Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:17, 12 December 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Weather Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Environment: Climate change Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computer Security: Computing Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 24, 2009.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climatic Research Unit email controversy at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

faq page

Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate"?

A1: There have been numerous discussions on this subject on the talk page. The current title is not the common name, as is generally used for Wikipedia articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent ^{[needs update]} Requested move discussion has indicated that there is no consensus to move the article to the title of Climategate, and so further discussion of the article title has been tabled until at least June 2011.

Q2: Why aren't there links to various emails?

A2: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Wikipedia avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to Copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email.

Q3: Why is/isn't a specific blog being used as a source?

A3: Blogs are not typically reliable sources. Blogs 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. Blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Q4: Aren't the emails/other documents in the public domain?

A4: No. Some of the hacked documents are covered by Crown copyright, others by private copyright. The Freedom of Information Act does not affect copyright.

Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ?

A5: Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary have said that the information was released through an attack carried out remotely via the Internet and that there is no evidence of anyone associated with the University being associated with the crime.[1] Both the University [2] and a science blog, RealClimate [3] [4], have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained".[5]

Q6: Why is there a biographies of living persons (BLP) notice at the top of this page? This article is about an event, and the Climatic Research Unit is not a living person.

A6: The BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, specifically to all potentially negative statements about living persons. It does not apply solely to articles about living persons. The notice is there to remind us to take care that all statements regarding identifiable living persons mentioned in the article or talk page comply with all Wikipedia policies and with the law, per the BLP.

Q7: What do I do if I have a complaint about the conduct of other people editing or discussing this article?

A7: Follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional. Unduly cluttering the talk page with complaints about other editors' behavior is wasteful. In the case of egregiously bad conduct only, consider contacting an administrator.

Q8: I think there is inadequate consensus on a matter of policy. What should I do?

A8: There are several options. Consider posting the issue on one of the noticeboards, or starting a request for comment (RFC) on the question.

Q9: Why doesn't the article report that BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson received an advance copy of the leaked content?

A9: Because it isn't true. In fact, the only involvement Paul Hudson reports (see here) is that he had been the subject of emailed complaints from CRU climatologists concerning a blog article he had recently published, and that he was able to confirm that those emailed complaints which had been copied to him by the senders, and which later appeared in the zip file of stolen documents, were authentic. That is to say, Hudson received some of the later leaked e-mails, but only those originally also addressed to him or the BBC, which forwarded them. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. This was also confirmed by the BBC on the 27th November 2009 and on the 13th March 2010 when the issue arose again.

Q10: Newspapers have reported that this article and a lot of the global warming articles are being controlled and manipulated. Why don't we report that?

A10: The items in question are opinion columns by James Delingpole and Lawrence Solomon. Wikipedia's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Wikipedia article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Wikipedia coverage to be a major part of the controversy. There is no consensus that the two opinion columns meet this criterion. This does not preclude coverage of those writers' opinions on Wikipedia in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Wikipedia, but that would be a matter for the editors of those individual articles. On specific charges against an individual named by Lawrence Solomon and repeated uncritically by James Delingpole, please see this discussion on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 17, 2011 and November 17, 2014.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45

/Climategate usage, /emails, /RFC Climategate rename policy query, /RFC/CRU Hacking Dispute, /RFC/Death threats against climate scientists, /RfC on article name change, /Subpage

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Issues related to this article elsewhere on Wikipedia

BLP noticeboard:

NPOV noticeboard:

7 Dec 2009

Requested moves:

11 Dec 2009 (fail)
23 Dec 2009 (fail)
23 Dec 2009 (fail)
17 Mar 2010 (pass)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_IG_to_Inhofe.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BIAS IN ARTICLE

Only the Pro-chicken Little side is given here. For one thing I always understood this to be the "Hide the Decline" email issue. Others called it Climategate. Instead the Pro-Chicken Little crowd calls it Climatic Research Unit email controversy" - bare nakid attempt at damage control clearly. --68.118.202.199 (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Chicken Little got it right! "Even greater cooling of 17 °C per decade has been observed high in the ionosphere, at 350 km altitude. This has affected the orbits of orbiting satellites, due to decreased drag, since the upper atmosphere has shrunk and moved closer to the surface (Lastovicka et al., 2006). The density of the air has declined 2-3% per decade the past 30 years at 350 km altitude. So, in a sense, the sky IS falling!" . . . dave souza, talk 19:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia. This is not a credible source of information on climate issues and there is little chance it will become one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.5.117 (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

citation 30 is a 404

Citation 30 is broken. This is an important citation to have because it places a "controversial email into perspective. Without the citation existing their is no merit or reason to have it placed into context as it would be seen as somebody elses, possibly, biased response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayan1222 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorted, their it is. Other cited sources also place this cherry picked quote into perspective. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climategate-redux
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404511.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215071321/http://www.research.psu.edu:80/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf to http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6926325.ece
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394483.stm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6703400/Professor-at-centre-of-climate-change-email-row-stands-down-temporarily.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ems.psu.edu/sites/default/files/u5/Mann_Public_Statement.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5izNbUAsY0l5eBzcvw_JFleAvawuwD9CC3NF00
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6946281.ece
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeclarify.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://coast.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6637006/Climate-change-scientists-face-calls-for-public-inquiry-over-data-manipulation-claims.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/78665162.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's recent comments

President-Elect Donald Trump recently mentioned Climategate in an interview with the New York Times as one of the reasons he's skeptical of the theory of human-caused environmental warming. So, looks like this incident has influenced public perception of the theory. Mention in article? Here're the sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/science/donald-trump-obama-climate.html?_r=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-symons/trump-now-blames-scientis_b_11228538.html TariqMatters (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond his usual broad-based ignorance, Trump tends to parrot whatever the last person in the room happened to tell him on any particular issue; it's possible he'll have an entirely new opinion next week (and the week after that...). Stuff that Trump purports to believe in one interview often disappears or changes dramatically a few news cycles later.

As far as the links you've provided, the New York Times article doesn't mention Climategate (or the CRU); I can't find any mention in the full interview transcript either (though I didn't dig deeply). The HuffPost article quotes a Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly (both always-reliable and editorially-responsible sources...ahem); it takes a Trump mention of "emails" and infers that Trump must be talking about the CRU controversy.

In other words, it may be another one of many dumb conspiracy theories that Trump believes (or at least publicly espouses, or likes to JAQ about), but I don't think we've even got that far with the sources provided. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Trump's administration does end up purging the EPA, Energy, NSF, and other government agencies of people strongly in favor of the theory of human-caused climate change (I don't know how to say that in fewer words) and pursues policies that support the skeptical side, AND, if Trump again mentions the Climategate emails in context for his policies, then I think mention should be made in this article, because it will mean that Climategate DID end up having a significant influence on environmental politics. TariqMatters (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 :As far as the links you've provided, the New York Times article doesn't mention Climategate (or the CRU); I can't find any mention in the full interview transcript either (though I didn't dig deeply).  The HuffPost article quotes a Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly (both always-reliable and editorially-responsible sources...''ahem''); it takes a Trump mention of "emails" and infers that Trump must be talking about the CRU controversy.
 :In other words, it ''may'' be another one of many dumb conspiracy theories that Trump believes (or at least publicly espouses, or likes to JAQ about), but I don't think we've even got that far with the sources provided. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 20:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
+::If Trump's administration does end up purging the EPA, Energy, NSF, and other government agencies of people strongly in favor of the theory of human-caused climate change (I don't know how to say that in fewer words) and pursues policies that support the skeptical side, AND, if Trump again mentions the Climategate emails in context for his policies, then I think mention should be made in this article, because it will mean that Climategate DID end up having a significant influence on environmental politics. [[User:TariqMatters|TariqMatters]] ([[User talk:TariqMatters|talk]]) 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)