Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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: [1]

--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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [2]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Article Title

The Climate Research Unit does not officially label this action as a “hack”, only that data was illegally taken from the servers[3]. There has even been some speculation that this was an internal leak from some whistleblower inside the CRU or the university[4]. 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? [5] Time will time, for now we should leave it as it is. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How the files were first announced

There are interesting details here[6]. 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. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] 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. [14] 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)

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)

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)

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".[15]

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)

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 [16] 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)

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,[17] the Washington Post,[18] the Atlanta Journal Constitution,[19] and the London Telegraph papers.[20]
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."[21]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)

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 [22], 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 [23] 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)

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."[24] 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."[25]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)

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: [26] 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[27], 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.[28] Climate Audit was also targeted and Steve McIntyre has disclosed one of the IP addresses involved - 82.208.87.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). [29] 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: [30] 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)

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)

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.

[31] 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 [32] 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. [33] Also, see the story by Willis Eschenbach.[34]RonCram (talk) 06:33, 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[35]. 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. [36] (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 [37] 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 [38] (that's the fourth quote; see also quote from Phil Jones a bit above it). Here's a WSJ editorial from 11/24 [39]. The Wall Street Journal seems to have published a number of emails on its editorial page on 11/24 [40] 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)