourcing, there are plenty: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18].

In particular, I suggest that we work the following into the article. (Note that I'm copying and pasting directly from news articles.)

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Trenberth, the British research center's director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."

In one of the stolen e-mails, Trenberth is quoted as saying "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies -- in particular improved recording of rising sea surface temperatures.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Worthless out of context quotes with your personal spin on them. No thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Genius! A quote is per definition out of context.... 84.72.61.221 (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

First, assume good faith. Second, none of that was in my own words. As I explained, I copied and pasted that from news articles. We'd obviously have to reword the reporter's words to avoid copyright issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, as will anybody who looks at the mather unbiased. the only thing wortheless was Schulzes own comment. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So what is the source for "In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

you know google, right? [19] 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[20]. BTW, I'm not suggesting that we take the e-mail quotes out of context. We can provide context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The supplied source does not mention even the term IPCC. It only appears in the user comment section, which are not a reliable source by any definition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is smart to be cautious with respect to actual email contents. While there have been admissions that at least some are genuine, there has been concern that the genuine emails may have been spiked with fake ones. Until that issue is settled, I don't think anyone should directly link to an email. However, as you point out, some of the emails have been quoted in reliable sources, so they may be "fair game". Your first link has been used extensively already.--SPhilbrickT 01:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that emails that were quoted in reliable sources should be quoted in this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• • For those interested, there's a searchable database of the hacked emails here, and a partial index to interesting topics here. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think either one of those qualify as reliable sources as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines go. In fact, using the first would be WP:OR. As long as we stick to what major news outlets are saying (minus blogs and op-eds), we should be fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood your point. I thought you were wondering why the complete text of any of the emails fails to appear in the article. I looked (admittedly quickly) at most of your links. I don't see any example of a full email quoted. Mostly a word or a short phrase. Your number 7 has been extensively quoted. 8 doesn't have a full quote, 9 and 10 are the same, and neither does.--SPhilbrickT 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

complete text of any email? hehe, what would that be for? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean the complete text of the e-mails. I just meant some excerpts. As a reader, I would want to know what they said that was controversial (whether justly or unjustly). Like I said, we can (and should) provide context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did misunderstand your point. I agree, we seem to have jumped from the description of the leak to the reaction to the leak, while passing over what was in the leak in any detail. The newest section on FOI does have some excerpts, but it feels like we are missing something.--SPhilbrickT 01:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Only that this newest section has been deleted already. :( 84.72.61.221 (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Science Insider article we use for the FOI section quotes an entire email from Jones to Mann here. The first draft of this section included the email, diff. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There should be a section 'content of the emails' or something like that. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we shouldn't be using blogs as sources since most don't meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:RS. Blogs can only be used if a) they're subject to the full editorial control of the WP:RS or b) the author is published by a WP:RS in the relevant field but even then, we have a WP:WEIGHT issue: if the information is really worth including, another WP:RS would have covered it. Given that this is a controversial topic with potential WP:BLP issues, my personal preference would be to avoid blogs altogether. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully." That is, what would traditionally be considered a RS published in a 'blog format' (e.g. no opinion pieces).
—Apis (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

See, that's one aspect of WP:RS I'm a little unclear about. How do you differentiate between a blog and a column? Most sites don't seem to have any statement about whether such a posting has been fact-checked or reviewed by an editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue. Of particular concern is the blog "Realclimate," which is quoted in the article. There is no fact checking by an editor at this blog. What is worse is that the blog is quoted by a media source, so we are twice removed from the real facts. Alister Kinkaid (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't anymore understand why we are presenting the opinion of RC. IMHO RC's objectivity on this subject may be well disputed. Opinions? --J. Sketter (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate is quoted by a reliable secondary source, Computerworld magazine (and the same quote has been run by other reliable secondary sources). It's worth quoting as (1) it represents the opinion of a collective of climate scientists who are prominent public commentators, and (2) it directly addresses the context - i.e. the conspiracy theories - being promoted by the sceptics. We should not quote from blogs but if their views are significant enough to be quoted by reliable secondary sources and sufficiently useful and relevant to this article, their comments are worth including, sourced to those reliable secondary sources. (Note that the Stephen McIntyre quotation is included under the same rationale.) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So, in short. Blogs quoted by R2ndS can be quoted only by peer-review considering if it meets (1) and (2). Ignoring the fact that this is a cyclic monopoly and size of the collective aside, this essentially allows monopoly dictatorate on RS. (2) is completely subjective, because if we do quote another 'opinion' it would have to be from the POV of the 'collective'. (1) is not valid because this allows majority rule, which in turn allows majority rule to dictate RS. If we do not stick to a discrete definition of RS, then we subject ourselves to a democratic wiki. At which point, AGW as a theory would be accepted IFF the majority allows it. The majority slice can be futher cherry-picked by the subjective (2). (2) would include Al Gore as an expert on AGW. (1) would include IPCC without requiring empirical evidence. (1) and (2) combined allows for a monopoly on information control.Cflare (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe to quote RC as a RS in a topic that sheds a rather dubious light on RC itself is a travesty. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I think the quotebox I inserted should stay. It puts the absurd hand-wringing and melodramatic angst into context. We've seen no denials of the actual content of the emails from the scientists involved, so we can assume it's genuine. The content is actually rather innocuous. Yes, they are trying to suppress junk science. Happens all the time. But it's small beer when you consider the vast conspiracy the denialists have been suggesting for years. ► RATEL ◄ 15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

RC is owned by a PR firm and is run like a PR project. This is no way RealClimate should ever be considered RS for anything other than for the views of the author. That said, it may be reasonable for this article to quote RC to provide the viewpoint of authors. RonCram (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As the OP who started this thread, I want to reiterate that WP:RS says self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." These are established experts. Their work is in the relevant field. They have been previously published by reliable third party publications. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

EXCEPT RC is not "published", so it is not subjective to any validity whatsoever. A personal blog website is the equivalent of posting a sign on a light-pole. The extablished expert could even be stolen identity in worse-case scenario. A book, a documentary, a radio segment, etc, all require some passing of a review of sorts. At which point it is the burden of the medium to produce any work on checking facts. We'd have a direction to point a finger if the scientist went mad and started producing junk. That portion of WP:RS when applied to personal or private collective blogs allows for subjective RS.Cflare (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's published electronically. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How the files were first announced

There are interesting details here[21]. According to Gavin Schmidt of the RealClimate blog, his blog was hacked and a message linking to the files was cued for posting, but this was discovered and the post canceled. Also, along with the original comment at "The Air Vent", there was a link made in a comment at McIntyre's blog. These three actions appear to have been carried out by the original hacker or a confederate. Mporter (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several clear indications based on reliable media reports that it was either and insider or whistleblower...either at the Realclimate blog or Climatic Research Unit. Alister Kinkaid (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Having examined the actual files, I disagree that there are such clear indications. There is a lot of "junk" included that is irrelevant if the intention was to produce a clearly focused exposé. The emails are all work-related, but that is all. Anyway, I'm sure neither of us has enough evidence for these opinions to be included. It is verifiably the case that the skeptic sites favor the insider interpretation, though - that might be worth mentioning. Mporter (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The leak has been described by most reliable sources I've seen as being the work of hackers, though of course this doesn't exclude the possibility of an insider. The fact that the sceptic sites favour the insider interpretation appears to have more to do with their preferred narrative than any factual evidence. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Several sources are saying insider or whistleblower. Alister Kinkaid (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Link to the leak is apropos...

So quit deleting it. Sukiari (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what "apropos" (do you mean appropriate?), but the link should not be added per #Copyright issues - a reminder Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No copyright is claimed. Sukiari (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is, please direct me to the claim. Sukiari (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The copyright belongs to the authors, and this is the "per talk". Please self revert. Verbal chat 09:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not self revert, as the link to the actual documents is extremely apropos, and the copyright holders have not asserted that their emails be withheld from the wikipedia.

Unless it's a new policy to kill all links from wikileaks, in which case we can team up and delete them all. Sukiari (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The link to the zip archive is unacceptable. Stop adding it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

From your comment here and on my talk page, I'm guessing you're under the impression that it's necessary to claim copyright for it to exist. As explained on this page, in the copyright article and other places in most countries this is not necessary. Anything someone creates with sufficiently originality and a few other features is copyrighted by them. For example, all my comments on this page are copyrighted by me (presuming they have sufficient originality etc to be copyrightable), despite me never having claimed copyright. Per wikipedia policy, I have released my content under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL but that's only possible/necessary because they are copyrighted by me. Nil Einne (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with you. But I very much doubt, that the emails offer sufficient originality. at least i know of no case, where an email (unless in some art/email poetry context) fell under copyright law. do you? the most of the documents on the other hand are clearly copyrighted. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that most e-mails are copyrighted.Modified post for clarification see below Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just did some research and realize now you're right. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. For the benefit of future readers, I've include further information. I had planned to modify my above post but to avoid confusion since you've already replied I won't... It's generally accepted that many e-mails are copyrighted. Precisely what threshold is necessary may not be a clearly defined area given the lack of caselaw and obviously varies from country to country but you can easily find plenty of discussions reminind people to respect copyright and it's something that comes up in discussing about archiving, forwarding and the like. In some cases the commercial loss may be unclear or non existant and so it may be difficult to sue for copyright infringement, it doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. E.g. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Will you eliminate everything cited from wikileaks from the wikipedia? Of course, most folks wouldn't like the stuff that appears there to be released, but without a strict sanitization policy on the wikipedia, regarding everything from wikileaks, it seems a bit off to eliminate this cite. Sukiari (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it good faith to call in a buddy to revert? Is it consensus? Sukiari (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And, I will not stop adding a link to a zip file. Thousands exist unmolested on the wikipedia. Sukiari (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. It's Wikipedia policy not to link to copyright violations we are aware of. See WP:ELNEVER. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet hundreds of links from wikileaks remain unchallenged. This is a legitimate cite. Sukiari (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What part of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS was unclear? You are welcome to go on a Crusade to fix all of Wikipedia. I prefer fixing it one bit at a time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2)My reading of WP:COPY suggests it is in the main concerned with preserving the rights of the creators of creative content. I don't see anything in there about using it to suppress the details of private correspondence. Perhaps if the content in question had intrinsic artistic value in and of itself but that's not the case here. On the contrary, I would think it is strongly in the public interest to have access to this material and that this would fall under the exception to the policy. Ronnotel (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your reading may suggest it, but it suggests wrongly. I suggest your reading reads WP:LINKVIO again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

E-mail/email

I reverted the change from e-mail to email of User:Ratel. [29] Firstly this was obviously a search and replace move but poorly done as I count two instances were the title of a reference was changed which is obviously inappropriate. However the more important point and the reason for the reversion (I had planned just to fix the titles) is that this article title uses e-mail so we need consistency. If we want to use email then the article should be moved. But given the many moves I suggest against that without discussion. It occurs to me that WP:Engvar applies her since both terms are valid and some varieties of English use e-mail while others use email, both are valid words. The fact this isn't a distinction involving the normal varities of English shouldn't make a differewnce. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Threats of violence

Sukairi keeps adding the claim the e-mails contain threats of violence. The trouble is, despite asking "peeps" to look it up [30], it appears he/she hasn't bothered to since the source used in no way mentions violence. In other words, Sukairi is introducing claims that appear to be sourced but are not. If Sukairi is asking people to look up the original e-mails, I suggest he/she look at WP:OR and WP:Verifiability since both are clearly violated here Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The violence claims appear to be entirely spurious, and indeed BLP violations William M. Connolley (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the claim is not spurious. It is now properly cited. Sukiari (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And please don't abuse BLP. It's OK to talk about a LP, or cite something they said which was reported in the media. Sukiari (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The source you cited [31] says quite the opposite of what you claimed it says.

As for WP:BLP, you might want to read the first sentence of that page (especially the "any").

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it says, quoting: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.” Sukiari (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The source you cited quite clearly explains that this cannot be considered "threats of violence". And besides, personal interpretations by Wikipedians are not appropriate in Wikipedia articles anyway, even if they don't contradict reliable sources.

Regards,

Saying you are tempted to beat the crap out of somebody, and then emphasizing yourself "seriously tempted" is not a threat of violence?

It is in a court of law. Sukiari (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to fully agree with you. Of course it is a thread of violence, the other users might be irritated, that the thread didn't adress the potential victim. nevertheless, you need to find this fact a in RS, as you ought to do no OR. besides it would be helpful to find an another expression, less juristically connotated. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, please enlighten me as to where the source you quoted above, and the one I also quote, defuses the threat. I would like to know if I have gone blind. Sukiari (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you might miss the dripping sarcasm in the article cited. All highly respected scientists commonly threaten to beat the crap out of their critics, no? Sukiari (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary: a threat is "an expression of intent to injure or punish another." Since you're muttering about the law, let's be clear: no reasonable person would, in the context, read the sentence quoted as an expression of intent. It is an expression of an emotion. This is pretty damned obvious; if we were talking about violent criminals, rather than scientists, or if the message was intended to be seen by the subject, that might be different. At it is, this discussion is a waste of time. Rd232 ^talk 10:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Aside from WP:OR & WP:BLP issues, how can it be threats of violence when it wasn't even sent to pat michaels but someting said in a private conversation.
—Apis (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Apis makes an excellent point. It would be a stretch to call this a credible threat of violence (much less threats plural) if the blustering point had been sent to Michaels, but it wasn't, so it is clearly someone shooting off their mouth typing fingers.--SPhilbrickT 13:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The threats of violence are real, and need to be included. Alister Kinkaid (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No it's not a threat of violence. If the person had disseminated it as a public statement, maybe, but this was sent in a private e-mail as a vent to a person from whom the sender expected to receive empathy. Remember, these are private e-mails that have been made public against the wishes of the senders and receivers, not public statements.

In addition, we must have a reliable source call it a threat of violence, or that statement cannot be included. --Cornince (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Taken at face value, the sources appear to indicate a threat of violence. Has this phrase been used in a reliable media source? Pullister (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverts galore...

Two cites and one small quote, and people start coming out of the woodwork to revert the same exact stuff?

Have you guys worked together before? Notice I am not accusing, it's just a simple question that can be answered by looking at edit histories. Sukiari (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, I have both agreed with and disagreed with User:William M. Connolley in the past. I do sometimes work in climate change related articles (and to a lesser extent a number of other science related topics) so this isn't surprising since that is an active area for WMC. I also recognise User:Verbal and User:Stephan Schulz from a number of places. I don't specifically recognise User:HaeB. And in case you're wondering, other then anything on wikipedia, I've never communicated with any of them in any way that I'm aware of or recall. The fact that they're here is hardly surprising. This is a hot button topic with many watchers and you were adding one thing which has already been discussed and another (initially anyway) without even bothering to check the source that was used. In any case, this has little to do with improving the article so if you have further "not accusations" I suggest you contact editors directly or discuss it somewhere else where it's appropriate, I won't be replying to this here anymore Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. Let's both improve the article. Why not add content, instead of deleting it? Sukiari (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it reasonable, since William Connolly is a party to this controversy, that he refrain from comment? It's like G. Gordon Liddy making edits on the Richard Nixon page.65.12.145.148 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate that. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. 76.8.236.106 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the habit of making people "refrain from comment." That goes against the entire spirit of collaboration the site is based on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny that.... my comments get deleted all the time when I reply to William or Boris.Cflare (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Theft

There appears to be a long running low level edit war over whether to describe the incident as data theft. Beyond the fact that data theft appears to be what the majority of reliable sources say, an important point that perhaps people are missing is that whether hacking was involved or an "insider" released the information, it would still likely constitute data theft. In fact our very own article emphasises the fact most data theft is perpretrated by employees and the like, not by external intrusion. The only cases I can imagine where it would perhaps not be data theft is if someone inadvertedly put the information on a public server although even then there may still be some dispute since it is unlikely anyone would genuinely believe the information is intended to be public. P.S. Also, if people genuinely saying it was a hacking incident is inappropriate, they should properly start a discussion to rename the article since it seems to me calling something a hacking incident is more serious then a few mentions of theft Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are hints of insider involvement, but without a credible case that the person leaking owned the docs (which is almost beyond imagination), it was data theft. If backed up by RS, it may be fair to note speculation about insider involvement, but only as speculation, not as established fact. In any event, I suspect that aspect will be resolved fairly soon, so we shouldn't expend too much energy debating the point.--SPhilbrickT 13:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If this is an internal leak, then there are whistle-blower protections. The comparison most apt is probably the Pentagon Papers. This isn't referred to as document theft. Depending on the views of a writer, they might use terms like "whistle-blower", "leak", "security breach", but not theft. Perhaps a more neutral term needs to be used: "unauthorised release" or "data security breach"? The article currently is claiming external hack and theft. This can be viewed as partisan. Slowjoe17 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To me this discussion provides a great insight to the wisdom of the no-news-rule. I pledge for leaving it as it is atm, and discuss the matter in future, when this point has been clarified (or if it'll become obvious that there are no intention by RS to clarify it). 84.72.61.221 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We only have allegations of theft. No evidence. No parties. Not only could it be an inside release, it could even be an accidental release as happened at the same site earlier this year. At most, it can be called "alleged theft." Doesn't innocent-until-proven-guilty apply here, particularly with absolutely zero evidence of it being a criminal act?Mr Pete (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it would seem best to refer to an "alleged theft" or unauthorized release, unless directly quoting a RS. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that, as of this writing, we have 12 cites to "leak" or "leaked" files, vs. 2 cites for "stolen" and none for "theft" (in article titles). Pete Tillman (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington Times 24 nov

• Hiding evidence of global cooling - Junk science exposed among climate-change believers (Washington Times). This can be cited within the bounds of WP:RS. Hopefully the edit warring and content deletion will slow down. Editors are welcome to cite sources with sundry outlooks on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an editorial, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It cites the emails and is published by a reliable source, hence editors can cite its content in the article as such, moreover since the published scientific research itself has come under question in a notable and widely published way. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it can be cited as an editorial, not as a statement of fact. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference to keeping material out of peer-reviewed publications

The description of the content of the email has, at various times included a phrase such as "keeping scientist who have contrary views' research out of peer-review literature". This phrase has been rewritten once or twice, but has been removed. If someone explained why in an edit summary, I missed it.

I agree that citing full emails, is (at present) a copyright issue. I agree that the lone and lame boast about beating the crap out of someone doesn't justify the claim that the emails contain threats of violence. However, multiple reliable sources back up the claim that the emails contain material (more than one lone instance) related to attempts to keep research of some people out of peer-reviewed journals and/or the IPCC. This is not a trivial issue, and bears heavily on the duties of responsible scientists. Equally, it must not be overblown, I've seen no smoking gun that any such efforts have been successful, but the discussion of attempts is clearly there.

I'm going to add back the material with a RS. We can discuss whether it is better as a standalone item or part of the list as before. However, I request that a relevant statement, backed up by a RS, should not be removed again without a clear consensus on this page. --SPhilbrickT 14:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. All I have seen is an attempt to keep crappy science (like Soon & Baliunas 2003) out of the IPCC works, and to ensure that proper peer review ensures that such papers are published as rarely as possible. Keeping crap out is the very aim of peer review. This is not filter on results, its a filter on quality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is your opinion--not appropriate for Wikipedia. We state facts here, based on reliable sources. The threats of violence and scientific misconduct are real and need to be included. Alister Kinkaid (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Keeping crap out is the very aim of peer review." Of course. But we as WP editors are not in judgment of what is crap or not (wrt to global warming theories). Our job is to accurately, in a NPOV, report what reliable sources are reporting. It may well be that the people attempting to keep some scientists work out of journals is a legitimate exercise of peer review, and is reliable sources conclude that, we should report that as well. --SPhilbrickT 14:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Keeping crap out is the very aim of peer review." Haha, yes of course. But that's the job of the reviewers and certainly not of those being reviewed. I think you suffer a tremendous misconception here. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So find reliable sources who conclude that, or at least notable opinions that can be properly attributed. As for the "threats of violence", see other pertinent threads. In short, there are none, or at least we have no RS that claims there are any. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The current sentence has a quote "efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." This is factual, and has been backed up by several RS. It may require balance, specifically, that preventing publication is the very purpose of peer review. (crappy wording, but something along this line)--SPhilbrickT 14:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) It's not from a WP:RS, observant editors will note that it's posted in the Comment is free section of the website. That is a "collective group web-only blog with contributions from a wide range of commentators from many walks of life."

If there is any truth to these accusations there will be plenty of opportunity to include this information, as of now, it is only speculation by sceptics, and likely incorrect. I agree with Stephan Schulz's assessment that they wanted to keep crap science out of the literature, but the quotes are taken out of context from private conversations.
—Apis (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I just came back to post that the latest source is an editorial, so it either needs rewriting so it is expressed as an opinion of the writer, or return to one of the reliable sources. It's a well-constructed quote, so I'd prefer to keep the quote, but I'll look into how to go to a reliable source. Optionally, we could have both, but I worry about weight.--SPhilbrickT 15:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We should stick to facts and not speculations, why is this editorial notable? we can't quote every editorial out there who has an opinion about this.
—Apis (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone arguing we should quote every editorial writer who has an opinion on this. However, the accusation that scientists are improperly interfering with the peer review process is not a small matter. While I hope the weight of evidence ends up concluding there is no 'there' there, it is a subject of intense interest to scientists, and broadly covered by the media. To not have a single reference to it is a lack of balance. I'm open to discussion abut what source is best, or how best to frame it, but I'm watching people just remove it.--SPhilbrickT 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes this persons speculations relevant to this article, wikipedia isn't a op-ed piece, it's not investigative journalism, we stick to the known facts and we cite reliable sources. This is just POV pushing. The fact that it's a serious accusation doesn't make it any better. We need to keep libel out of the article.
—Apis (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand why some are not happy with a Fox news citation, even though it is a reliable source, so I found a WSJ and a Guardian cite. Both of those were on opinion pages, which doesn't make them excludable, it simply means they have to support opinion, rather than fact. So I've returned to the Fox cite and changed the sentence to reflect that the emails are discussing ways to keep scientists out of the peer review process. The Fox wording is over the top 'the hacked files clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process" so I've toned it down.--SPhilbrickT 15:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, we all know it's just speculations and that fox news is unreliable so why do you keep adding it?
—Apis (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything at this point is speculation, so lets stick with what’s notable. And since the material ni question was noted by a WP:RS, it seems appropriate to include here. WVBluefield (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, unless it some quote from a person notable in the context of this article we keep the speculation parts out of the article. Not to mention it's a serious (seemingly unfounded) accusation and subject to wp:blp.
—Apis (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So you are proposing we only here apologetics from those mentioned in the "alleged" emails? BLP, which marginally applies here, doesn’t mean we exclude all information critical of the subjects on those that cannot be found in reliable sources. And low and behold there’s a multitude of sources that are extremely critical of the conduct of the CRU. WVBluefield (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies everywhere, as far as I know neither George Monbiot, nor fox news (and presumably neither the anonymous fox editor) was mentioned in the emails? "there’s a multitude of sources that are extremely critical " yes, the internet is big, but we stick to reliable sources for what I thought was obvious reasons.
—Apis (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There was an article about this very issue now from a reliable source, I have elaborated on that, would be nice if someone could remove the dubious fox quote now. See, all we had to do was wait.
—Apis (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• This ref and quote should help...

[32]

Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" --Duchamps_comb MFA 21:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Fox News citation called "fox" because it seemed to exist solely to report the opinion of a single journalist. Similarly I removed a Washington Post citation that seemed to exist solely to report the opinion of a single journalist. While we may rely on journalists to provide factual material, and to some extent this article is about a media event, I think we have to draw the line where we are simply parroting the opinions of individuals who may have little or no knowledge of the issues than the reader. --TS 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

word sceptic

i see people prefer british variant of the word. shouldn't american skeptic be used instead? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No. After all, the CRU is in the UK (I already made that mistake once, although mine was spelling check generated)--SPhilbrickT 14:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No More Blogs

Please, for the last time, blogs are not reliable. This is about a current event and we should only refer to reliable news sources, not speculations in blogs.
—Apis (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper weblogs are not included in this exemption are they? WVBluefield (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to further debate it, but I'll note that I predict we will change our stance on this. Many blogs are better sources of reliable information than some of the RS we accept. It makes things very messy, but I predict that the bright line we draw between blogs and other editorial sources will have to be revisited.

No editorials are reliable sources for facts, only for opinions of the author.
—Apis (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The opinions and the facts they cite can indeed be cited as such in article text, so long as they're published by a reliable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be some thinking about RS specifically in terms of this article. Currently, Revkin/NYT and RealClimate are viewed as RS, yet they are part of the story. In contrast, no "sceptic" sources are viewed as a RS. At the very least, both these sources need to be caveated as having emails released in the leak/hack/theft/whatever. Slowjoe17 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Revkin is barely a part of the story. There are a total of about 3 emails that he was in, and they are all mundane. Ignignot (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As have been explained, RC isn't used as a RS in the article, RC is quoted, and that quote is from a RS. Plenty of sceptics opinions are expressed in the article.
—Apis (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

George Monbiot

Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see

"It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them."

That's quite an admission coming from George. Given the obviously notable and prominent place Geroge holds this should be included, but I agree it shouldn't be cherry picked. What context from his opinion piece should be used to balance this? Opinions? --GoRight (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should be included. It is just his personal reaction. Also, I agree that Fourier is probably responsible for behind the scenes Illuminati plans for the last 200 or so years. It is all so obvious in retrospect! Ignignot (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's moot. I just noticed that this piece has already been added and I am OK with how it was handled. --GoRight (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's just one man's personal opinions, they are not relevant here.
—Apis (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have deleted that section. Sorry but this won't stand. Geroge Monbiot is one of the most widely recognized media voices who regularly champions AGW. As such his comments on this topic are quite notable in this context. He is regularly cited throughout wikipedia to attack the claims and personal integrity of skeptics so it is only appropriate that he also be quoted here. --GoRight (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just restored the quotes from Monbiot, then I saw this discussion. As noted above, Monbiot is a very well known commentator and a strongly activist pro-global-warmer. His opinion counts. GoRight is right. AlfBit (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of well known commentators and activists, you are cherry picking non notable editorials that support your point of view, that is not neutral. Please only include notable and relevant comments.
—Apis (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Monbiot is either not notable or not relevant? If so, what is your reasoning? (I thought that GoRight and the WP entry established notability; relevance seems obvious.) AlfBit (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly support inclusion of the Monbiot opinion. His is a leading voice, and unless we should exclude all comments from not directly involved parties his is one to include. __meco (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the article as it stands may be putting too much weight on George Monbiot's opinion. He is certainly an important commentator on these matters and his opinion should be there, but I suspect we're in danger of going over the top a little simply because some people like George, and some journalists, are doing so. This is a problem of all current affairs reporting and I assume that all parties will emerge with a more balanced perspective over time, as a result of which this article's content will settle down. --TS 13:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is a joke

A massive "reaction" section, but only one sentence shyly hinting at the actual content of the archive? Why is that? _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The reaction section is out of proportion, I completely agree, and including or linking to the actual material would be a copyright violation.
—Apis (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It may or may not be a copyright violation. If the code work was publicly funded, the information might be in the public domain, including the READ ME files which have so many heads shaking. It depends on national legislation so unless you're a legal expert in UK law, I would be a bit more humble about the legal facts. Any UK editors care to inform us what is the copyright status of words created when being paid by the taxpayer? TMLutas (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

... and there are previous discussions of this above, please see them.
—Apis (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a plethora of direct word for ford quotes from UofEA and from various media - how is this not a copyvio? Surely, the emails can be summarized and paraphrased. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 17:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, unless a reliable source has done so, that's prohibited WP:OR. Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The emails are paraphrased in dozens of sources, many of which meet all the criteria lad out in WP:RS. WVBluefield (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. And why is there such a vigorous defence of the scientists' copyright, while the Reactions section is overflowing with direct quotes? _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Short quotes from reliable sources are not copyright violations, as I said, it's discussed above.
—Apis (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You call "There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, 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" short? There are much shorter passages from the archive, quoted by the very same sources. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if our resident administrator will do anything about it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion about the e-mails, if it's quoted in WP:Reliable sources it is fine to include it. As is done in the article.
—Apis (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is because it happened just a few days ago. these thousands of files have to be analyzed and interpreted first. Wikipedia is not a news-site and we have plenty of time. climate gate is a major affair that requires careful study and rs doing that should be worked into the article.

84.72.61.221 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would argue we don't have that much time considering that the proponents are trying to pass legislation. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol, that's not in the responsability of Wikipedia. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck as right's climate sceptic representative

There must be a more credible sceptic of climate change than Glenn Beck. That he has more or less never leveled any reasoned criticisms against anything forgoes the possibility of him being a legitimate critic in any sense relevant to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the citation associated with the mention of Glenn Beck is simply Fox News' wiki page... sort of irrelevant, no? That he is associated with Fox signifies nothing about his positions on climate change research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the other half of that last para describes George Monbiot as, "an environmentalist and political activist, on the left of the political spectrum", none of which is covered by the citation given. That may or may not be fairly close to the truth, but, considering WP:BLP, I think it is way too definite a boxing-up of someone's on-going life and career to be here without any citation at all. I think the whole last para is a bit lame and amateurish and should just go. --Nigelj (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree - also, using Glen Beck as an example almost represents a smear on the sceptic camp. Ignignot (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Glenn's piece is clearly relevant here and he summarizes some of the key aspects of the controversy. Unless something better comes along to represent the right leaning political perspective, he'll do just fine. --GoRight (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't pay much attention to Beck, but I'm guessing he was brought in as an attempt to balance Monbiot. However, I think that decision was misguided. Attempts at balance should be along the global warming spectrum, not the political spectrum (even though there's some correlation). To the IP who wondered why the Fox link is to the Wiki page - I believe the original link was to Youtube, since removed. I say take Beck out. He contributes nothing.--SPhilbrickT 19:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not. The section has undergone many revisions, but when it was originally added, it appeared to be not-so-subtle attempt to POV push. Except for half a sentence, it cherry picked only the critical information from Monbiot's article while completely omitting its central thesis: While these hacked e-mails damage the creditability of 3 or 4 scientists, there is no grand conspiracy by the scientific community to perpetrate a global warming hoax. The Glen Beck part has since been removed, however,the main point that Monbiot was trying to get across is still omitted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It was me who added that paragraph. The description of George Monbiot as an "environmentalist and political activist" is taken from his WP bio. I thought that there should be a commentator from the right as well, and Beck was the first one that I found. I have no strong feelings about keeping Beck, but I do strongly believe that it would be good to have someone from the right. And yes, the original reference was to youtube; what is the reason that was inappropriate? AlfBit (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to "balance" articles, we're here to provide verifiable information from a neutral point of view. Neutral does not mean we provide sources from two sides of the issue, tit-for-tat. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Links to Youtube are almost never appropriate. There are some exceptions, (BBC created) but this isn't one of them. It's a copyvio problem.--SPhilbrickT 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My edit did not provide sources from two sides of the issues. Rather, both sources were from the same side: highly critical. The edit was intended to show that criticism was from both sides of the political spectrum. This is significant, because global warming is sometimes claimed to be a left-right political issue. I was just giving an example from the right, to show that. AlfBit (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about illustrating that there isn't a lef-right political side to global warming, but rather about a hacking incident. We already have plenty of reactions from both sceptics and non-sceptics and involved parties. You are adding biased op-eds from irrelevant non-notable (in this context) commentators. We should be careful not to turn the article into a list of slander, idle speculations and accusations. Please try to stick to reliable sources, and not columns and other opinion pieces.
—Apis (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil Jones Contradictions

This should be added to the article:

In an interview regarding the hacking incident Phil Jones claimed "We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU."[33] However, in email message 1228330629.txt dated December 3, 2008, Dr. Jones writes, "About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all."[34]Occam eraser (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, because WP:OR Ignignot (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the above vs http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870488840457447730924988354.html or http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-emails-copenhagen "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" Bellis (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead section is very POV

Three times in two paragraphs, the lead said the information was "stolen", and on top of that, the first sentence of the second paragraph stated that police are investigating. I removed one of the "stolen"s and moved the police procedural business to the end of the lead, but that doesn't solve all the problems: three quotes in the lead, all of them from the pro-global warming side, no quote from the other side, despite the fact that the matter is a controversy involving roughly two sides. JohnWBarber (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain your objection to the use of the word "stolen" in more detail? --TS 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can accept "stolen", but it's an odd word to use for what is essentially a privacy violation. If I understand this correctly, pixels were copied -- material wasn't removed and denied to the owners. If the culprit is found and charged, do you really think the charge would be some form of "theft"? I'll take another look in the sources, but we should be clear on how the law was violated. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking the same thing but perhaps not for the same reasons. The majority of the lead is focused on the POV from one side of the issue. In addition it repeats a number of quotes that are provided in the article itself. This represents WP:UNDUE weight for those quotes, IMHO. The lead should be summarizing the article, not repeating one side's POV. --GoRight (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This was a crime. When you refer to "one POV" of the issue, are you by any chance referring to the point of view of the victims? --TS 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see responses to your comment in the "Ordering of responses" section below. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"This was a crime"? Dont be so certain, there hasnt even been a proper investigation. Specualtion has it that Jones may have inadvertently left this data on an FTP site. WVBluefield (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to having one or two quotes evenly representing both sides, if they're roughly representative of the commentary. I think commentary on this is a very important aspect worth noting in the lead and worth quoting there. I'm looking up some of the quotes prominent in some of the news coverage and maybe I'll try to add one. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean that all sides get equal time. Quite the opposite. WP:NPOV requires that we write our articles from the perspective of the majority POV, which happens to be the "pro-global warming side". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no discernable majority POV as yet on the issue of what these particular documents mean because hardly any time has passed, and people on any side of global warming could find themselves in agreement on important points here. It seems best to make sure we represent both sides on global warming and simply cover the range of opinion so far expressed, then sort it out as a consensus develops among the sources, if any develops. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The scientific consensus about global warming hasn't changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus about the level of importance of these hacked documents or what is significant about them, and the issue here isn't global warming but what the title of this article refers to. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your OP stated "all of them from the pro-global warming side, no quote from the other side, despite the fact that the matter is a controversy involving roughly two sides.". The "pro-global warming side" is the majority opinion and this article should not attempt to override this. Do you acknowledge fact that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is real and is primarily man-made? Can you accept this fact? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There's at least one crime involved, more likely two: 1) is the "hacking," which may or may not be a crime, depending on who did it and how; 2) is copyright infringement, which is most certainly a crime. These were private documents disseminated without permission of the copyright holders, no two bones about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and mention of the crime that brought these documents to light is worth covering in the article. Another crime would be violation of the UK and US FOIA laws. Perhaps mention of that also belongs in the lead. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The FOI issue is very debatable; the UEA has denied any wrongdoing on that score. The hacking and data theft, though, is indisputably a crime - and don't forget there were two hacks: one of the UEA server in the UK and one of the RealClimate server in the US, so there are at least two jurisdictions involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As for "copyright infringement, which is most certainly a crime", generally speaking it isn't. Copyright infringement is mostly a matter of civil law, not criminal law, and thus it looks like crime is not correct. I'm not sure about this particular case, but in the "British law" section of our copyright infringement article, the potential criminal offences listed seem mostly to be concerned about money, which this case isn't about. So "civil offence", maybe? -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ordering of responses

This is a suspected crime committed against identified parties. In that context, I think it's wrong to place the response of unconnected third parties first. They may want to gloat and so on, but they have to wait behind the victims of the crime. If their opinions are relevant at all, it can only be in suggesting that they might welcome, condone or indeed have perpetrated the crime. I don't see any suggestion of any of that. So why are those opinions being taken as relevant--andnot just that, but placed before the reaction of the victims? --TS 20:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The importance of the subject is primarily about what it may reveal about certain scientists involved in the global-warming controversy. Therefore comments on that aspect are the most important. The importance of the criminal aspect is secondary, at best. News organizations often reveal scandals based on documents that had been obtained and publicized in nefarious ways, but our reliable sources don't emphasize that aspect of it, they emphasize the response of the unconnected third parties who are trying to put the importance of the revealed information in context, which is why readers would turn to our article. This isn't primarily a crime story, as the news coverage shows. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree - this would never be in Wikipedia if it was say, shipping information from FedEx. The criminal aspect is secondary to the controversy. No one is writing editorials about whether stealing data should be legal or not. They're writing about what that data contains. Ignignot (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The criminals certsinly pushed the agenda you describe, but in the absence of an assumption that their motive was justified it is difficult to support the notion that the crime is something transparant and we must only look at the comments by marginal individuals, ignoring both the victims and the wider public.

News organisations are welcome to make of it what they will. Here we follow the neutral point of view. We don't give criminals the benefit of the doubt--and we certainly don't make stupid assumptions about major scientific issues that are subject to heavy political pressure. --TS 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

something transparent and we must only look at -- please don't exaggerate. News organizations are currently our only reliable sources, and what they make of it, we make of it if we're to have an article at all. That's our guide to NPOV. I notice that "steal" and "theft" are in some of the article headlines, but that aspect is not emphasized in the first three or so paragraphs of the articles I've seen. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is a crime has to be shown first. I'm really unhappy with the reordering of the reactions. before was better. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

TS: If there will be no one supporting your view, I kindly ask you to reedit you reorderings in the near future. so far, the consensus is, that the "criminal" aspect is secondary. please respect that. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Under the principle of least astonishment in the Wikipedia:Writing better articles guideline, Explain causes before consequences and make sure your logical sequence is clear and sound, especially to the layman. Therefore, when we mention reactions to what climate skeptics say about the revealed documents, that should be done after we mention what opinions those people are reacting to. That also has the advantage of following common sense. So I'll change the order of some of the quotes to reflect that. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

makes perfect sense. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The basic thing here is the theft - that various media sources and opinionators speculate upon the impact is secondary. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Of course we try to explain the various notable opinions. Please bear in mind what the facts here are, and separate these from speculation and opinions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your point. the theft has its own section, mentioned first. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A good argument could be made that these documents were stolen in the same sense that the pumpkin papers were stolen from the USSR. Openly presenting evidence of a crime using evidence taken without permission of the criminals is something where most prosecutors exercise prosecutorial discretion. If this is a release of an improperly spiked FOI request, there was no theft and if the releaser is identified, there will be no prosecution for the release.

It is much too early to be so definite about what crimes have been committed. There are alternate theories. We should not be doing original research and stepping into the role of the prosecutor and definitively stating that this or that crime has been committed. Skeptics are speculating that Phil Jones is going to end up in the slammer for deleting large amounts of raw data to avoid releasing it to MM via FOI. They're also speculating that a great deal of grant money is going to be determined to have been fraudulently given based on fraudulent data. It's too early to say this definitively either.

Let's stick with "it could be theft" until some expert makes a determination, like a jury. Let's stick to there could be scientific fraud, until the first papers start to be withdrawn. Until then, we should keep our options open. TMLutas (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's utterly disingenuous to say merely that "it could be a crime." The police are investigating, which is appropriate in view of the extensive prima facie evidence of a crime.

Since I commented last, the "Responses" section had been divided into three sections on an adversarial basis. This is grossly inappropriate--there may be people who condone crime, but simply by virtue of this sad fact they don't get a section to themselves on articles about a given crime. The most authoritative responses should be given most prominence, the less authoritative responses (such as claims of a conspiracy and so on, which appear to have no factual basis at all) should be given less prominence--if they're included at all.

This article currently still suffers from undue weight, giving far more weight to sensational reports in newspapers than they deserve. We have information from the scientists who are the victims of this crime, and the police who are investigating, and the facts they have presented should be given most prominence. The views of the criminals, needless to say, should not be considered. The views of third parties, such as those on the political and scientific fringes who are skeptical of global warming, should be given appropriate prominence and no more. --TS 10:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Real Climate

In an article about a discovery in which Real Climate is alleged to be a sock puppet for the alleged scientists accused of subverting science, Real Climate is cited as a reliable source.

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!!

Occam eraser (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact it's more like stalinpedia. I'm really concerned the same thing happens to the english wikipedia as happened to the german one. would be sad.84.72.61.221 (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

When you write things like this it makes me reconsider every time I have agreed with you and makes me reluctant to do so in the future. Congratulations.Ignignot (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I apologize, I was a exaggerating. Nevertheless, Occam points to a real problem. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How many times have this already been explained on this talk page?
—Apis (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not once. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The source is not RealClimate in this case, RC is quoted from a reliable source. It's been explained over and over again.
—Apis (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see only this source from RC mentioned in the article: [35] 84.72.61.221 (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

what disturbs me the most, is the fact, that we only have one explanation for the trick to hide decline. an explanation from a blog, who is involved in the scandel. an explanatio, further, that doesn't even try to look like it tries to explain anything. did someone read it? it makes in absolutely no way any sense. it's candid wrong and misleading. we should have at least one other explanation. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Its interesting that you call it a scandal... Are you referring to the theft? Or are you referring to the various speculations that are flying around? (btw. McIntyre (see climateaudit) recognized the "trick" rather fast[36], as the same as what RC is stating) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I yet fail to see how these two explanations state the same. Look at how McIntyre provides two graphs in which a curve gets manipulated, not plotted along. If you have a better understanding of this then please explain it to me. And I was referring to the content of the exposed files, which I'm reading myself. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Its a splice - as you can see on the two graphs that McI is showing, it has no effect on the result - it just removes some end-points. Referring to the content of the emails as a "scandal" is showing rather a lot of POV, and implicit speculation/assumption... Hope you aren't transferring that here :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

KDP, you seem reasonable, do none of these revelations trouble you? There's spin on both sides, of course, but there's something more.65.12.145.148 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by it has no effect on the result? The green curve was manipulated by instumental data, because the treerings showed a decline. I still see not how this fits the RC explanation of 'just plotting along'. is this again some science slang? (nb: let us not debate over the implications of the files here and now, time will tell). 84.72.61.221 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean that it has exactly the same shape, the version where it isn't spliced is less visually appealing, but it still shows the exact same thing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. But how does that relate to my question/statement? My point was that the treering data were exchanged by the instrumental data and not plotted along, like RC claims. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And no, the green curve does not have the same shape in the manipulated diagram. and obviously so. please look at it again. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

'Hide the decline' is becoming a key meme and this needs a better explanation. It is a splice and it changes context. Pre-1960 the curve is from treering data, post-1960 from instrumental because *they diverge*, Tree ring data shows a decline, instrumental an increase. If tree rings aren't valid proxies post-1960, why are they pre-1960? RC touches on this by saying the divergence is well known, but it's not explained here. This is one of the key controversies and is explained on several of the 'sceptic' blogs. Not sure how this could be cited to fit wiki rules unless the MSM take an explanation from one of those blogs and legitmises it for you. 81.130.208.8 (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As to the original point, I think it is clear the references to RealClimate need to go. It may have been a whistleblower at RealClimate who release the files, based on the wording in some of the media reports. Pullister (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't RealClimate be considered a WP:RS? AFAIK, it's made by scientists who have already been published in the relevant fields by respected, peer-reviewed academic journals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The content of the Realclimate blog is not peer reviewed, and not fact checked by a reliable media source. This is all covered in WP:RS. Pullister (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:RS says self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." These are established experts. Their work is in the relevant field. They have been previously published by reliable third party publications. So what exactly is the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate is not RS for anything except the viewpoint of the author. If Michael Mann makes a comment about the CRU leak on RealClimate, Wikipedia can quote that comment as Mann's view or Mann's claim but it cannot quote Mann's comment as truth. RonCram (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if RC may be a RS in some cases, but here I think it is a joke. Becuase of their involvement, they have an obvious interest in downplaying the affair. If their biased viewpoint would at least be countered by a serious interpretation of the facts, it would be less troublesome. I can not see how this is in any way hard to understand. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

RonCram - Why? 84.72.61.221- Which policy or guideline says such a thing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Answering for Ron Cram (feel free to correct my response if you don't agree) - Because it is a non-fact-checked self-published source and is therefore only considered by WP:RS to be usable as an attributed statement of the author's opinion, not for statements of fact. --GoRight (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly does WP:RS say this? Please point out the exact section or paragraph. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

More details about the hack

Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate has posted more details about the hack, which appears to have been more far-reaching than initially thought.[37] Climate Audit was also targeted and Steve McIntyre has disclosed one of the IP addresses involved - 82.208.87.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). [38] Predictably, both are open proxies. There's not much doubt that this was a genuine incident of hacking (the successful hack of RealClimate's server indicates as much). I've added a summary of this to the hacking and theft section, sourced to the two blogs under the exception in Wikipedia:Verifiability for blogs as reliable sources on themselves. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a great deal of speculation on your part. Is there a non-blog reliable source for this? Pullister (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you must have misunderstood something: As far as I know, Climate Audit is writing about a commentator, not a hacker, look here: [39] 84.72.61.221 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No speculation involved. Schmidt is one of the people who runs RealClimate. He's given a first-hand description of how his own server was hacked. Climate Audit has disclosed the IP address of a commentator who posted the address of the file on the hacked RealClimate server. At that point, the only person who knew it was there was the hacker. If you check the "contribs" of the IP address, you'll see that it's an open proxy that's currently blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no proof yet that the RC has been hacked, is there? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What, you mean other than the person who runs RealClimate saying that it was hacked? Who would be in a better position to know? In any case, Wikipedia doesn't deal with "proof"; we report what reliable sources have said, and multiple reliable sources have reported that RealClimate was hacked. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The emerging reports about a whistleblower seem to be crystallizing. This should be the language used in the article. Pullister (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

By "emerging reports" you mean "unsourced speculation on blogs". The answer is no. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, i didn't mean that. I wanted to know if RC has released any log-files yet, which would prove the hack. Of course, nobody (except the hacker(s)) are in a better position to know, but please realize that RC has an interest to put those who released the material in a bad light. So I would be a little more careful in that regard. A question to your mentioned RS: Do they report that RC has been hacked, or do they report that RC says they have been hacked? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Juliet Eilperin's opinion

The Washington Post's correspondent Juliet Eilperin has been able to publish some very strong points in her own words: "an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies ... a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming."

This is a valid reaction to the incident, but it is not a summary of the whole incident. I have moved these opinions out of the WP:LEDE into the 'Reactions' section, where I think they better belong. We already have quotes from some of the main players in the lede - 'sceptics' from Revkin, the University, and Kevin Trenberth making an inciteful point about about the timing. I do believe that is enough for the lede and is now balanced as it stands. --Nigelj (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Attention to accuracy needed

Leading climate change scientist Kevin Trenberth said that it "may be aimed at undermining talks at next month's Copenhagen global climate summit".[40]

No, he did not say that. That's a summary paraphrase from an interview with him, written by AP, excerpts of which are available below it in the same article. And, please stop linking to Google News, as these links disappear after several weeks. Either find stable links, or use WebCite. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh noes Fox News

"according to Fox News one e-mail "how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process."

A spectacular bit of Wikispeak here. It's not "according to Fox News". It's straight from the horse's mouth - the sentence "Kevin [Trenberth] and I [Phil Jones] will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" cannot be interpreted any other way by speakers of English, whether they work for Rupe Murdoch or not.

However, Fox News said this thing, and if Fox News said it, it must be wrong and a right-wing conspiracy.

Someone needs to look up the old saying about broken clocks being right twice a day - even if round here it's probably been tagged (citation needed). --86.170.69.253 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree. I pledge to delete "according to Fox News". 84.72.61.221 (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Too bad. Attribution is part of what we do here. It stays. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So Attribute the other quotes as well! What about the New York Times?! --Rockstone (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please try to restrain from agorrant remarks that have no value to the discussion. As you're not Wikipedia, you're not in the right ballpark to decide what stays and what not. If no one provides a reason to why it shouldn't be removed, it will be removed. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

yes, the quote should be attributed in the normal way, by citing the source with a ref tag. Calling attention to the source in the article text is silly. Ronnotel (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You are in error. The source represents an opinion from Fox News, not a statement from the e-mail, as the deceptive removal of the source makes it seem. And on Wikipedia, we attribute all opinions. For further information on this subject, please read Wikipedia:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehehehe, nope, that ain't an opinian - it's a fact, op pointed that out already. would you please carefully reread his comment? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just about every other source has in-text attribution ("The Washington Post's correspondent Juliet Eilperin wrote...", "Computerworld magazine reported...", "The Daily Telegraph reported...", etc. Can anyone explain why this one source is being singled out and not all the other ones? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm for changing these as well. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

They aren't getting changed. NPOV requires attribution for all opinions. There is a link above for you to read. This discussion is now concluded. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I already told you that arrogant Irrelevance has no place on wikipedia. do I really already have to remind you of that? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Those who constitute opinion keep their attribution of course. I was only talking about those which constitue facts. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly speculation by fox news, that's why it needs to be attributed and can't be reported like a fact. Don't be silly, it shouldn't even be in the article in the first place.
—Apis (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's not, no matter how much you'd like it to be. please reread ot slowly, word for word: he points out, how it is a fact and not speculation. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it makes most sense to completely remove the obviously ridiculous claim by fox since we have a much better account of that particular e-mail quote already, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
—Apis (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki-Rules haven't changed: If no one has an argument why not to change it, it will be changed. waiting for arguments. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I thought you had read the actual source in question, the above mentioned quote isn't mentioned in the fox article, not sure what that was about. The quoted part of the email mentioned is exactly the same as is described by the wall street journal article below which also includes comments by the involved. The main point is: why should we have the obvious biased speculation from an anonymous fox editor, when we have a much better description of that particular e-mail and event already. This exemplifies why fox news can't be considered reliable.
—Apis (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain the bias to me? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fox writes: "Still, one notable e-mail from the hacked files clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process:" and then they continue with the quote, completely out of context. That's speculation, it's misleading and they don't ask the involved parties for a comment. It's extremely intellectually dishonest. Compare it to the Wall Street Journal article.
—Apis (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not speculation or misleading. It is quite accurate. Perhaps you do not know the story. Jones was talking about shunning an entire journal (which had some global warming believers involved like von Storch) because they dared to publish papers by skeptics. This is damaging not just to the journal and the editors involved but also to climate science because it has a chilling effect on any dissent, which makes it harder for skeptics to get published. Science is not about consensus. It is about the free flow of data and an open marketplace of ideas about what the data means. But the CRU cabal had crippled climate science and it no longer functioned that way. That is what the scandal is about. I can see you have not yet come to a full understanding of the scandal or the damage CRU has done to science. Please read the emails and the documents for yourself. It will make understanding the RS stories much easier. RonCram (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you are mind-reading now? No, they were talking about shunning the journal because it was publishing shoddy research, like S&B 2003. It's a simple matter of scientific hygiene - you don't support journals (or conferences) that do not show decent performance. It's bad for your reputation, and it's bad for scientific progress. The very aim of the scientific publishing process is to separate the wheat from the chaff, so that scientists can concentrate on publication that have some value. That's why Pielke, e.g., said that he would not have published in Energy and Environment if he had known how crappy it would turn out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not mind-reading - rather email-reading. if you can provide a RS that the journal published shoddy research, then that should be included in the article, but that does in no way neglect the statement FOX has made. "you don't support journals [...]" -> agreed. But nobody is arguing about that. To interpret the phrase, "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to" as "I personally won't support to a journal as its bad for my reputation" is VERY misleading. Let's stick what lies before our eyes. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see the bias. The quote is not out of context, in fact, the sentence that seems troubling you IS the context. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's explained in the wall street journal article, stop pretending to be stupid.
—Apis (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To my understanding, WSJ is not contradicting FOX. Please consider that ""how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process." is NOT a moral jugdment. They have tried to squeeze scientists from the peer review, and i'm not arguing whether they did rightly so. Even if it was the right thing to do, like Schulze is telling us, it still is what it is, an attempt to squeeze dissenteing scients from the peer review process. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, then you don't seem to understand, as explained they thought the magazines peer review process was failing, they where publishing crap science. That is not the same as "dissenting"... or do you mean that in this particular case of 'sceptics' science it is? You might be able to convince me there. ;)

WSJ doesn't make any speculations but stick to facts, that's why they don't say "this is the correct interpretation" like fox, instead they present what is known and let the reader decide for themselves. Fox doesn't even give you all the information, nor do they ask the involved for comments before making accusations. It's just sad, and even sadder that it's not obvious to everyone.
—Apis (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Publishing crap science makes no dissent? That would actually mean publshing crap science is the courant normal. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Had Fox said "how to squeeze crap science from the peer review process." it would have been correct, but still somewhat speculative unless you took a look at what had happened before and to what they where referring. Of course that isn't in the interest of their political agenda.
—Apis (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You are actually arguing now, that the majority of climate research is crap science. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying crap is not the same as dissenting.
—Apis (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree on taht. But your point still doesn't add up - it's like saying a blue circle isn't blue because roundness is not the same thing as blueness. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, fox clearly distorts the meaning of the message. Please note that the other big news source haven't made this claim in their news articles. I'm sorry if you don't get it.
—Apis (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's getting tiresome. Please prove your points or make some sound arguments. Anything else is just a waste of time. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Somehow we just have to work Fox's pronunciation of 'Anglia' into the article: University of East-Angula, just to expose them for the bunch of morons they are. Please. Please! :):):) 1812ahill (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point

Not sure whether it's suitable for the article but it appears Chris de Freitas, while highly critical of the e-mails (particularly the alleged collusion/ganging up) does appear to think the criticism of his paper was no worse then what was said publicly. He also doesn't feel the hacking is justified [41] Nil Einne (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There you have it; skeptics are of course quite reasonable people. :) Anyhow, why not put this in the article? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

u got the number wrong

2,000 documents -> 3'485 to be exactly. (without the emails, which are somehow documents as well...) 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you didn't count the source code as documents. but how the heck does it then count up to 2000? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

what constitutes as a document? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Real Clear weighs in

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It’s the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being “confused” by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

Whats say you? Time to include. 71.239.229.241 (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Global-warming Skeptics

I think the phrases "Global-warming skeptics" and "Skeptics" (when in relation to man-made global warming) should not be used. However if (Al Gore's) global warming is the official party position/global religion (and I was not informed) then maybe #2 is correct.

[42] Skeptic

• 1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

• 2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

There is no certainty of the authenticity of these documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.246.153 (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil Jones is reported here [43] as saying that the emails appear to be all genuine: "He confirmed that all of the leaked emails that had provoked heated debate – including the now infamous email from 1999 in which he discussed a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures - appeared to be genuine." Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work so far. Here's a new reference

I haven't the time to make an edit myself, but the best story in the media so far is on cbsnews.com. See this. [44] Also, see the story by Willis Eschenbach.[45]RonCram (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Change title to CRU Unit e-mail SCANDAL?

I am curious if we should change the title, to include the word scandal. The article seems to be evolving nicely, and the media storm appears to be increasing. The damning phrase "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." seems to indicate a scandal afoot. Can we take a vote on changing the title? Thanks. Pullister (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the word "trick" had been well explained as meaning a "neat way" or somesuch, rather than a deception. Am I missing something? ► RATEL ◄ 06:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something. "Trick" can mean clever shortcut or act of prostitution or act of deception. Jones wrote that he used Mike's trick to "hide the decline." Which meaning do you think Jones intended? It wasn't "clever shortcut." RonCram (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Scandal is specifically deprecated by Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal: "The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles on current affairs, except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources." -- ChrisO (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, as regards "trick", we have to keep this in mind (from RC);

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.[46]

Just saying .... ► RATEL ◄ 09:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly this 'explanations' makes no sense and is contradicting the evidences. as everybody can see here: [47] one set of tree ring data was manipulated by instrumental data, it's not true, that the instrumental data was 'just plotted' along. Nevertheless we shouldn't name it a scandal. IMHO It obviously is one, but to point that out is the job of RS not wikipedia. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. For WP to call it a scandal is OR. I don't even think it rises to that level, but at a minimum, multiple reliable sources would have to start calling it that for us to use the term.--SPhilbrickT 13:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Scandal" is alongside "-gate" and "massacre" among terms that have little in the way of formal definition. In practice, an event is one when it's predominantly called one. The latter, for instance, can range from five killings to tens of thousands. When you give any of these babies into the hands of our huge crowd of oft-acerbic obsessives whose idea of a good time is to pick nits off an encyclopedia, the results are predictable. Also tedious. I've found (and gather that this is the prevailing view?) that it's better to wait for the outside world to finish picking a phrase. --Kizor 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reality check

Just for context, you guys need to bear in mind what we're talking about here. Early in the formation of the earth, millions of years worth of photosynthesis trapped millions of tons of carbon in living things, which died, sank and got buried and turned into oil, gas and coal. In the last few hundred years, humans have dug up millions of tons of this stuff and burnt it, releasing the carbon as CO₂ etc. That CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and it is now free in the atmosphere: there is no way it can do anything other than trap incoming solar heat and warm the earth's climate. See Effects of global warming for why this matters.

These e-mails are interesting, and some people's future career opportunities may even depend upon the public's reaction to some exact choice of words they made ten years ago and put into writing. But nothing in these e-mails has any bearing on 'the science', as briefly (and crudely, at about Year 8 or 8th-Grade science level) described above. So be very careful from the point of view of WP:BLP about how you report on these guys' choice of words, but please don't allow the media excitement to lead you into thinking that any of what they wrote alters any of the actual science. --Nigelj (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all true, but regrettably the people who are freaking out about these e-mails have created their own alternative reality where basic physical laws don't apply, CO₂ isn't a greenhouse gas, and tens of thousands of scientists are engaged in a global conspiracy to create a socialist world government. This controversy is at least as much about the worldview of anti-science activists as it's about the actual substance of the e-mails and documents. It's very reminiscent of the creationism-evolution controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's not so much that they want to abolish the physical laws, but more a case of them supporting minority views on what is the correct science. __meco (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

From what you write I surmise that you may be unfamiliar with the abiogenic petroleum origin theory? My point, there may be a general consensus in the scitentific and poticial communities, but there are contradicting opinions which, if right, will topple this paradigm altogether. Now, with regards to safeguarding WP:BLP we should not quote from the documents directly, however, if some reliable source quotes or presents data from them that could be perceived to be damaging to individuals involved in this, we could possibly present that. __meco (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people have been drilling for "abiogenic oil", none was ever found, big waste of money.
—Apis (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds very much like the persistent argument by creationists that intelligent design will "topple" the paradigm of evolution. One very important point which we shouldn't lose sight of is that "contradicting opinions" are very much a small-minority point of view in the relevant scientific fields; as a number of the more conscientious journalists reporting on this incident have noted, the overwhelming majority of those working in climate science support the theory of anthropogenic climate change. This incident certainly won't change that; it's rather absurd that anti-science activists are claiming that the work of hundreds of institutions and tens of thousands of scientists over decades has now all suddenly been disproved, and we should not fall into the trap in this article of lending any credence to such claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any cover-up about creationism or abiogenic petroleum revealed in these e-mails, is there? --Nigelj (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This article compromises with the insanity of so-called skeptics, pulling the article away from facts towards a ridiculous bias in favor of uneducated media pundits who steer the conversation towards their own agendas by cherry picking, and Wikipedia's compromise with such absurdities only grants credence to what rightfully has none. Way to maintain a neutral point of view. 'Neutrality' is the first thing I think of when I see tinfoil hat sources cited. --66.188.84.217 (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that destruction of data while under FOI is a crime in the UK as it is in the US. There are emails talking about destruction of data. It doesn't matter what the subject is, it's a huge scandal when leading members of public institutions conspire together to destroy data illegally.

What is going to emerge from the software reviews is whether there have been violations of the scientific method sufficient to call into question enough papers that the consensus on global warming will be revealed to be built on sand. We don't know that yet. We also don't know how much of the consensus is built on the work of people who don't have a problem with criminal data destruction. The story will develop, that's why this is tagged a current event and will likely retain that tag for months. TMLutas (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

First:

Do not use the talk page as a forum

Second: Note that an equally biased response to this controversy is to make non sequitur claims about global warming being "real." Neutrality doesn't involve reporting what you believe to be true as true. That said, and taking my first point into account, I'm going to cease commenting on this section. I hope you all do the same. --Heyitspeter (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can point out which sources used in the article you think shouldn't have been cited, please do. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

He's probably talking about those nutters at CBS news[48]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some crude misunderstanding: this whole affair is in no way about the plausibility of global warming. OT und Nigelj missed the point. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that was their point.
—Apis (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But it seems they accuse those who are not eager to downplay the affair as being climate sceptics/denials. nothing in the article supposes that global warming isn't real. and only a few commentators did so. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No one is trying to downplay the significance of this theft, but some people seems to jump to the conclusion that this proves some hidden conspiracy... or perhaps they are just eager to try to harm the carer of people they don't like... based on out of context quotes made in private emails many years ago. I think its appalling.
—Apis (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This sort of unfounded speculation/accusation is inappropriate and totally unfair. (84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we finally agree.
—Apis (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me the guys that got their emails stolen were trying to screw the careers of those they didn't like, while trying to fudge data. Name one of them who has denied the emails, they haven't. So this stuff wasn't fabricated. Now this is a political issue no matter how you look at it, WP rules and regs notwithstanding. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There are over 1'000. You cannot expect they verify every one of them by now. It is a political issue, which I think cannot be fully understood yet. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, have any of them denied any of the ones that are making their way so quickly around the internet? Not that I know of but I assume that they would certainly complain loudly if even one of those was falsified. For example, Jones does not deny that his "trick" email is genuine, quite the opposite. --GoRight (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How this controversy relates to the larger AGW controversy

I don't want to debate either controversy but some critics have pointed out the connection: It's about how some AGW advocates may have shot themselves in the foot and may have damaged their case. This blog post (which I suppose isn't a reliable source) wraps up the connection from the point of view of someone who is still on the mainstream side. [49] (Disclosure: Ilya Somin's POV is pretty much my POV, too.) The potential damage is not among people who know science and evaluate the science themselves -- it's among people who don't know science and therefore rely on the disinterested, fact-based scientific community to provide good, authoritative scientific opinions about global warming. If some top scientists are keeping their data from others and pressuring various scientific journals to stop publishing papers that would otherwise pass muster but for their opinions, it hurts the case that the scientific consensus is based on science and not politics. It seems to me that this is what the debate is all about and this is what we should be looking for in reliable sources. I've seen e-mails online where Michael Mann and others were purportedly discussing political pressure on various scientific journals, and then Mann (in public comments quoted in the media) was disparaging critics for not getting published in scientific journals. There are emails online purporting to be from Michael Mann stating that the RealClimate website was essentially in the pocket of the mainstream side and would skew online discussions unfairly to favor Mann and his colleagues. If the purported problems with the computer code means that some of the published conclusions can't be relied on, that directly damages the mainstream view (reliable sources haven't weighed in on that, so far). The conclusions I'm drawing about this so far are that these are significant issues, and as reliable sources weigh in on it, this should all be covered. It seems to me that reliable sources will inevitably cover all of this, eventually. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the different impact on scientifically literate audiences and the general audience. But there are a couple to many plurals in that statement, I think. Any RS for "various scientific journals"? Or any evidence for "pressuring various scientific journals to stop publishing papers that would otherwise pass muster" (emphasis mine)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For much of this there is not yet an RS, but the blogs point directly to the emails now online, which seem clear. Again, this isn't for purposes of sticking the information into the article before it gets reported in an RS, but with the documents out there, online for anyone to see, it seems inevitable that subjects like these will get reported on and either debunked or not. This is a bit of an odd situation in that respect (and someone on this page has pointed out that we're getting (RS) confirmation that they aren't faked). I'll try to find what links there are. A WSJ editorial was one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, blogs claim a lot of things. I've looked over several, and I have failed to find any actual emails that support the two points I've asked about. Can you point me to the blogs that point to the emails? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'm a bit swamped right now (holiday prep) but here's one online (non-RS) article [50] with links to emails talking about Geophysical Research Letters and Climate Research. (I quote Jones, below, talking about a third publication, Weather). I haven't looked over the emails it links to that closely, and, as I say, it may be debunked. Mann's email talking about Climate Research is also commented on by WSJ's James Taranto here [51] (that's the fourth quote; see also quote from Phil Jones a bit above it). Here's a WSJ editorial from 11/24 [52]. The Wall Street Journal seems to have published a number of emails on its editorial page on 11/24 [53] On that page, if you look in the section marked "On opposing views and their appearance in science journals or reviews:", the first email, from Mann, also see the next one from Tom Wigley and the one after that from Phil Jones. The article that got Mann going did pass muster at Climate Research and his response (in this email) was political, not scientific (applying political pressure, not relying on better scientific arguments). Here's what Jones purportedly wrote: I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS. (The email doesn't say what this dispute is about.) It's possible that all this could be explained. As I say, I'm not drawing conclusions other than that these are some significant issues here and when reliable sources cover it, so should we. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It relates in the sense that it calls the whole AGW notion into question. These e-mail revelations, coupled with the fact there has been no warming in 10 years, are devestating blows to the climate change. These are reported in WSJ and NYT. Comfort & Joy (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Awkward construction in lede

The second paragraph needs work. I accept that there is a good faith effort at balance, but let's look at the paragraph (I added sentence numbers):

1. Global-warming sceptics have asserted that the private correspondence shows an effort by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.
2. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research disputes these assertions, stating that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in e-mails stolen by hackers in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December.

The first sentence is an assertion about the contents, the second sentence is an assertion about the motivation. Both are relevant, but the paragraph is constructed as if they are opposing views. It may well be that Trenbeth disagrees with the assessment of the sceptics, but that's an after thought (in this cite). If we want a construction along the lines of "sceptics assess the contents this way, while others asses it that way" then we should pick a different cite. The Trenberth observation is important and deserves mention, but it in no way serves as a rebuttal to the first sentence.

My suggestion is to might a relevant quote that is a clear rebuttal to the first sentence, and insert it as a second sentence, then leave the Trenberth sentence, except remove the claim that it is acting as a dispute to the first sentence. --SPhilbrickT 13:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A possible option for a better second sentence could come from this. Specifically, this paragraph could be used to craft a better rebuttal:

The climatologist at the centre of the leaked emails row said today that he "absolutely" stands by his research and that any suggestion that the emails provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate or hide data that do not support the theory of man-made climate change was "complete rubbish".

--SPhilbrickT 13:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My intention, when I first added a second para to the lede was to present a typical or notable opinion from each of the main players, along with a mention of the police. Many people have tried to add a spin to it since then, and I agree it, and what has now become a third para, seem to have lost their way.

I think a quote from a typical sceptic, one from the university, and that one that says it may be related in timing to Copenhagen, as well as the fact of police investigating, is enough. It should be a simple survey of the main players' opinions. --Nigelj (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to it in its innocent infancy: [54] --Nigelj (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If we don't want to make the paragraph any longer, an easy fix would be just to excise "disputes these assertions", as the rest of the sentence does not support those three words. I'm fine with a statement from sceptics about contents, followed by a sentence about motivation, my problem is when the motivation sentence is constructed as if it were a rebuttal. It is not. Do you disagree?--SPhilbrickT 14:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. You could fix the link under 'Climate change sceptics' back to 'Climate change skepticism' while you're in there, so as to call a spade a spade. --Nigelj (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I made the change, didn't see the link issue, but will now look. (have now looked, not following the point, sorry)--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:LDR Citation style

Would anyone object if I converted references to WP:LDR style? I note that one reference (Hickman) is already in that style. It makes it far easier to read the text when editing. However, some people aren't familiar with the style, so it isn't polite to just doing it without consensus.--SPhilbrickT 14:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, you mean putting all the references in one list at a single point in the article? I think that would be an improvement.
—Apis (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as they are still in line, I have no issue. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they would all be together, in the Reference section with only <ref name="sample name"/> in the main text. If someone wants to see a big example, I converted Reelin. For a smaller example, see Women's Basketball Coaches Association. My work day officially ends about 3pm EST today, I'll wait until then, just to give some people some time in case there are objections.--SPhilbrickT 15:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and try this now. It should take less than an hour, but if someone tries to add a new reference in the next hour, there may be a minor conflict.--SPhilbrickT 19:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In progress, I've generated one error, I'll finish the cleanup and find it--SPhilbrickT 20:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All done, a couple tense moments as I screwed something up while doing it, but I think I cleaned everything up. If anyone sees any errors in refs, particularly the Telegraph and Guardian citations, let me know and I'll fix it.--SPhilbrickT 21:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

reassess

Can someone take a look at re-assessing this article? It looks pretty good as far as references go, that generally signals to me that the article might be ready for a C class assessment. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I expect the article to change quite a bit in coming weeks as more magazine coverage comes out and perhaps other developments. It takes a while for some journalists to digest all this, and the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S. may interrupt a bit of it. The long, slow weekend in the U.S. may actually prompt a few more articles on this. The WP:RS media hasn't caught up to some of the coverage in blogs, but we can expect it to. The emails about pressuring academic publications, for one thing, go well beyond what I've seen in the RS media, involving other publications. The emails involving dendrochronology from Siberian trees are another area I expect to see more coverage on. The computer code information has been called more damning than the emails. This will take time to report and it will be difficult to summarize fairly and accurately. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Stylistically, I'd be much happier with the article if we eliminate the in-line attribution of each quote to it's source. The reader can easily do that themselves by checking the footnote. I think would greatly improve readability, and maintain NPOV, by doing so. If there are particular citations that are felt to be POV, then those should be individually reworked or another source found. Ronnotel (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This would be entirely incompatible with WP:NPOV for controversial theses. Statements without explicit attribution are in the editorial voice, i.e. endorsed by the encyclopedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The attribution is still there - in the footnote. All we're doing with these is degrading the readability of the article. And what does "endorsed by the encyclopedia" even mean? All I'm saying is that the article reads like an exercise in petty, ideological WP:BATTLEGROUND and therefore it's assessment shouldn't be raised until it's tone can be made less silly. Ronnotel (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"A is"¹ is usually understood as an endorsement of A by the writer, who implicitly accepts the authority of the source 1. "B says A is"¹ is neutral - we have a source, but we neither endorse nor disclaim it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How about "It has been asserted that A"¹ or "It has been stated that A"¹. Seems to me to occupy a middle ground. __meco (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"It has been asserted that" and so on should never, ever be used on this encyclopedia. We attribute sources. Always. We don't write about assertions in a way that gives more weight to the opinion than the fact of who said it. --TS 10:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If your only concern is over reasons regarding style, then I would recommend we maintain the inline attributions for the various quotes. This is a fairly controversial debate and we would be doing out readers a disservice by making it difficult to verify the quotes. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Official UEA/CRU reply...

...has been published here. I think this needs to be worked into the reaction section. As far as I can tell, this section currently seems to be organized according to the random monkey juggle principle ;-), so I'd be glad if someone who understands this system better than I do would incorporates it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be worked into, but it should be handled with care. I've read it yesterday and was stunned by some statements. IMHO it's a rather cheap attempt to downplay the affair. Nevertheless, it's the official response by the alleged victims of the incident, so there's no doubt it has to go into the article. I don't think the organization of the reaction-section is that bad tough. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The reaction section has an understandably laundry-list feel to it. Is there a comparable article one could look to for guidance? The Killian documents controversy has some rough parallels. That article now has a short "initial reactions" section, but the rest is more structured. Maybe it will just evolve, meaning maybe it's just ok, to add important reactions for some time, then look at it to discern an improved structure. I'll try looking at the Killian history to see if they went through the same issue.--SPhilbrickT 16:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

See 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. I liked this version of the "Reactions in the United States" section (I should, I wrote it up with an alternate account). [55]. I'd wait a bit for more reactions to come out and be added, then organize by whatever themes seem to be there, either by point of view, by type of source (such as scientists, science journalists, newspaper editorials, organizations), by specific topic or some combination of any of these. I'd rely on introductory sentences to describe each group, have maybe two quotes per group and then follow that with very short quotes or almost a list-like mention of a few other prominent sources that readers might want to see. Here's one passage from the Nobel article that groups sources by the topic of why Obama got the prize, and it also offered the POV of those supporting the award for Obama (it lacks an introductory sentence):

Support came from The New York Times, which said in an editorial that although Obama was rightly "humble" about the prize, "Certainly, the prize is a (barely) implicit condemnation of Mr. Bush’s presidency. But countering the ill will Mr. Bush created around the world is one of Mr. Obama’s great achievements in less than nine months in office. Mr. Obama’s willingness to respect and work with other nations is another."[25] (Among the those agreeing that the award was a criticism of the Bush administration were the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times,[26] Wall Street Journal[27] and Washington Post,[28] as well as Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times foreign-affairs columnist[29].) Rachel Maddow, a political commentator on MSNBC, suggested that Obama received the award for, amongst other things, his efforts to improve cooperation between nations.[30]

The sources within the parentheses said little different from the New York Times on that point (The Wall Street Journal was quoted elsewhere on its other opinions) but readers might be interested to know that these particular sources agreed on that particular point, and it matters that so many large, influential newspapers happened to agree on a particular point (readers can find out more by following the footnotes). Groupings of reactions for this article might include: (a) those who think the information revealed has no effect on the case for AGW; (b) those who think it does; (b) those who criticize the sources in "(a)" for overreacting; (c) those who think the information revealed shows significant problems with the behavior of these AGW advocates. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of the Nobel peace prize to this article being?....1812ahill (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I had suggested looking at another article covering breaking news with potential for contention to see how, structurally, the issue of reactions had been handled. I think the Nobel prize issue is a suitable cnadiate (although I haven't yet looked to see how it was handled.)--SPhilbrickT 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

... obvious: How a "Reactions" section may be organized, in response to Sphilbrick's question. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Ignignot (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources on the ultimate fate of Jones and Mann? I have seen a few sources, but none reliable at this time. Comfort & Joy (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil Jones interview at the Guardian, confirms emails appear genuine

Here.

For our article, Jones "confirmed that all of the leaked emails that had provoked heated debate – including the now infamous email from 1999 in which he discussed a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures - appeared to be genuine."

This should be worked into the lede, I think. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hacker or Whistleblower?

• [56] Hacker a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

• [57] whistle-blower one who reveals something covert or who informs against another

Both are correct and true however this article only references the alleged party(s) as a hacker. --Duchamps_comb MFA 00:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your original research; please don't waste people's time with it. Reliable sources overwhelmingly speak of a hacker and the UEA says it was the victim of an illegal intrusion into its computer system. You are merely whitewashing for overt POV reasons. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Whistleblowing is almost always illegal - to be specific, it usually involves theft, trespass, breach of contract, violation of state secrets laws or some or all of the above. "Whistleblowing" isn't something inherently legal, it's a defence against being prosecuted for things that are usually illegal. In exactly the same way as self-defence usually involves acts which would normally be considered assault.

Anyway, if these emails are wholly innocent, why are the climate scientists so upset about them being in the open? --86.170.69.253 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironically in a way, whoever did this can probably use the same defense as these guys [58].  :) --GoRight (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And The Truth Shall Set You Free!!!

Whitewashing

I've just reverted some completely unacceptable edits by Ducha which attempted to whitewash the incident.[59] Let's be very clear about this. The UEA has been explicit that the files were stolen: this was a data theft.[60] Secondly, the cited sources say nothing about a "whistleblower". This appears to be a meme being pushed by anti-science activists in the blogosphere to whitewash the incident; the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are explicit that the files were obtained by hacking the CRU's server, and the CRU itself has said that "Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems". This claim grossly misrepresents the cited sources and is nothing more than POV-pushing original research. This was a bad piece of editing and I strongly advise against any attempt by editors to whitewash the undisputed criminal nature of what's happened here. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(added) Also, I notice that the same editor has been adding the word "allegedly" to the article, as in "allegedly stolen". Again, this is unsourced POV whitewashing. There's no "allegedly" about it. The data's owners certainly didn't give permission for it to be taken from the UEA server, as the authors and the UEA itself have made clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The behavior in the released information describes the commission of at least one crime, data destruction while under FOI request. Some of the data destroyed might also cross the atlantic and may figure in the CEI/NASA lawsuits that are about to start (CEI just filed three "intent to sue" documents). There might also be scientific fraud and fraudulent grants going back several years. It's somewhat hard to say. And isn't that the crux of the problem this early in the game?

If you publicly release evidence of criminal activity, I think that the law generally looks leniently on such cases and very often prosecutors use their discretion and simply do not prosecute. In any case, the rights of the criminals who had their acts exposed should not be the top priority, don't you think? TMLutas (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you said blogosphere, again, Blatant intolerance by the liberal left to have any kind of meaningful discussion, we all know that global warming is part of a continuous pattern of climate change from who knows when. There are so many variables, such as , electro-magnetics, Earth rotation and orbit, Moon orbit, galaxy motion. The entire universe is in motion and constantly changing. Nothing is static or stable, and until the stars burn out, nothing will be.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

likely insiders?

I've never edited a news article but i do believe the first sentence in the body shouldn't have the words "likely insiders" in it, neither of the articles, BBC or Time, mention the hackers as most likely insiders. If there is another article someone has seen as mentioning "likely insiders" it should be used to cite. MikelZap (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed. It's an opinion attributed to Robert Graham, not a fact as it is deceptively portrayed in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing deceptive about it. It is stated as a fact in the source that it comes from:

Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider," he said.

Note that "the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community" is written as a statement of fact and is NOT in quotes. This is a statement being made by the journalist based on their investigation. The security expert's quote indicates an 80% probability that this is the case, hence the word "likely" is used rather than leaving it as an absolute statement of fact. --GoRight (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not accurate. The statement is an opinion paraphrased from Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security, just like the article says. There is nothing factual about it. All opinions, no matter if they are paraphrased or quoted, must be attributed to their authors. If you don't understand how this works, then I invite you to read the NPOV policy. There is no "absolute statement of fact" here at all. All opinions require attribution, no exceptions. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It won't take terribly long to publicize who did this. Then it will be known if it was an insider or not. So just wait. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several sources using either the term "whistleblower" or "inside job". Either of these terms are supported by multiple reliable sources. Comfort & Joy (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not well-versed in this controversy. I would like to make a suggestion to bring us closer to consensus. In the lede, it states: "The unknown hacker, likely either an insider or someone inside the climate community, anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents." What if we just wrote: "The unknown hacker(s) anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents?" I say this because the first section also points out the hacker is "likely either an insider or someone inside the climate community" I'm not here to argue if the hacker(s) were insiders, though, one would assume they had some kind of inside presence. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've cut it back to this again. Graham's argument is a statistical one, in 80% of the cases it is insiders, but there is no means for us to tell whether this case is one of the 20% or the 80%. Since Graham has no inside information to the case, but is simply speculating it shouldn't be used, except as "X stated that in 80% of such hacker cases it is insiders" or something like that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It also appears from Graham's website that he's an activist climate change sceptic, which casts some doubt on his objectivity on this issue; he's not just speaking as a security expert. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[61]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous sources and experts that indicate this is an inside job. We should respect those reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Institute of Klimatology (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

fortran, code, programmer comments

From analysis I've read, the bulk of the data is not in the emails, which are trivial to analyze and comment on, but rather in the program code and programmer comments which are more difficult to write about yet could provide a great deal more insight into the nature of this event.

I submit that the words fortran and programmer comments deserve mention. How much of this material is email, code, comments, or other document types deserves analysis. We shouldn't be going for the easy shot but rather a more complete analysis of the whole dump. As an alternative, we could split the article into two, one examining the event as a data breach, the other examining the event as a window into the inner workings of the CRU. TMLutas (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually we shouldn't be analysing anything. If other reliable sources conduct such an analysis we can discuss including it here but anything else is OT. If you wish to analyse the material, that's up to you, but your analysis is unwelcome on wikipedia unless it is published in a reliable source. "The words fortran and programmer comments deserve mention" only if they are significantly covered in reliable sources. Of course this is a current event, and things are continually changing & new sources are coming in but I don't know if it's necessary for us to worry too much about stuff which isn't yet available Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You're barking up the wrong tree. I am not advocating original research or any wikipedia led analysis. I am saying the obvious truth that emails are easier to read and digest than fortran code. This distorts the early article until the code analysis done by reliable sources starts to come out. We should make an effort to try and not let this natural progression of available RS distort the article. A data dump that is to a great extent fortran code, should have the word fortran in its wikipedia article. A data dump that has far more code than email should not be predominantly about the email instead of the code. This is not an accusation of conspiracy or bad faith. It's just an artifact of how easy it is to analyze the different types of data made available in the incident under discussion. TMLutas (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I should be fair, I was a little unclear when I said "How much of this material is email, code, comments, or other document types deserves analysis". I should have used the word mention. From what I have read so far, the email is about 5% of what is available. TMLutas (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken that there may be more of interest in the code than in the emails, but WP isn't (supposed to be) in the prediction business. The article at present, should reflect the relaible sourced discussion at present. Nil Einne is right that the article can reflect more of the results of the analysis of the code when RS analyze and report on what is in the code. --SPhilbrickT 15:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section on Fortran code as it was completely unsourced. --TS 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-neutral introduction

The second paragraph of the three paragraphs which currently constitutes the lead section is dealing with the controversial aspects of this story. As this paragraph currently reads[62] the sentence "Climate change sceptics have asserted that the private correspondence shows a conspiracy by climate scientists to withhold scientific information" is the only indication that the criticism that has been levelled at the CRU researchers may have any merit. The defending camp is being mentioned by name and position. This constitutes a debunking-inclined presentation and the lead section in total does not meet WP:NPOV in my view. __meco (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any indication (other than speculation) that there is any merit to the criticism? We can't write it as if its more than speculation - its too early (see WP:CRYSTAL). Please separate the facts from the speculation please. Fact is that CRU documents have been released by parties unknown in an illegal manner. Opinions as to which implications this will have, or what the documents mean, are simply speculation, and must be treated as such. No matter if you like it or not, the victims in this case have the weight, since they are the only ones with accurate knowledge of the case... They may be lying but that is something that will be determined in the future (and not here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That the release of documents is illegal is not a fact, but an allegation. We do not yet know whether the documents were taken illegally, or left accidentally on an unprotected FTP site. IIRC, it wouldn't be the first time.--SPhilbrickT 16:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact. It doesn't matter how the files were taken. The taking of the files was illegal however it was done, as the UEA's statements have made clear - it's unauthorised access to a private server and unauthorised copying of private data, which violates at least three UK statues (the Computer Misuse Act, the Data Protection Act and the Copyright Act). The method by which the files were taken aggravates the illegality. The UEA and RealClimate both say that their servers were hacked, which is a crime in itself on both sides of the Atlantic. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Chris, you do not know that. CRU accidentally left material on a public server in the past IIRC. Some people think it happened again. Neither you nor I know whether that happened, so I don't argue that it should be included, but until you can show me a reliable source excluding that possibility with 100% certainly, it's an allegation that the material was stolen. Why is there a rush to judgment to conclude that material was stolen (in the absence of reliable sources, but a more measurable restraint on whether the code has problems, or whether this information will hurt the reputation of climate scientists. All three are allegations. All three are strongly held by some people. All three may turn out to be true or found to be false. Seems like we should have parallel treatment, and separate facts from allegations.--SPhilbrickT 17:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is now apparent that the lead is being changed in an even more biased direction.[63] Now the balance stands as follows:

Climate change sceptics have asserted that the private correspondence shows a conspiracy by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.	Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, called the charges that the emails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous.
	Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December.
	Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign.

__meco (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the current version is much more balanced than the two previous versions which I have complained about. __meco (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Unused references

A large number of references had been placed into the article simply to support the use of the sensational journalistic term "Climategate" in the first sentence of this encyclopedia article. As they're not being used for any other purpose (possibly for good reason) I've commented them out. Another reference apparently existed solely to support the opinion of a journalist. I've removed that also by commenting out.

We should really be reporting on the facts here, not just writing a report about the news coverage, some of which is sensationalist and should not distort our own reporting. If for instance a statement appears in Wikipedia simply because it is the opinion of a journalist, then we're doing it wrong. If a bit of journalese slang appears in the lead of the article simply because a lot of lazy journalists use it, then again we're doing it wrong. If we downplay the statements of police officers and the considered opinions of scientists, because we want to give "the other side" a go, then we're doing it wrong. I think we're in danger of doing it wrong here, though for now the article isn't too bad. --TS 11:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jim Inhofe

I think it's appropriate to call Jim Inhofe a "famous climate skeptic". As somebody removed that I've replaced it with "campaigning climate skeptic." Senator Inhofe maintains a strongly skeptical, even sometimes conspiracy-minded, campaigning journal on global warming issues on an official Senate website. --TS 12:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer not to label people. -Atmoz (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's worth mentioning his position, given that he's a very prioment climate sceptic, but not through labelling. Perhaps something like "Senator James Inhofe, who has spoken out strongly against climate science..."? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference format

I'm making two gnomish changes to references:

1. Some references have been added, not in WP:LDR citation style, so I'm converting them
2. I'm trying to adopt a standard reference naming nomenclature

The standard is <ref name="source date"> Where source is a short version of the source, e.g. "Guardian" and date is the day and month. If there is more than one source from a single source on the same day, I'll use "Guardian 2". I don't believe year is needed in the ref name; while sources may be added a year from now, the source name can just be incremented. I'm spelling out month. Wile 11-21 is unambiguous, 12-02 is ambiguous. For example, I just converted "times-1121" to "Times 21 Nov". The use of LDR style has been discussed upthread. If anyone has a better suggestion for a ref naming convention, let me know.--SPhilbrickT 12:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In case you created a reference with a name and can't find it, here's the ones I changed:

• cw20091125jtj to Computerworld 25 Nov
• BBC-1120 to BBC 20 Nov
• WSJ1 to WSJ 23 Nov
• Eilperin to WaPo 21 Nov
• Hickman1 to Guardian 24 Nov
• Revkin to NYTimes 20 Nov
• AP-2009-11-22 to AP 22 Nov
• Stringer-AP to AP 21 Nov
• "hickman" to "Guardian 20 Nov"
• reuters1 to Reuters 23 Nov

FYI, Nsaa posted to my talk page, preferring a different standard. I hope they will weigh in here so we can reach a consensus if there is a better convention.

Look at the second references now. It's broken. Secondly its bad to remove the year and standard formate for giving dates according to ISO 8601 and adding spaces in the refname so you need to use "". Nsaa (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the second reference, but I didn't break it.--SPhilbrickT 15:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Old	Proposal 1	Proposal 2
cw20091125jtj	"Computerworld 25 Nov"	Computerworld20091125
BBC-1120	"BBC 20 Nov"	BBC20091120
WSJ1 to	"WSJ 23 Nov"	WSJ20091123
Eilperin	"WaPo 21 Nov"	WaPo20091121
Hickman1	"Guardian 24 Nov"	Guardian20091124Hickman
...	...	...

Adding a refname-format on the form SourceDateAuthor sounds like the logical way of doing it. As long as the date is on the format YYYYMMDD it's not possible to misunderstands it, and it sorts correctly. Nsaa (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the full numerical date cannot be misunderstood if people know the convention, and read it very carefully. However, the goal of ref naming is a tension between being succinct, so it doesn't clutter up the page, being unique, and being understandable. We could make it unique by putting the url in as a name, but that would be unbearably ugly.
I think my proposal is a good compromise in an article with quite a few references (for a shorter article, I usually just use source and a number if needed).
In an article this long, I think
"Reuters 23 Nov"
is easier for a human to read than
"reuter20091123"
YMMV
You mentioned sorting. I prefer listing my references in the reference section in the order they (first) appear. I suppose an argument can be made for sorting them alphabetically, but I don't believe that is commonly done.--SPhilbrickT 15:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

More whitewashing, speculation and POV edits

Nsaa (talk · contribs) has been making a number of problematic edits. Dealing with them in turn:

• As I said above in #Whitewashing, it's absolutely unacceptable for the description of the data as "stolen" to be deleted. The victims of the crime have said unambiguously that the data was stolen, and there is no dispute in reliable sources that it was obtained illegally - that's why the police have been called in.
• As discussed above in #likely insiders?, the "insider" meme currently being pushed by anti-science bloggers is completely speculative. It appears in reliable sources attributed to one security consultant, whose own blog reveals himself to be a climate change sceptic (and thus hardly neutral), and is based on nothing more than his own personal speculation. Including it in the lede is gross undue weight, and I'm not sure it should even be in the article. (Disclaimer: I added it in the first place; I'm having second thoughts now.)
• Tony Sidaway has addressed the issue of the multiple redundant references supporting "Climategate" in #Unused references above. I'm undecided about whether we should refer to "Climategate" - it's POV sensationalism - but it's certainly the case that we don't need seven references to the same term. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The "victim" is hardly an acceptable source to determine whether something has been stolen. Furthermore, there are plausible scenarios in which the material could be obtained without stealing. I'm not for a second suggesting that a plausible alternative deserves discussion in the article, simply that alternative means that "stolen" has been alleged, rather than proven. The police are brought in all the time for incidents that turn out not to be a crime. That's why they investigate them. Whether the weight of evidence is in support of a claim that "stolen" is unambiguously correct is the very point of talk page discussion.--SPhilbrickT 16:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pure speculation on your part and nonsensical reasoning to boot. The victim is the reliable source for determining whether something has been stolen, since it's the victim's property that was taken and it's the victim's complaint that initiates the police investigation. "Stolen" is a hard fact, since the UEA's data was taken without permission. That's the very definition of theft. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use terms like "absolutely unacceptable" because it makes it harder to come to consensus, and consensus will determine what's acceptable and what isn't in this case. The word "stolen" has a special meaning when it comes to the copying of data, and I don't think it's the best word, because it diverts readers' minds to thievery in which someone has a monetary loss and someone else has a monetary gain -- that's the first thing we all think of. In fact, the entire emphasis on the illicit nature of the leak is a diversion from what's really important about the article: the information about what the scientists were saying to each other and how that reflects on their attitudes and actions. These people are influencing how billions of dollars are spent, how laws are made, how the economy may grow. Whether or not to refer to the leak as "stealing" or "theft" is trivial beside the question of whether or not these influential people were misusing their authority and resources. I realize that our sources use the terms "theft" and "stolen", so I can't say I have a problem with this trivial aspect of the subject. More work should go into what's been published and broadcast about the controversial parts of the documents, however, since that's where the importance of the article lies, where the debate is and what will affect the AGW controversy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it has no such special meaning. Google "data theft" some time. We even have an article on the subject. If someone hacked into your bank and downloaded your account details and those of your fellow bank customers, I don't think you'd be denying that it was an act of theft. If you don't believe me, try doing that yourself and tell the court that it wasn't really an act of theft. I'm sure they'll take you seriously - just as seriously as they've taken all the Internet pirates who've made the same argument as you, that illegally downloading other people's data isn't really theft. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove unused references

If we reach a consensus that they will not be used, they can be removed, but consensus has not been reached. Removing references before reaching consensus, as opposed to simply commenting them out, looks like vandalism to me.)--SPhilbrickT 16:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If references are not being used but are merely commented out, they're no use to anyone, and they merely add to download times for users. The only references that should be included in the article should be those that there is a consensus to include. If there is no consensus to include them they should not be present in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I'd strongly resent calling it vandalism. Refs are no more or less protected than other content (and can be retrieved via the history). However, I agree that it is a reasonable request to leave in references to reliable, on-topic sources as a comment, as long as the article is in a lot of flux. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that most of the references I removed were actually blogs, which shouldn't be used as sources in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing references if consensus has decided not to include them. But in a contentious issue such as this, consensus should evolve over days, not hours. I'm sorry you object to the word vandalism. I assume you are working in GF, I'm telling you how it may look to someone who spent considerable time researching and compiling a number of references.--SPhilbrickT 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's policy that blogs shouldn't be used as sources, as you should know. Someone added a slew of unreliable sources in an effort to provide sources for the term "Climategate". (Why seven different sources should be used for the same thing I have no idea.) -- ChrisO (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nsaa (talk · contribs) and Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) that ChrisO (talk · contribs) edits are starting to look like vandalism and coming close to 3RR on some edits.

• for example the use of "Climategate" is well sourced (even from a New Your Times writer). I suggest finding Consensus among editors before making drastic edits. Also ChrisO (talk · contribs) is deleting sentences [64] and orphaning a reference then later deleting the "unused reference" that is bad behavior in my book. --Duchamps_comb MFA 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of text from start of page

It looks like I removed text from the start of page, I can only guess it was due to editing when somebody else did. I have no real opinion on what was removed. I've left it alone as it seems to be under dispute. Bevo74 (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've restored a version of what you accidentally removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,I seem to be having a problem today with editing,I even had a problem posting above! Bevo74 (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "Climategate"

I said at the start of this discussion that the term "Climategate" was probably going to show up in non-blog sources at some point; this has now happened. Although I personally deplore it as sloppy journalism (why does everything have to have -gate appended to it?), mentioning it is pretty much unavoidable now. Accordingly I've added a neutrally worded mention of it in the lede, sourced to a Reuters report stating that the incident has "already [been] dubbed 'Climategate'".[65]

I've removed the other six (!) sources that someone had added referencing the same thing. First, as mentioned above in #Unused references, it's simply unnecessary to have so many redundant sources. Second, the other sources were predominately blogs - these should not be used as sources. Third, we are not supposed to add references to examples of a term being used (as this constitutes original research and violates the rule on the use of primary, secondary and tertiary sources), but it's legitimate to refer to a discussion of a term being used - hence the selection of the Reuters source, which describes how the term is being used rather than merely being an example of usage. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. We pretty much need to include the term "Climategate"....this is the direction we are headed. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I didn't gather the sources mentioning "climateGate" so this is simply speculation, but the earlier resistance to the use of the term was based upon the paucity of usage in RS. Presumably, someone began assembling multiple sources to show that it was becoming unubiquitous. I agree that some were blogs, so not appropriate for referencing, but they are appropriate for determining usage. Frankly, I don't like the term, but it seems to have taken hold.--SPhilbrickT 17:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually we're not in the business of "determining usage" - this is the original research issue that I mentioned above. If a reliable source describes how a term is being used then we can cite that reliable source, but we can't go around carrying out our own research on the subject. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over use of blog Realclimate

Realclimate is a blog and is not a reliable source. Why is it quoted in the text? Institute of Klimatology (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Its comments have been reported by a reliable source, namely Computerworld magazine. It would not be acceptable to quote it directly, but quoting its views second-hand is acceptable. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)B

One of the leaked emails from Michael Mann essentially states that RealClimate.com's administration will help Mann's side in discussions at that website. It should not be a source for anything but its own opinions. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And in what reliable source is it stated that Realclimate.com's "administration" (who is that?) will "help Mann's side in discussions"? Or do you mean that realclimate will reflect the scientific opinion of the blog authors? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up. The issue of Realclimate being a WP:RS has been discussed several times. So far, no one's been able to provide a reason why it's not a WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Reaclimate is a blog--it is not fact checked nor peer reviewed. Also, contributors to Realclimate are involved in the scandal. So, it is inappropriate as a primary or secondary source. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when does BLP apply to institutions?

Claiming BLP applies to institutions seems spurious. The source supports the claim that the institution has refused to share data. Perhaps "resisting" would seem more neutral to you?Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

People at the institution have certainly refused to share information in some circumstances. They've refused FOI requests. That's not a BLP violation if the sourcing is there for it. If the sourcing isn't there, it may be a violation -- I would say in that case it would be a violation. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to people at institutions. Statements such as "so and so at that institution refused to share information" needs the most reliable sources, otherwise they should be deleted. Sourcing to newspaper reports that quote the opinions of others about the matter is not acceptable. LK (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Among other problems, that claim is original research by synthesis - joining two sources to make an unpublished novel argument. Wikipedia:Original research specifically prohibits this. The claim of FOI refusals pre-dates by months this hacking incident. One of the citations, to National Review, is an opinion piece, which should not be used to make statements of fact. You can say "National Review argued..." but not state National Review's argument as an undisputed fact. If you want to draw a connection between the apparent FOI refusals and this incident, you need a source that makes that connection. One cannot simply take an old source and present it in support of an unpublished argument. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You should stop reverting sourced text. You've already broken the three revert rule. There was already a reference in the paragraph connecting the dots, so your claim of synthesis does not hold water.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What reference are you talking about? Both your sources pre-date this incident - one is from August, the second from September. You have no source from November connecting the incident and the FOI refusals. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Theft (2)

The denial by some editors that the stolen data was stolen is getting surreal. The UEA has said explicitly in two statements that the material was stolen:

• "The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers..."
• "The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit..."
• "this email correspondence has been stolen and published..."

Let's be in no doubt about this. The only reliable source for whether the material was stolen is the UEA. It owns the material, it was the victim of this breach and it's the body which referred the matter to the police. No other source is competent to determine whether or not the material was stolen; the UEA is the undisputed owner of that material and it's the UEA's rights which have been infringed. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was an insider, it could be considered whistleblowing, which is covered by some laws. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Whistleblowing is a defence to charges of theft; it does not change the fact of the theft, it merely provides an argument that it was a justifiable action. But that's a side issue, since it's pure speculation that a whistleblower was involved. Whoever hacked the RealClimate server certainly wasn't blowing any whistles there. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if whistleblowing was a valid excuse under UK laws, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is a whistleblower provision in English law, but I very much doubt that it would fly in this case given the hacking and the indiscriminate nature of the data theft. The situation might be different if it was a matter of an individual leaking a few documents to expose a particular issue, but all the reporting on this incident indicates a brute-force hack and an indiscriminate gathering of any material the individual could find - the vast majority of which appears to be innocuous and frankly boring. A number of writers have already made the point that the critics are focusing on only a handful of e-mails and documents. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The whistleblower common law act does seem to be in play here. So the term theft likely does not apply, particularly since many POV sources are using it. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant. We operate on the basis of what reliable sources say, not your personal views. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. It is the legal opinion reported by reliable sources (I'm not an attorney). Please try to keep up.Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

New York Times blog ref

The user ChrisO has been objecting to using the NYT blog. Stating that, "the NYT source is (a) a blog and (b) says exactly what Reuters says."

• [66]
• [67]

As per WP:BLOGS a personal blog is not to be used, however a reliable/credible one can be. "Are blogs usable as sources in Wikipedia articles? It depends on the blog in question, it depends on the article in question, and it depends on what information is going to be used."

• As above [68] please do not delete references without consensus.--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

First, as mentioned ad nauseam in this discussion, we should not be citing blogs in this article unless they are cited by a reliable source. Second, the blog adds nothing. It says that the affair has been "dubbed ClimateGate". Compare this to the Reuters news report, which says that the affair has "already [been] dubbed "Climategate"". Tell me, what does the NYT blog add? It says exactly the same thing as the Reuters report, almost word-for-word, on the issue of what the affair has been dubbed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We should also remove references to the Realclimate blog. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See discussions ad nauseam above. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(After EC) Again, scroll up. The issue of RealClimate being a WP:RS has already been discussed several times. So far, no one's been able to provide a reason why it's not a WP:RS.

It is a non-reliable blog, since it is not fact checked and not peer reviewed. It cannot be used as a source. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, RealClimate is not being cited directly; the citation is to Computerworld magazine which quotes RealClimate. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter. It's produced by an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Institute of Klimatology, stop wasting our time with nonsense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It does matter--particularly since contributors to the Realclimate blog are involved in the actual scandal. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, where in WP:RS does it say this? Please cite the specific section or paragraph. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This aspect is not covered by WP:RS. That is common sense not to cite as a primary source a party involved in a scandal. WP relies on common sense as well (see WP:IAR). Institute of Klimatology (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate" redirect and Climategate (disambiguation)

This has been repeatedly deleted. Why?--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate" still exists as a redirect. But you're abusing "Climategate (disambiguation)" to turn it into an effective POV fork of this page. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation to see how disambiguation is supposed to be used. What you were creating was not a disambiguation page, and there is no disambiguation needed of a term that was only invented a few days ago. It has now been salted to prevent you or anyone else creating it again. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I realize that WP is not a crystal ball however "salting" the page is ridiculous. "Climategate" is a neologism soon to be another Lewinskygate. However a good example of such uses is moneybomb coined in 2007 to describe a grassroots fundraising effort over a brief fixed time period. This word was created in the MSM and is now part of the vernacular.--Duchamps_comb MFA 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To seresin

• Speedily deleted page recreated already

Climategate (disambiguation) has already been recreated. I've re-nominated it for speedy deletion; could you please salt it this time? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you do not understand the situation. Note that climategate exists, just like Lewinskygate. What has been salted is Climategate (disambiguation) which is as useless as Lewinskygate (disambiguation). If you are still confused, read WP:DAB to understand what disambiguation is and how it works. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

adding the word falsification

I tried to add the word falsification here [69] it was struck down as POV.

here are three references [70], [71], and here [72] that use the quote:

• "About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend." I think with this word falsification should be able to be used.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers and blogs are not reliable sources for scientific staments. Accusations of scientific fraud do exist here, but it can only be stated as a fact when the scientific journals say so and retract the articles that are based on the data that is now under discusson, as they did in the Jan Hendrik Schön case. Count Iblis (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the input, please took at the first link to the PDF file (press release) by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is not a reliable source for anything other than the views of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "falsification" does seem to be warrated here, based on the reliable sources provided. I supports its inclusion. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition not a reliable source, none of the sources takes about the CRU hack and data at all. Reading seems to be on the way out... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is as reliable as the blog Realclimate. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Query

Whose sockpuppet is User:Climatedragon? Does the style ring any bells? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Scibaby to me. Note that the sock made just enough token edits to other articles to allow him to edit this semi-protected one? He could hardly be a more obvious sock if he tried. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry to disappoint your paranoia , I'm nobody's "sock". Now if you wnat to discuss INDIVIDUAL changes that I made go ahead.

"Stole" means theft. Theft means removing something. Using hyperbolae may suit you personal spin but is not correct for wiki.

Technically it was probably computer misuse. Arguing the toss over which statute applies probably doesn't help your defence. --TS 00:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to defend criminality

Attempts to defend criminal acts, particularly by linking this theft to alleged attempts to dodge requests to share data, have entered the article. This is unacceptable. We don't engage in advocacy. In particular, we don't engage in advocacy of crime. --TS 23:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, we do not advocate crime. The text you deleted does not advocate crime. Exactly where do you think the deleted text advocates a crime? The deleted text is well sourced and gives relevant background to the Phil Jones quote that follows. The hacking incident has a context in the FIOA requests and in the prior refusals of the CRU to share data with colleagues. Wecan reasonably discuss how to present this relevant background and context, but pretending the background does not exist is a violation of NPOV. How would you suggest the well sourced background of the CRU's refusal to share data and the subsequent FOIA requests be included?Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If we as an encyclopedia make a link between this crime and the allegations that FOI requests have been dodged, we are indeed advocating criminality. If we claim that the crime was caused by dodging FOI requests, then a very good source is needed. We don't have a good source for that. The criminals have attempted to defend their crime by reference to such allegations, perhaps. Well they would, wouldn't they! --TS 00:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that Math.geek3 hasn't bothered to answer my question posted above in #Since when does BLP apply to institutions?, where I pointed out that his sources pre-dated the hacking incident. Using old sources to link FOI to this incident is, of course, pure original research by synthesis. Unfortunately it seems that Math.geek3 has the same view of Wikipedia's basic content policies as a dog has of a lamppost. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course we engage in advocacy. Not only do we engage in it, we wallow in it. What planet do you live on? Been watching any ID articles lately? Been watching this article lately? Ling.Nut (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's funny, but the rampant idiocity on display in this article and its talk page - sockpuppeting, weaselling, outright fabrication, ranting about "the liberals", continual BLP violations, copyright violations and so on - is all coming from one side here. I don't normally edit articles relating to global warming but from the evidence of this article it's obvious that the topic area is being targeted by some shamelessly abusive editors. If this is what the the regular editors of this topic area have to put up with, they have my sympathies. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that's what it amounts to: that an editor has decided to sketch a line from some FOI requests during the summer to the recent hacking. Yes obviously that isn't going to work. --TS 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The 20 Nov Guardian article explicitly connected the FOIA requests with the hacking incident, and it was referenced. The position that we cannot possibly describe relevant circumstances and background without advocating the criminal act borders on the absurd. In the article on Lincoln's assassination, does describing Booth's southern sympathies or Lincoln's plan to give blacks the right to vote constitute advocacy for the Lincoln's murder? In what other case would one argue that using verifiable sources to document relevant background consitutes advocacy for a serious crime?Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Recall the issue of FOI was brought up in the emails. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)