Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Monbiot reaction

I am aware this gentleman is a signficant supporter of AGW: [1]

Should this be included in the article? Thanks. Meltdown36 (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

Definitely not. It would be poisoning the well. Monbiot is quoted as a columnist in The Guardian. If readers want to know his views they can with one click access our article on him. The only other option is to leave out mention of him altogether, on the basis that his column was op-ed rather than news. A debate about this would be valuable - in fact it raises an issue about how we handle the op-ed/news distinction which I shall take to the talk page of WP:RS our sourcing guidelines. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. To describe Monbiot as merely a columnist would be very misleading. The last time I looked at the article he was described as an environmental activist or something along those lines, which I think is appropriate. We should characterize our sources correctly. --TS 12:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to describe him at all? "Writing in The Guardian, George Monbiot said...". I am more concerned, as I said on WP:FTN, that his comments appear to be cherry-picked. We must avoid the WP:SYN of an implication "look, even people like GM are saying.." But even that is less important than some of the other things that are appearing and reappearing by the hour. This topic is going to remain controversial. We need a balanced article on it and shouldn't be making snap decisions and falling into recentism. There are a number of reliable sources available. They need to be revisited to make sure that they are used as fully as possible and written up according to the high standards we aim for in articles on controversial topics. Perhaps the article needs a to-do list. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

To leave something out, because it could be politically misused, is a political misuse itself. And your concerns could be attached to climate sceptics as well: "of course they say the files are scandolous, they're are sceptics." Everything can be abused, if we'd adhere to your requests, wikipedia would be an empty space. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's important to point out that both AGW deniers and believers have criticized the comments made in the released emails. In the lead and elsewhere in the "Reactions" section, we've identified AGW skeptics as a group commenting on this, which is fair and informative. Why on earth would we not identify the fact that someone who supports the mainstream view would criticize what was in the emails? Readers should know where the people reacting are coming from. If you were reading the article without knowing Monbiot's POV, you'd feel better informed if you were told. This is common practice in Wikipedia's coverage of controversies. JohnWBarber (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You say it is common practice: can you give examples? I don't know where it is in policy or guidelines, and as I said above, Monbiot's name is already linked. I have not come here with strong feelings on every point that should or should not be included. I do want to see the article follow good practice on controversial articles. Most of all, I counsel avoidance of recentism. It's not necessary to follow every twist and turn of the controversy. There are some excellent news sources cited here. If we stick to what they say then we won't go far wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite error

This is appearing at the bottom of the page, and should probably be fixed by somebody with proper privileges to edit the page:

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "regalado1" defined in <references> is not used in prior text.

--Lewis (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind; I did it myself. I thought the page was protected, but apparently it's just "semi-protected" and I have the right permissions, after all. --Lewis (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Could some pictures be added of the building where this research took place, or of the people involved?Smallman12q (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Change title to CRU Unit e-mail SCANDAL?

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

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

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

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

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

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.[2]

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

Honestly this 'explanations' makes no sense and is contradicting the evidences. as everybody can see here: [3] one set of tree ring data was manipulated by instrumental data, it's not true, that the instrumental data was 'just plotted' along. Nevertheless we shouldn't name it a scandal. IMHO It obviously is one, but to point that out is the job of RS not wikipedia. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

or 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy - Recommend CRU email controversy as the issue is obviously highly controversial causing very high public interest. Controversy avoids the term scandal which implies immorality or wrongdoing.DLH (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

fortran, code, programmer comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

a document dump that is 95% fortran code has a Wikipedia article that does not use the word fortran in it. It is a matter of accurate description not speculation that I'm looking at.

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

And a happy thanksgiving to you TS. There's plenty of sources out there for the code. Sources that are going to survive tendentious use of the RS guidelines are a bit thinner on the ground.

CRU programmer comments in the extensive Fortran code released include mentions of invented data, the impossibility of reconciling different national schemes of invented data, "artificial adjustments" to force model results to come close to actual measured temperatures, as well as poor coding practices. Several programmer efforts to analyze the code for validity are ongoing but none yet completed.

The Pajamas Media news group has a piece out by a Colorodo computer scientist doing some preliminary analysis. Reason Magazine has a piece that relies heavily on statistician William Brigg's ongoing analysis efforts. CBS News also has an item on the programmer end of things that refers to three further ongoing code reviews from various perspectives.

If anybody could help out with better sources or think that any of these three sources are fit for the article, let me know. TMLutas (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The analyses I've seen are extremely poor. One mentions "the core of CRU's climate model," which is a bit problematic because CRU doesn't have a climate model. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless we can find some reliable sources for analysis of the Fortran code I don't think it's appropriate to include references to the code, except for the fact that it was among the stolen material. I happen to have many years personal experience as a freelance Fortran coder but I'm not about to suggest that my opinion or anybody else's that I have seen so far counts for much. --TS 15:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) From the little I read here, I'm guessing my comment was largely correct. There is insufficient information at the moment for us to be able to say much on the source code. Our best bet may be, if we can find sufficient sourcing, to mention there is a significant amount of source code which has yet to be rigirously analysed. I know this isn't surprising since it takes a lot more time then to read thorough e-mails and pick out interesting things. However it doesn't really concern us as editors except perhaps something to keep in the back of our minds. If and when reliable source start coming in with stuff we can write about, then we write about it. It's no use worrying about it now particularly given the amount of stuff we have to deal with that does having some degree of sourcing. Perhaps the source code will be so boring that there'll never be much to write about. Don't get me wrong, I understand why editors think it's a bit of a waste of time to write so much on stuff which could easily be superceeded in a few weeks. But that affects basically everything here and not just the source code (maybe some other email will become far more significant then the Mike Nature's trick one in the long term) and comes up in many current events. I've seen some of the junk left behind when people write with an extreme WP:Recentism perspective (as of ~2 years ago the 2005 Asian tsunami related articles were a good example, still discussing things as if it happened a few weeks ago. I personally feel people sometimes treat wikipedia as too muchlike wikinews and would be glad if people write a minimal article on this and then leave it be for several weeks. But neither side is going to be happy with that and I've never seen any sign the community is willing to move in that direction for current events and this isn't the place to discuss such a community wide move anyway, so whatever... Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has made a brave attempt at putting together a section on code analysis on the basis of some blog comments and the like. I've removed it because, with the best will in the world, and as a programmer with over a decade's experience of Fortran and a lifetime of coding in all languages, I don't see where this line of investigation is going. Let's be patient. Granting a pulpit to a few people who are armed with nothing but skepticism of the global warming consensus and an ability to critique a subprogram is not what we should be doing. --TS 03:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Blog Summaries of Code

Here is a list of some blogs summarizing and discussing the code. Please add similar links to point reviewers to material to summarize.

• Bishop Hill's blog on The Code is summarizing findings the code with programmer details in comments with citations to the individual files. Note some code is languages other than Fortran.DLH (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Devils Kitchen has Data horribilia: the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file

DLH (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ecotretas details code sections in: Climate Hide the Decline CodifiedDLH (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "Climategate"

I said at the start of this discussion that the term "Climategate" was probably going to show up in non-blog sources at some point; this has now happened. Although I personally deplore it as sloppy journalism (why does everything have to have -gate appended to it?), mentioning it is pretty much unavoidable now. Accordingly I've added a neutrally worded mention of it in the lede, sourced to a Reuters report stating that the incident has "already [been] dubbed 'Climategate'".[4]

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

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

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

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

Numerous reliable sources have used the term "Climategate" so we are OK. No need for original research here. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

The following comment from User:Duchamps_comb was merged here from a separate section --TS 14:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems a few editors do not want this in the intro. However there is many editors who do. It is a well referenced/sourced usage in regard to the email hacking incident. A quick google search of "climategate" yields 473,000 hits. As well many MSM outlets have used this verbiage as a talking point.

So I believe even if Consensus is not 100% we should error on the side of nondeletion.--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd hold off on the "Climategate" references for now. As of today there are absolutely no references to the story on my local (UK) version of the Google News main page, and all climate news stories there are tightly focused on the imminent Copenhagen summit. If as seems to be the case this was an attempt to sabotage the summit, it seems to have failed. The story remains as a talking point on mostly right wing new sources and blogs, but for now at least it seems to have disappeared from the surface of the news leaving barely a ripple. If it re-emerges as some kind of scientific integrity scandal at some point in the future, perhaps it will be appropriate to consider writing about it as such. --TS 14:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The name Climategate is coined, use is already widespread. It is not stated anywhere in Wikipedia rules that for word to become legitimate it shall make to the first page of the Google news in the UK (the subject sure is on the main page here in the US). Dimawik (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Theft (2)

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

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

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

If it was an insider, it could be considered whistleblowing, which is covered by some laws. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the UK employees who release information that is in the public interest enjoy some limited immunity from dismissal under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (note my emphasis on the words "employees" and "dismissal"). This Act is enforced through the Industrial Tribunal System. On prosecution, the case of Clive Ponting establishes a defence from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act when an employee subject to that Act leaks information in the public interest.

It's difficult to see how either of those cases applies here, where all the available evidence is that the data was obtained and disseminated by accessing computer servers without authorization and there is no evidence of the involvement of employees (who moreover are not subject to prosecution under the Official Secrets Act). The indiscriminate nature of the release (described by the criminals themselves as "a random selection") would also make it difficult to assemble any kind of public interest defence. --TS 14:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Stolen" is the term the University of East Anglia (UEA) wishes used. "Copied" is more precise (the material, after all, was not erased or otherwise made unavailable to the officials and employees of the UEA/CRU). As for the intent of the hacker/whistleblower, doesn't anybody else find meaning in the fact that the archive containing this information was uploaded with the name "FOIA.zip"? 71.125.155.89 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiny proportion?

The text of the article contains the following unsourced statement (inserted by WMC): The vast majority of the mail was innocuous plain scientific correspondence. A tiny proportion included discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change sceptics. By my count, more than 10% of the emails mention Stephen McIntyre by his last name, so the statement appears to be factually incorrect. Absent a reliable source, I would suggest to revert the WMC's change. Dimawik (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the word "tiny" a problem here? Even if it is true that 10% of the emails refer to the editor of Climate Audit blog by name, it follows that "the vast majority" (90%) do not. --TS 14:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is in a total absence of sourcing. The statement also seems to be factually incorrect (10% is not a tiny proportion in English) after a cursory look of data. Note that I did not even try to find names of other skeptics. My number, by the way, is 100% WP:OR, and I am not looking to insert it into the article - but so is the text inserted by WMC quoted above. I am therefore looking to revert this change unless WP:RS is provided. Dimawik (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This has now been modified by Short Brigade Harvester Boris here [5] Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This change is not sufficient, as the current text of the article still has totally unsourced vast majority. Dimawik (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is unquestionably WP:OR without a source. It should be removed or sourced immediately. In addition, even if true, it is quite irrelevant. --SPhilbrickT 14:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FOIA section restored

We had a good start on one, with RS cites & statements from concerned parties such as UK law enforcement. Removed by editor Tony Sidaway, diff, with the comment "This doesn't seem to relate to the thefts or to the documents themselves." I don't agree -- a good portion of the controversial leaked emails involve apparent attempts to evade compliance with the UK FOIA, and this has been widely reported & commented on in the media. And recall that the original leak/hack was entitled FOIA. So I'm a bit mystified that anyone could consider this topic peripheral.

I've restored the section, and would request that problems with it be discussed here. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks as if somebody in the Ministry of Truth has just jerked it out again. 71.125.159.106 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Pete. This is an important aspect of the controversy that this article needs to cover. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. The 20 Nov Guardian article and 24 Nov Nature article also link the prior FOIA requests to the incident, and the filename "FOIA.zip" is widely reported. Other relevant background is CRUs prior refusal to release the data to colleagues they perceived as unfriendly but to share data with colleagues perceived as friendly. The Michaels book has an insightful quote: We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it? (Letter from Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes, Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know, Patrick J. Michaels (2009) p. 66, p. vii)Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all it is WP:UNDUE focus on a single persons comments - second the blog at Science is not reliable to these kinds of allegations, even if Science blogs would (sometimes) be RS's. The golden rule is SPS only when they are sources to a persons opinion, where the person is an expert - and never if the opinion has a possibility of being libellous - and this fails on both counts. (this goes for really reliable sources as well). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, "one person's comments" are not that long. His reporting is mentioned after that. And that isn't WP:UNDUE, either. This aspect of the controversy is important, as other reliable sources have focused on it in their commentary, including The Wall Street Journal and a columnist in the Detroit News. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I've removed the section as an obvious BLP violation. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation to point out that certain acts are against Freedom of Information Act laws. None. The journalist stated (emphasis added): "[U]niversity researchers may [...] find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.'s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law." Nor was Jones or anyone else actually accused by the journalist of doing that. The blog is a news or news analysis blog at a reliable-source publication. There is no good reason to remove it and it is an important aspect of the controversy that has been much commented on by reliable sources. Chris, weren't you the one intensely interested in violations of the law when it concerned the hacking? Yet not with discussions of potential violations of FOIA law? What gives? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that the identity of the hacker is unknown and the fact of the hacking is reliably and extremely widely reported. The implicit accusation in the paragraph and the blog is directed against specific individuals whose identity is known - it cites e-mails between two named individuals - and the claim is made solely by this one blog source. As WP:BLP#Reliable sources says, "Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article." Re-read what Kim has said above. I've asked for a second opinion on the BLP noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A blog by a journalist is considered reliable. This blog is not self published. It is part of the website of a reliable source, Science magazine. Look at the web address: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/climate-hack-up.html WP:RS states: Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. The magazine is at least as reliable as a newspaper. This isn't an "implicit accusation", it's the context of the potential problems with the FOI aspect of the controversy. The bald statements Jones wrote in the e-mails bring up a possible FOIA violation, which is an important aspect of this controversy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's blog-sourced speculation directed against specific named individuals, which is never acceptable. Why not wait to see what the uninvolved people on the BLP noticeboard say? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Given Phil Jones' statement in the email, (Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise) it isn't "speculation" to say "if" and "may" -- it's called reporting. It's what news organizations do. BLP was not meant to squelch legitimate description of an encyclopedic subject important to readers. It certainly isn't meant to protect WP:WELLKNOWN people from legitimate scrutiny. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil Jones has acknowledged that this and other contentious emails appear genuine [6]. Mann replied to Science, acknowledging the email as genuine. Perhaps we need to add additional RS's, since two editors object to this source, but, as JohnWBarber notes, this is just good reporting. No BLP violation is apparent. Removing this important and widely-reported incident is a disservice to our readers. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are three additional sources, all UK newspapers that mention the idea that the emails may point to FOIA violations: The Guardian [7], Daily Telegraph [8], Daily Mail [9] I've given quotes from all these over at the discussion at the BLP noticeboard Now we have four reliable sources, three of them subject to UK libel laws, that make this simple, obvious point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And here's Source #5, The Financial Times [10] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• And here's another, from Prof. Mann's hometown newspaper: "Other e-mails involve Mann in related controversies. In a May 29, 2008, email titled “IPCC and FOI,” Jones asked Mann to “delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4.” AR4 is the fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, of the International Panel on Climate Change.

Mann said that was an email sent to him, “and can in no way be taken to indicate approval of, let alone compliance with, the request. I did not delete any such email correspondences.” Pete Tillman (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In light of the importance of the United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act in this brouhaha, wouldn't it be best if mentions thereof on the ClimateGate page were set to carry links to the Wikipedia page on this legislation? Non-British readers might like to learn about the character of this law and how it differs from (for example) the U.S. Freedom of Information Act signed into law in 1966.
Considered mention might also be made of the appearance in the CRU communications of actions taken to deceive, deflect, and suborn the officers of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and of H.M. government (at the Information Commissioner's Office[11]) charged with the supervision of compliance with FOIA requests submitted to Dr. Jones and his associates at the CRU.[12]
71.125.159.106 (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Breather?

The article is a mess. It's mostly a random collection of comments from various POVs in no particular order. How about if everybody on all sides takes a break long enough to get the article into a reasonably organized form? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See discussion at the Official UEA/CRU reply... section for some ideas on organizing it. More commentary continues to roll in from more reliable sources. Wall Street Journal, [13] [14] Wall Street Journal Europe [15], the Detroit News editorial page editor [16], David Frum (writing in This Week magazine) [17], Megan McArdle at The Atlantic website [18] [19]. These people all have influential platforms. We can organize and summarize a lot of this, especially anything repetitive. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

More: editorial in the Washington Post [20] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WSJ is a very reliabe source for the scandal. Let's see if we can include these references. William Dulsok (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

Except of course that each one of those sources are Op-Ed's or editorials. They are opinions on this, not "very reliable to the scandal". Please people try to separate opinion from fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the its a random section of comments from various POVs comment which started this thread was specificly about the "Reactions" section, where we've tried to segregate opinion from the rest of the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rob Graham

I removed a reference to Rob Graham's report [21]. While he did some good work, it isn't very conclusive. According to The Register he tested a server he believes was used by the hackers, and found that it adds a tell-tale header to some requests, which he thinks would enable the originating IP to be traced. He then speculates that the identity of the hackers may already be known by at least one of the recipients of the material. Well that's an interesting story but it's still speculation. --TS 04:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

But they did use an open proxy, obviously, and that should be on the page, cited if nec. to expert Graham's blog. ► RATEL ◄ 04:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rob Graham isn't the originator for the suggestion that open proxies were used. That would be standard operating procedure for that kind of hack. --TS 04:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and unless the hacker is an amateur he wouldn't make such a simple mistake. The most likely scenario (and this is 100% speculation based upon personal experience) is that the hacker used several bridges over "safe" systems to cover his tracks. (ssh tunnels or chains of proxies). Graham apparently ignores this possibility. But we will find out if he's found, or when a report comes out that isn't based on speculation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Graham's blog shows him to be an activist climate change sceptic, so he is not exactly a disinterested party. For what it's worth, The Guardian has reported that genuinely uninvolved security experts consider an insider leak to be the least likely possibility.[22] Be that as it may, the passage that's currently in the article is a combination of POV original research and undue weight on the views of a single partisan individual, so it needs to come out. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I read that article very differently than you do. You emphasized reference to "genuinely uninvolved security experts" but they are not even identified, much less characterized.

The article claims there are only three possible ways for the data to get out, and their list omits a fourth way, which has happened recently. Perhaps the university has established procedures to ensure that the accidental release cannot possibly happen again, but the article makes no mention of it.

The credibility of the article is also in question when the opening theme is that the hackers had access for over a month. IIRC, the evidence supporting this claim has already been refuted.--SPhilbrickT 15:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not unusual for hackers to have an unnoticed "foothold" on a server before doing anything with it. I've cleaned up servers from such many times (and have had servers attacked from such servers magnitudes more times).

There is also nothing strange about us not knowing anything about the ongoing investigation - that is standard procedure - this is something that will eventually come out. As for now, its all speculative. Please keep in mind what wikipedia isn't, and that as an encyclopedia we always will (and must) be way behind other media.

I've said this a lot of times here: Separate speculation from fact, even if you do not trust or like the facts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

edit warring

Okay, everyone please take a deep breath. You're discussing the issues but several individuals are also involved in edit warring. That needs to stop until consensus is reached; consider this a WP:3RR warning, I won't be awarding them on talk pages.

Hopefully consensus will be reached before the 7 days protection is up; if so, feel free to drop by my talk page to ask for it to be lifted. In any case, if this devolves into edit warring in the near future, I'd be happy to help out, so that's worth coming by my talk page too. tedder (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the page's protection be further extended. This subject is political dynamite, and even though the majority of the Wikipedia apparatchiki empowered to screw with content seem reliably to be censorious ideological leftists appalled at the revelation of this massive fraud (concentrating on the criminal character of the hacking itself rather than the information thereby released is not only desperate but silly), the quality of the page would go immediately to hell the moment protection is removed. 71.125.155.89 (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should register for an account, and help out? Other editors will take you more seriously... Just a thought. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hulme's comment

I wanted to add the overall comment from Mike Hulme, another climate scientist at the University of East Anglia which is referenced in the article "Rigging a Climate 'Consensus' " in the Wall Street Journal today but I notice now that the article is locked. Now, with a story which is still developing and which is so widely being commented upon as this one, a lockdown is excruciatingly unfortunate, and I hope it won't remain so for long. The quote which I wanted to have included is this:

"This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."

__meco (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet another Op-Ed/Opinion piece. Sorry but there really are too many of these. If it should go in, then it would be at the mercy of some other Op-Ed/Opinion piece. And the WSJ Op-Eds are taking up entirely too much space (per WP:WEIGHT) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not yet another Op-Ed piece. Hulme is a UEA climate scientist. __meco (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is an "opinion" piece, and it is labeled as opinion. Take another look at it. The best way to cite Hulme on this, is to find a neutral reliable source that mentions or quotes him. Viriditas (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the source for Hume's statement is an opinion piece is completely irrelevant to Hume's stature. Hume did not write that piece. __meco (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Its still just an opinion, and we have way too many of these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps his opinion should be weighed a little bit higher than some of the ones already present? __meco (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but as i said, we already have way too many opinions in the article - so to get in, something should be removed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on UEA CRU statements please

It's much more fun to try to insert breathless gotcha! rightwing blogospew, but it may make for a better 'pedia if we acknowledge what the people involved are saying, viz. [23]. Note that they seem to be updating that page on an ongoing basis. ► RATEL ◄ 16:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Fortunately the seem to be adding new material at the top, rather than changing previous statements. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Impact on Copenhagen

Here is an interesting take on the impact to Copenhagen, from a reliable source:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/28/as-copenhagen-summit-nears-climategate-dogs-global-warming-debate/

GardiaP (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

It's an analysis. My reading is that it doesn't add anything to what we already say in our own article, but it definitely upholds Christian Science Monitor's strong reputation for lucid news analysis. --TS 01:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

another reference that should be added

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

Protection level has been appealed

I have submitted a request that the full-protection of this article be reduced to semi-protection. I think it is absolutely untenable that a story which is still developing and with the intensity of attention globally is kept locked down. We must address the warring issues in a different manner. __meco (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no deadline and wikipedia is not the news. Currently the ether, print and electrons are redhot with speculation, and very very few facts are known. In fact nothing really has been developing since the first day, no investigative reporting has been done, no statements have been issued etc.etc.. We can certainly do without the daily addition of even more speculation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We need to be able to address the numerous issues which are being discussed on this page by allowing the article to develop accordingly. The {{editprotected}} instrument is totally inadequate for the challenge pertaining to this article. __meco (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection is always undesirable. But why do we need to be able to address these issues? What will happen to the world or Wikipedia if they are only fixed on, say, Monday? Editprotected has the advantage that it needs reasonable consensus on the talk page before an admin will execute it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

One reason for addressing some issues is that the current version contains allegations presented as if they were facts, and irrelevant Original Research presented without a source. You are an admin, so you can correct those issues. I'm on the fence about whether the protection level should be changed; I'm open to the possibility that it should remain protected, and discussions continue here to reach consensus on other issues, but I'd feel much better about that position if the blatant problems were addressed. Will you do so?--SPhilbrickT 18:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Your level of indentation suggests that you are addressing Stephan Schulz, but based on your idiosyncratic indentation practice elsewhere on this page I suspect you want me to respond.) I believe that leaving the article itself basically unchangable (bar the editprotected instrument) makes the collaboration go sour. If we are to find compromises and consensuses we need to keep the temperature (OK, I used the acridity metaphor, but they are both applicable) high enough. We are not solving the issues by postposning editing until the issue has gone cold. And whether I will address these various issues personally? Well, I assumed a meta-role in this respect by taking this initiative as I saw the need for that in particular. I don't think my involvement in the various issues is critical and I don't know which of those I will get into eventually. __meco (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

meco, as far as I am concerned, anyone is free to address anything, if it advances the discussion, but I was addressing Stephan, as he is a sysop and can make the changes, while you are not.--SPhilbrickT 20:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record my request was turned down at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, however I was referred to take the issue up with the admin who made the protection level increase some twelve hours ago. I have made an inquiry on their talk page, so hopefully we will see User:Tedder here in not too long a time. __meco (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Tedder to reject your request. The way you're using this talk page to push POV speculation convinces me that you have no intention of respecting basic content policies in editing the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, as you clearly expressed to Tedder, and I quote: "The editor above is spewing completely unsourced original research and speculation on the talk page and is plainly itching to add it to the article." I am somewhat taken aback by your malevolent assessment of my edit history on this page as well as my intentions. __meco (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your intentions are abundantly clear and my assessment of your edit history is based on the way you have done little but advocate speculation and ignore what reliable sources say while completely failing to source any of your own claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I can hardly see your accusations as anything but bad faith and an attempt to malign me for whatever reason. I shall copy what I just wrote on User talk:Tedder with regard to your assertion: I have no idea what you are referring to. I have made a couple of suggestions about inclusions to the article. One, a viral video with a song where I certainly have not made any attempt to assert that it should be included unless reliable sources for it surface. In the second case I have proposed that a quote from one of the University of East Anglia climate scientists presented in the Wall Street Journal be included. Are you referring to one of these? __meco (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, I don't understand why Meco's earlier behavior had any bearing on you requesting to maintain full protection of this page. Would your response have been different if I had made the request myself?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record I will re-emphasize my angle from which I made the request to lift the full-protection. I see several issues that are currently being discussed on this page. I do not consider my propositions for content change the moving ground for my initiative. In fact, I figured I'd simply present them and leave it to others to decide what to do with them. __meco (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is occurring, but I see no resolution to any of the issues. Both sides need to meet somewhere in the middle. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we start making use of some of our diverse instruments of conflict resolution instead of bluntly freezing editing of the article. __meco (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that we do have instruments such as WP:RFC to assist us in attaining to consensus where our local efforts fail. I realized just now that ChrisO's great concern when painting such a grim picture of my alleged intentions on the talk page of the admin who protected the page was my support of the position that we should point out that the phrase stolen should be presented as the university's opinion of what has happened as opposed to unambiguous fact in a section above and that I was surely going to engage in edit warring over this as soon as protection was lifted. Let me then unequivocally express that should this matter remain stale in the continued discussion, an RFC (Request For Comment) would be a pre-eminent tool to assist in reaching a consensus, and that full-protection thus would seem to be basically overkill, and overkill with lots of unwanted side effects I might add. __meco (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

An RfC is not needed when it's a fundamental and clear-cut issue of Wikipedia's content policies. You do not add unsourced material to articles, you do not misrepresent sources, you do not add weasel words to an article because you have a POV objection to the statements of a definitive source, and you do not present fringe opinions from bloggers as fact or use such opinions to override definitive sources. The people who are attempting to do these things need to be blocked or topic-banned for disruption, not allowed to indulge it further in an RfC. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And you are absolutely correct. __meco (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we finally agree on something! We're making progress. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The level of mutual recrimination seen above ("malevolent assessment of my edit history", "bad faith and an attempt to malign me", etc.) emphasize the need for continuing the protection until tempers cool. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It merely goes to show that a couple of editors are quite adamant in their efforts to ensure the article doesn't get unprotected, and that this includes making a ruckus and then proclaiming "look at the fight! Another example that we aren't mature enough to have the lockdown lifted." I find this kind of maneuver insiduous and deplorable. __meco (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on his assessement but note he said 'mutual'. The only way 'mutual recrimination' can happen is if both sides are guilty of poor behaviour (and from his examples, it's quite clear one of the people he's referring to is you). If only a 'couple of editors are quite adamant in their efforts to ensure the article doesn't get unprotected' but the other side behaves appropriately then there by definition can never be mutual recrimination (and the couple of editors are likely to find themselves in trouble). To put it a different way, if one side does all the punching, there's no fight. If you dispute his opinion that there's mutual recrimination, you should say so and explain why Nil Einne (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I know User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris also referred to me when he used the phrase 'mutual recrimination'. I can not see however how this fairly applies to me. I have merely spoken out against a bad faith assessment of my work and intentions which was perpetrated by ChrisO in dual forums[24][25] and has been implicitly supported by Harvester Boris. I find it to be deplorable and unfounded smudging and I earnestly question the integrity of the two for engaging in it. Now, other than that I have neither made any assessments or characterizations of either the work or the intentions of neither Chris nor Boris. Does this constitute a rationale for applying the term 'mutual recrimincations' to me and ChrisO equally? I'd say, only if you disagree with how I have presented the matter here. __meco (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in this except to say that consensus has clearly not been reached, so there's no way I would remove the protection. Nor am I willing to try to mediate between users- there are great avenues for doing that. Please, you all need to settle down. tedder (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Help! we have some ludicrously POV-pushing socks on this article, but we also have some truly wonderful good-faith editors whose efforts are going unrecognised. Take a bit of distance and remember that the WP:AGF policy is there for a reason. Please do not in your haste attack those who demonstrably have a commitment to the NPOV and other polices of this encyclopedia. Point by point. RfCs where appropriate. Ask for comments on boards and wikiprojects. Carefully consider the points made in good faith. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking me to do all of this? Or is this a response to the active editors on here? I'm assuming the latter. If not, I'm simply the guy with a mop, not the person who can evaluate any or all of the issues raised. tedder (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Latter. Collaborative editing is more efficient and effective. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the alleged reason for "protecting" this page from editing is that a small number of users are pushing POV content. Is it possible to prevent these users from editing this page and subsequently unprotecting/semiprotecting the article? That would circumvent the ridiculously cynical and irresponsible "if you screw this up you screw this up for everybody" tactic. Brings me back to my years at DODEA.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked, and it appears that blocking users is a legitimate and recommended alternative to full protection. "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others."--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"I would like to edit this article, as the scandal grows." [26] I think that comment illustrates perfectly why the page should be kept protected or else the same edit war chaos will start again. Wikipedia is not not news. I think the article should stay fully protected until things cool down and people who find it challenging to stay neutral when "exited" do not insert wild speculations that violate BLP and NPOV repeatedly.
—Apis (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I find that a perfectly reasonable motivation, just like User:GardiaP below. Our readers come to articles about current events to update and orient themselves, thus it would be a shame if they found the article biased and not up-to-date because Wikipedia had decided on a policy of suspending updating articles if the topic was too contentious. And that is exactly where we are at now. __meco (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Apparently that was a sock, which I think helps prove the point.
—Apis (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, blocking is an alternative, but when there are *many* users, and it's the first time of full-protection, full-prot is a good option. If there was only one user causing trouble, it'd be a great option. tedder (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking all ~5 is better than blocking hundreds.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to edit this page, as the scandal continues to grow. GardiaP (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

"Hide The Decline"

A viral video is making the rounds on YouTube. It's a very catchy tune and after three days it has now 200,000 views. Now, this topic is currently so infested I would not (based on my Wikipedia experience) be surprised if someone tries to remove this section from the talk page even, and obviously we still lack references from reliable sources on its notability, but I suggest we begin to contemplate inclusion as it is so professionally made that I'll be flabbergasted if the mainstream media does not pick up on it very soon. __meco (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw a reference somewhere that the video was produced by the Jib Jab design studio, which is notable in and of itself. If this can be verified, then it might be added to the list of notable videos on that page. Ronnotel (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No sourcing = doesn't belong in the article. I doubt that this would be of sufficient notability to mention in the article even if there was sourcing though. Per Ronnotel, if the producer has a article and there is sourcing to establish it was a significant creation of theirs then it may belong in their article but that should be discussed there Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course this is now a snowball growing beyond control and "Hide The Decline" is also a catchy meme that might even get a life of its own if the snowball gets even bigger. __meco (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if that does happen then we can discuss including the video in the article on the meme when the time comes. And once we have the article we can discuss how much to mention it here. But until then... P.S. Looking at the Jib Jab article, it's in a rather poor state with almost no sourcing establishing the significance of most of the videos so adding this one will probably not be hard but that's no guarantee it'll survive a cleanup Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually made by JibJab. For those unfamiliar, you can put whatever face you want on their videos. Someone spliced up parts of JibJab videos ("Tree Slaughter" is one) and dubbed over the audio. If it gets big enough, it might belong at list of Internet memes but it certainly doesn't belong in this article, at least until it's reported on by reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh has reported on the video and there's a link at his web site. But I bet Limbaugh doesn't pass the "notability" test around here.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not random stuff that someone's seen on You Tube. Get a grip. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh is not a WP:RS Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now you've done it. Don't you know he has talent on loan from God? Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it doesn't really matter since God is not a RS either :-P And for the record neither Al Franken nor Rachel Maddow would count as RS either, except perhaps for their opinions. But Rush Limbaugh's opinion that the video is interesting (or whatever) is somewhat irrelevant to this article the same as if Rachel Maddow's opinion that the earlier video, or some other video related to this controversy is interesting. I get the feeling though we wouldn't even be discussing such a video Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the video makes the cut for inclusion. Not even close. However, it is obviously related to this article, so the discussion belongs on this talk page.

The only discussion which belongs on this talk page is that which relates to improving the article. If some people genuinely feel that (mention of) the video belongs in the article we can discuss that. However the talk page is not for discussing videos which people find interesting but which doesn't belong in the article which I'm guessing was Itsmejudith's point Nil Einne (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See below Hiding the decline/data "trick"DLH (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing

I've just reverted some completely unacceptable edits by Ducha which attempted to whitewash the incident.[27] Let's be very clear about this. The UEA has been explicit that the files were stolen: this was a data theft.[28] Secondly, the cited sources say nothing about a "whistleblower". This appears to be a meme being pushed by anti-science activists in the blogosphere to whitewash the incident; the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are explicit that the files were obtained by hacking the CRU's server, and the CRU itself has said that "Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems". This claim grossly misrepresents the cited sources and is nothing more than POV-pushing original research. This was a bad piece of editing and I strongly advise against any attempt by editors to whitewash the undisputed criminal nature of what's happened here. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Here is my take a crime has been alleged. We are not a jury and until such time as a jury returns a guilty verdict it is an alleged hacking. I thought this was standard but I guess that some of the editors here that like to hide behind the 'we will not publish stolen data' excuse will not allow anything to threaten that defense even the time honored standard to calling alleged crimes ALLEGED until they are proven in a court of law! Bigred58 (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

There is blatant whitewashing here by the AGW lobby to reduce the apparent impact of the response this scandal. George Monbiot has done far more than just call this a "major blow". He has called (in the Guardian) for Phil Jones to resign. This should be stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.151 (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Jim Inhofe

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

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

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

How about more accuratly: "Senator James Inhofe, who has spoken out strongly against man as the cause of AGW"? the man does not speek out agasint science for crying out loud, simply the religious sect of science for this centruy.--97.92.93.161 (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There's the Jim Inhofe you write about above and there's the Jim Inhofe we know. The two will never meet. The Jim Inhofe we know has a most peculiar approach to politics, in one interview mentioning proudly "a speech I made on the Senate floor ... [addressing] from a biblical perspective seven reasons why Israel is entitled to its land." [29] He claims that issues such as homosexuality and abortion are scriptural in nature. "It occurred to me when I was first elected in 1986 that there are no new problems. Things are answered in the Scriptures." (op. cit.) This attitude is fundamentally incompatible with the scientific method. Inhofe has moreover repeatedly misrepresented the science of climate change in a way that is amply documented (see here for instance). --TS 15:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Little though I like Sen. Inhofe, your critique of this congresscritter is POV out the kazoo. As the senior ranking Republican on a key U.S. Senate committee (and a helluva Waxman-Markey "cap-and-trade" opponent) his response to Climategate and his role in a Senate investigation now grinding into gear are both prominent elements in this whole megillah. Like the proverbial "stopped clock," Sen. Inhofe may have found that one time of day when he's right, and studiously deleting mention of him on this Wikipedia page because find his religious whackjobbery and his politics odious is ludicrous. 71.125.155.89 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting removing reference to Inhofe (which would be grossly inappropriate, I agree). We're just discussing how he should be characterized. He isn't some random Senator, it's clear. --TS 02:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Did A Crime (Hack) Actually Occur?

The article begins by assuming that an "unknown hacker stole" multiple emails and source code files. This is valid as these statements are sourced and this is in fact how the story has been widely reported. But we should be aware that this may not be what occurred. Evidence for this is:

1. The files appear to have been preselected for FOIA request. Evidence that this is the case is that there are no personal emails included in the emails (almost all employees send SOME personal emails from their work account) and the emails cover several years; and source code files are stored separately from the files in an email server. In addition the emails stop at a date right before an FOIA request by McIntyre was rejected.
2. There was a previous release of a file collection like this "by accident" by CRU. Under similar circumstances McIntyre had requested a set of files, they were in fact gathered and zipped, and then Phil Jones copied the zip file to a directory on a publicly accessible server. There was in fact a CRU "mole" involved in that incident who tipped off McIntyre as to the location of the file.
3. Because the file was on a publicly available server, McIntyre was able to access the zip file and download it. No crime was committed.

The current circumstances are similar. All that is really known is that a zip file, organized in such a way as to appear to be a collection of documents gathered for a FOIA request (that was denied) suddenly appeared on public FTP servers. While CRU claimed a hack, and called the police, we don't actually know that a hack occurred.

So. Because we cannot use original research, I am not posting any of this commentary to the article. While the previous release to McIntyre did occur the way I describe it here and CAN be documented with public sources, it is not DIRECT evidence that this occurred in this circumstance. But I am saying that everyone should be cautious because it is very possible that this current incident being referred to as a hack and a crime may in fact be no such thing. So all the emotional ranting about "criminals" and "crime" may turn out to be about no such thing. Be cautious is my suggestion. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Unauthorized release of emails is a crime in most Western jurisdictions. It doesn't matter whether it was done by a hacker from the outside or a disgruntled employee on the inside. Unless you're proposing that Jones himself released the emails there's little doubt that some form of criminal activity occurred. The only other possibility is that Jones's supervisor or someone else in a higher-ranking position authorized release of the emails, which stretches credulity to the breaking point. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not true. The legal position of someone who purposely "broke into" the CRU system to steal the data would be quite different from, say, someone who had been involved in collecting the material for such an FOIA request. In the latter, it would be much more difficult to prosecute someone like that for unlawful access to computer systems if they had a legitimate reason to access the material in the first place. This is all speculation, of course, since we don't know what the situation actually is. We should be careful about labeling this a crime until RS's report on it. Ronnotel (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

All this is so much special pleading. You rely on a tendentious argument to support the notion that we're speculating when we say there is prima facie evidence of a crime. That won't wash. --TS 15:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If that were true, it would be in WP:RS. Wait for it. Wknight94 ^talk 15:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)What won't wash is making wild, unsupported claims. In which WP policy will I find the "prima facie" standard? Ronnotel (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"prima facie" is a legal term. You demand "reliable sources" but both the victim of the crime and two separate independent servers have confirmed that their systems were accessed without authorization. Even if the original access had by some change been legal, the other two were not. --TS 16:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know what prima facie means. My point is that there there is absolutely no mention of the term in WP policies and thus no support for arguments. Ronnotel (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, if an employee of a company copies files to a FTP server with public access used by that company, making the files available, then anyone accessing the files is not committing a criminal act. It may however be a firing offense for the employee if they did not have permission to do that, but that must be defined within the corporate HR policies and the corporate IT policies, and in most circumstances would not be considered a criminal act. Now if an employee copies files to a PUBLIC FTP server (e.g. not controlled by that company or organization) then this may absolutely be considered a criminal act for that employee. It is not however a criminal act from that point for anyone else to copy those files around or publish the contents (see US Supreme Court case related to "Pentagon Papers"). I suggest the 2nd scenario may have taken place, see Who leaked the Hadley CRU files and why. If so it was not what would be considered a "hack" nor were any "criminal hackers" involved if this scenario is correct. SunSw0rd (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pure speculation without a thread of fact from which to hang it. Emailing documents to a journalist may be legal. Hacking into a server to plant the documents there is not. Your reference to a non-existence public ftp server is a simple misdirection. That isn't what happened. --TS 16:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You speak about "what happened" but the point I am making is we don't know what actually happened. There evidence is that the first actual release of data was to a public FTP server in Russia. You talk about hacking into a server to plant documents -- did that occur? Did any documents get planted? Where? SunSw0rd (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is that uploading someone else's email to a public FTP server in Russia is somehow legal? Really? Try doing that with your boss's email and let us know how it works out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No. My argument is that uploading a file already prepared for an FOIA response is not a hack crime. Not that it is legal. Do you grasp the distinction? I am not arguing the legality per se but the use of the term hack or hacker. That is why I titled this section "Did A Crime (Hack) Actually Occur?" and NOT "Did A Crime Actually Occur?" SunSw0rd (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid getting into this whole 'editor speculation' thing but since so many others aren't... People keep mentioning this 'accidental upload to public server' thing. However it seems to me that even if that was the case, it wouldn't definitely mean no crime was committed. Perhaps downloading the information was not a crime since they may not have known what it was or that it wasn't supposed to be there and so I'm not sure if data theft would be involved but it seems to me redistributing content you know to be private and not intended for redistribution could easily be a civil violation (at the very least copyright infrigement) and maybe even a crime. In some circumstances they could claim they weren't aware the information was intended to be private but that's a rather difficult claim to make when you upload the information saying it was "too important to be kept under wraps". Continueing with the random examples trend, if someone at Microsoft uploads the Windows source code to a public server by accident, ignoring the people laughing at Microsoft and the many heads that will roll, good luck trying to win the case when you argue "well it was on a public server so I thought it was okay to redistribute it" (your punishment may be less then if you'd hacked into Microsoft or broken in to their offices but you're unlikely to get away scot free). Yes when people 'fuck up' they're asking for trouble but it doesn't negate the requirements for people to operate within the bounds of the law Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source indicating a charges have been filed by a local or international legal authority? This is the ultimate test of whether a crime may or may not have been committed, and whether or not is in a proper form for Wikipedia. SonixBoom (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Account blocked. [30]

The test is typically that a complaint has been filed with the relevant law enforcement authorities, which has been mentioned in several RS. Your test is relevant only to the identity of the responsible party, not whether illegal activity occured. Slowjoe17 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. That's a cynical and disingenuous redefinition. If someone mugs you on the street and steals your wallet, a crime has occurred. That's a verifiable fact, not a matter of interpretation - someone has assaulted you and taken your property without authorisation. In this case, the victim of the crime has stated repeatedly and explicitly that its property has been stolen. The reason why some anti-science activists are making this absurd argument is that - presumably because they still have a vestigal conscience or sense of shame, albeit withered - they recognise the hypocrisy of relying on criminally obtained material to make complaints about allegedly unethical behaviour. Therefore they feel a need to redefine the theft of the files as not really a crime at all, deny that there was any hacking involved and invent a supposed whistleblower out of thin air. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In this context, that is your interpretation/original research. We require facts reported by reliable sources here. Trundlex (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

If someone mugs you on the street and steals your wallet, a crime has occurred. And that's how news organizations report that kind of thing. And our reliable sources here say "steal" "stolen" and "theft". This is not worth a lot of discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources saying charges have been filed? I could not find them. Trundlex (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

Nobody has been charged with the crime because the identity of the culprit is not yet known. Obviously. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is getting a long way from the reservation. Obviously hacking did occur, we have documentation for that and we won't be removing that documentation from the article simply because somebody insists that we wait until charges have been filed. --TS 03:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think that we do know that "obviously hacking did occur". What we pretty much know is that a crime occurred -- but not necessarily a hacking crime. See the wikipedia page on Hacker. There is no evidence that any computer security systems were circumvented. If an insider released the files, then a crime occurred if they put them on a public FTP server. BUT that is not a hack. That is why I started this section with the question "Did A Crime (Hack) Actually Occur?" and NOT "Did A Crime Actually Occur?" The thing is this article leads off with "e-mail hacking incident" and "hacking of a server" when in fact no hacking may have taken place. Apparent theft yes, hacking no. SunSw0rd (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, you say "no evidence" as if you mean it, yet here we have statements from a university and from third parties that speak of their respective servers having been hacked. Even as I write, the Climate Research Unit's website is running on an emergency server. Pull the other one. --TS 04:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's let the authorities judge if/what crime occurred, let's let a reliable source report that fact...and then we can include it. Trundlex (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

Well that's exactly what we're doing. We report those reliable sources on the respective hacking incidents. I presume that the originator of this thread is suggesting that we should ignore those sources for reasons he hasn't completely explained. --TS 04:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A crime can't be reported if charges haven't been filed. Not all reliable source are reporting a crime. 71.84.241.177 (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The only ones that aren't reporting it as a crime are commentators, pundits, and op/eds. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is highly likely that a crime did occur, and I'm not surprised that many news outlets are running with that story. However, I thought Wikipedia held itself to a higher standard. There is a plausible scenario under which the incident could have occurred without theft (as SunSw0rd has explained.) Consequently, absent proof of a crime, it behooves us to use the word "alleged" until such time as proof emerges.--SPhilbrickT 15:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, a crime is the default position. We know that the e-mails and data were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit. That is a crime. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

POV versus POV

It would be very admirable if a balanced opening paragraph could be penned. One half of this story is the hacking of the emails, the other half is the contents of the emails. These points should appear together in the first paragraph.

And with regard to preventing the accusation of rigging a straw man, the full sense of the skeptics views on these emails should be presented. For instance, the alleged collusion among scientists is only one small part of the complaint arising from the leaking/hacking of these emails. The terrible state of the databases and the suspect manipulation of data in the climate models are also essential points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.34 (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Find reliable sources, then we can discuss it. Rants from partisan blogs are not usable. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, with respect, you appear to be in denial. Please have a look at Monbiot's Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away. He seems to be one of the few prominent commentators on "your" side who has a clue that this is a seismic event, that won't be wished or "spun" away. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris0 isn't in denial. The only crisis here is the one facing the criminals who broke into the university system and released the e-mail. No matter how loud you scream, nothing about this incident changes the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. This entire incident is a distraction that only serves to discredit the people promoting it. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is ample evidence of a cover up--with use of words like "tricks" and a desire to not allow the release of data. This is all covered in reliable sources, with further amplification from reputable editorial boards. Trundlex (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

Er, a cover-up of what? Of nothing, that's what. Op/ed's aren't reliable sources for Wikipedia because they tend to represent a non-neutral POV that tends to be unauthoritative and inaccurate. Your personal belief about the word "tricks" does not a cover-up make. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming hasn't changed. At all. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction: "The manufactured/alleged scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming hasn't changed." --GoRight (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a fringe opinion, and will be treated as such. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we be careful not to refer to the material as simply "emails"? While it is understandable that much of the discussion so far has been about the emails, some of the material released is other than emails. In fact, the vast majority is other than emails. The current title of the article helps mislead. Helpfully, the article does mention the other contents, and it isn't critical that the talk page show the same care, but it would be helpful to avoid ingraining a mistaken meme.--SPhilbrickT 15:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we simply swap the word document for e-mail? __meco (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, "data and e-mail" works just fine. Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels?

I am surprised by the use of criticism by Patrick Michaels in this article. I mean, of course the guy's going to try to milk this for all it's worth, he's a bought and paid for parrot of the energy industry, the very industry implicated in climate change!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/science/28climate.html?_r=2

That constitutes a rather large conflict of interest. As such his credibility on the subject of "bending the rules" is worthless and ridiculous (of course legitimate reseachers are not going to have a good opinion of him). It would be like asking Ken Lay of Enron infamy his opinion on the ethics of federal corruption laws. As an exposed swindeler and fraud asking Lay's opinion on such an ethics question wouldn't have been worth very much or even appropriate. Though from the article one might get the impression that Michaels is just an objective and honest skeptic he's anything but. If the comments remain perhaps a little clarification would be in order? 4.246.204.214 (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what's going on here. A "William Dulsouk" has deleted my comments above. Um, Mr Dulsouk, a primary rule of Wikipedia is that except in extreme circumstances you don't delete someones talk page comments if they are on topic. 4.246.204.214 (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear 4.246, let's try to avoid name-calling in Wikipedia. In our times, almost every scientist receives funding from some organization; indeed, I do not know of any researcher in the field that pays for his own research. You somehow feel that taking money from private companies is bad, while taking money from the UK government or UN is good. However, governments and the UN are also known to have interests. Would you mind to provide the sources for your assumption that their interests are more benign than that of the power industry? Dimawik (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dimawik...this is not an opinion page. GardiaP (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

Thats a surprise to me. Almost every thread on this talk page is focused on opinion and speculation, be it based on reliable sources or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of what has been said on this page, by editors who should be banned, is pure original research and POV-pushing with no basis in reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk)

Would you mind to provide the sources for your assumption that their interests are more benign than that of the power industry? Sheesh. Would you care to provide a link to a pro-warming UN or US document that anywhere states that AGW science is in actuality, "part of our secret master plan to take over the world"?

"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing controversy." -Brown & Williamson tobacco co. [31][32]

By the way, I find it ironic that one of the skeptic's big issues here is the deletion of information. Yet right here one of them attempted to sneakily remove my comments. 4.246.201.188 (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

americanthinker.com reported, "Amid the thousands of files apparently lifted from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last week sit two documents on the subject of the unit’s funding. One is a spreadsheet (pdj_grant_since1990.xls) logging the various grants CRU chief P.D. Jones has received since 1990. It lists 55 such endowments from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million. I guess cooking climate data can be an expensive habit, particularly for an oft-quoted and highly exalted U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chief climatologist. But it’s actually the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of "energy agencies" they might put the bite on. Three -- the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust -- are U.K.-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting "new energy" technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fourth -- Renewables North West -- is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest. Needless to say, all four of these CRU "potential funding sources" have an undeniably intrinsic financial interest in the promotion of the carbochondriacal reports CRU is ready, willing, and able to dish out ostensibly on demand. And equally obvious, Jones is all too aware that a renewable energy-funded CRU will remain the world’s premiere authority on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) despite any appearance of conflict." Grundle2600 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Grundle, I don't know the details (though a lot of money I notice that the author in his breathless rant provides no links for verification) but I will say this, there is a world of difference between being paid to do actual research and being slyly on the take from the very industry implicated in climate change to deny it [33][34]. One also needs to consider the source. Were talking about people that not only take money to deny climate change but have also taken money from Big Tobacco to deny the science of the harmful effects of smoking, and the ozone depletion issue. They write from think tanks that have disagreed with just about every scientific conclusion on the hazards of various toxins, such as dioxin etc. On every issue they take the industry side against the science and the human side. There is simply a giant qualitative difference.

These are people that while previously maintaining that there was absolutely NO global warming whatsoever then did an about face when forced to by the evidence and claimed that indeed the world IS warming but it's all due to the sun so there's nothing that we can do about it so don't even try [35]. Anything to protect Big Oil and Coal. That's just transparent shillism. You may think that they are equal in integrity but most people can tell when they are being scammed. Then of course, when we cut away from all the distractions, there is the uncomfortable issue that yes the world has been warming [36][37]. 4.246.207.123 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Has this page been unusually plagued with sockpuppeting, group editing or other inappropriate activity? __meco (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Very much so. At least three sockpuppeteers, including the infamous Scibaby, have been targeting it for days. There has also been a great deal of tendentious editing and violations of just about every Wikipedia content policy - NPOV, verifiability, original research, reliable sources and BLP among others. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Then my follow-up question is whether Wikipedia has any in-house project or organization which might investigate this? Are for instance these subversion attempts evenly distributed between the pro and anti factions of the climate change/global warming issue? __meco (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry has to my knowledge been rather one-sided. The OR has to my opinion also been one-sided, as has the BLP problems (the last is a natural consequence of the material though) If you suspect a sockpuppet, then the channel to go through is WP:RFCU, unless it is an obvious (per WP:DUCK) case - in which case you call upon an administrator. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you may or may not have gathered, my position is rather to have some overall analysis of these disturbances. As for the immediate sanctions and enforcement in any single case I'm sure administrators and alert regular contributors keep vigilant as usual. __meco (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have time to do it - then go ahead. The CU's are quite overloaded at the moment.. i've just struck alot of commentary from confirmed scibaby socks (and i suspect these are only some). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Its worse than originally thought

Eric S. Raymond has gone over Mann's code (an impossibility until this material was leaked as Mann wouldn’t let anyone see his "trick") and Raymond seems to be convinced that Mann hardcoded the "hockey stick" into the code. [38]. If true this will the biggest scientific story ever and Raymond's conclusions should be on this page. 71.239.229.241 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

But a cite from personal blog is far from WP:RS. His work, which I haven't ye read, needs to be replicated and discussed by a WP:RS before it can be included in the article.--SPhilbrickT 15:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There's no evidence that ESR knows anything at all about the science behind this; to him, they're all arbitrary numbers. (In fact there are very good reasons for adjusting the data in this way related to known characteristics of certain kinds of proxy data, but that's a long story that I won't go into here.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems Raymond's conclusions are well supported...if they make their way into an RS, they should be included.173.116.109.39 (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

??Well-supported by whom? Which reliable source? I've now scanned the post and some of the comments. One of the more salient comments is that this exercise is meaningless unless it can be toed to something actually used. There's some belief it was used to support a presentation (not fully confirmed), but I've seen no evidence that the correction factor was used in data making its way into the peer-reviewed literature. Even if that can be established, it needs to be credibly asserted that the correction was unwarranted. As Short Brigade Harvester Boris notes, there may be legitimate reasons for the correction. A lot more needs to be settled before this issue can be considered for inclusion, and even if it is, the issue needs to be sourced better.--SPhilbrickT 17:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually anon appears to acknowledge there's no RS. However odd his/her definition of "well supported" may be, I don't see much point discussing this further with an anon who admits there's no RS Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Well supported" probably means "Actually in the code itself". Anyway, there is a less suspicious interpretation of the adjustment numbers which ESR is looking at. The decline mentioned in the best-known email is called the divergence problem. Apart from anything else, the divergence problem makes calculating reliability or significance stats difficult. It is possible that the adjustment numbers ESR is looking at are an intermediate step to allow these calculations. ESR's stumbling around in single code files is DEFINITELY not ready for inclusion. Slowjoe17 (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change: BBC announced possible inquiry

I propose these changes. They should not be made before discussion.

Proposed change to lede:

The university is expected to announce a formal inquiry into the incident very soon. (with BBC reference here)

Edit to the section called "Calls for inquiries" in the current version [39]

Between Lord Lawson's call for an inquiry and Jim Inhofe's, insert:

The BBC News Environment analyst Roger Harrabin said on Friday, November 27, 2009 that he had heard unconfirmed reports about the university's intention to announce an official inquiry into the affair in the first week of December. He reported that the university, while unable to confirm a date, said, Harrabin reports, that "information about the investigation into the hack at UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) would be made public very soon." (same BBC reference).

In my opinion that is more than is necessary to bring the article up to date. This information is very much "up in the air" but it is perhaps the most concrete information we've seen on this issue since the story broke. --TS 23:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple, Tony. How about: "The BBC reported that the university intended to announce an official inquiry into the affair in the first week of December and would make information about the investigation into the hack available in the near future." -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) It seems reasonable to me. I don't care for the double in-text attribution in the second sentence ("He reported...Harrabin reports..."). I would removed the second in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris, trimming sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Quest, as you seem to have edit-conflicted with Chris perhaps you'd like to come back on that. I'm very flexible on the actual wording, and in fact I full recognise that the news will likely change quickly in the next few days, but I do think some change of this sort could improve the article in a way that all editors could agree to. --TS

I'm fine with either wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Following the above discussion, could the following text be appended to the lede?

The BBC reported that the university intended to announce an official inquiry into the affair very soon and would make information about the investigation into the hack available in the near future.

<ref name="bbc_20091127_harrabin">[[Roger Harrabin]], [[BBC News]]: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8383713.stm Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails], 2009-11-27, last accessed 2009-11-29</ref>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)

I made a couple of small changes and posted the sentence requested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the Reference section: Use archive and quote

In this case it's very important to archive the references we use (by using for example www.webcitation.org and quote what we are referencing (so it's easier to see what has been used to backup the edit done). So when we adds refs, could we use:

| archiveurl = 
| archivedate =  
| quote =  

For example, this article http://www.startribune.com/world/70674087.html was removed (See 'Global Warming Meltdown' Article Pulled for a comment, still available in the Google cache ). Nsaa (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that we should assume that our references are so shaky that they are likely to disappear from human knowledge? Surely if we use poor references they will disappear anyway. If we use good references they will survive. If the only surviving copy of referenced material is that placed into a bespoke archive, under an opaque management principle and without any external confirmation, it most certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia. --TS 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if a newspaper retracts an article, then the article is no longer a WP:RS and we shouldn't be citing it. Archiving is useful when a site re-organizes itself and the original article has been moved or can't be found, or if the site goes out of business. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that archiving can be good if it's an access issue. For instance I find the access arrangements for the New York Times extremely tiresome and frequently use an alternative means of reading the articles. --TS 00:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just not true: "Actually, if a newspaper retracts an article, then the article is no longer a WP:RS". As son as the article has been published it is out in the public and we can use it as far as it follow WP:RS. Nsaa (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's absurd. If the publisher itself doesn't stand by its own article, it's no longer reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We should definitely avoid giving the impression that Wikipedia is something like Wikileaks or Smoking Gun. We're weighing up the most reliable information about a subject and delivering it in a digestible form. We aren't grabbing the hottest news and putting it up to beat a deadline and if we're ever the sole or main source of any piece of information we should investigate why this is so and remove the probematic content. --TS 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If a report is retracted by its publisher, that doesn't say much for its reliability, does it? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Some sites also only keep articles only for a certain number of weeks or months (Yahoo! News was notorious for this once, I don't know if they still are) or require subscription to access archives. In certain cases, finding alternative reliable sources may be preferable (Yahoo! News for example usually just has news agency articles so finding an alternative source shouldn't be hard), or if it's a print article citing the print article, but usually an archived version of an article is fine. As others have said, it's absurd to suggest a story that has been retracted can be consider a WP:RS. If you believe that, I suggest in the strongest possible terms, you re-read WP:RS, have a think about it, and ask questions in the appropriate places if you still don't understand why that's not the case. WP:Verifiability is a cornerstone policy and WP:RS follows so it's imperative editors understand them, particularly if editing a controversial article like this and thinking a retracted article is a WP:RS suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of cornerstone policies. Incidentally, for similar reasons archiving should usually not be used for preserving older editions of articles (since a number of news sites regularly update current event articles) for the purposes of wikipedia, if the source no longer mentions details you need one that does, preferably a recent one. (This could be avoided if editors don't get so carried away with current event articles but as I've said elsewhere, that's a wikiwide problem and one which isn't easy to solve and which I am perhaps guilty of on occasion.) If you are trying to use to prove a site/article once said something (but no longer does) then that would need another source mentioning this fact otherwise it's WP:OR Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we're talking on different subjects? Dimawik point to a case were a webcitation should have been used, see [40] and the example " unfortunately, his link to UEA no longer works.". This link is not archived at Archive.org either. If the link was sent to webcitation on it's first use, we would have an archived version of the actual text cited/used. If you write something and source it from lets say a print media. Should this be removed when the online part of the article gets removed from the site? It's a very good thing to make a reference to what you used when adding especially controversial material and adding a quote. If we should remove an reference thats been withdrawn from the publisher is another matter as I see it, and must be debatet for, case by case. In this area we have seen statement made that has changed (it was deleted, on no its was stolen, etc... ) Nsaa (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If the only source of a piece of information is a now-defunct link on a single website, then we're probably engaging in original research if we refer to it. This still applies even if archive.org also carries a copy of the page or if someone has used an archiving website to create a permanent copy. We must use reliable sources, there's no excuse. --TS 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody says that we should use non reliable sources. If I'd made an adjustment in an article, using the now defunct ref. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ and I carried with me a valid achieved copy at webcitation it will ease the process of supporting the cited statements. An other option is to print (with programs like CutePDF) a page and email it to the OTRS system for further reference. We should obvious not remove this citation since it was made public saying that. Should it be worked on/removed we need another piece of information telling us something new. Nsaa (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles. You say nobody is saying we should use non-reliable sources, then you seem to propose the inclusion of information recorded solely on a now-deleted page on a web server. --TS 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reaction by the union of concerned scientists

The UCS stated in a follow-up that they are concerned about alleged reactions to FOI requests. Andjam (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

University of East Anglia admits it threw away original, raw tempterature data

timesonline.co.uk reported, "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped..." Grundle2600 (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very unclear here. Why is it so controversial to release this raw climate data in the first place? Is it true that FOI requests needed to be filed to access this data? I wanted to make sure this was accurately reflecting the reliable sources, as it didn't seem as though it should be controversial to release raw climate data. GardiaP (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

This article seems to follow the info on Pilke's web site published in August, unfortunately, his link to UEA no longer works. The modern statement by CRU tells a different story. My suggestion is for us to relax and let the pros play their game. Full disclosure: my reading is that CRU is not malicious, just sloppy. Actually, not even very sloppy - their operation is on par with most other scientific endeavors - but they seem to be caught unaware that their research has huge immediate implications outside of science and thus subject to much higher scrutiny. Designers of sidewalks and bridges are being held to different standards. CRU designed a bridge using sidewalk standards of accountability. It might stand, but I would be afraid to walk on it. Dimawik (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Grundle2600: You might have missed the final two paragraphs: "Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years

"He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Grundle also missed the point that this isn't related to the e-mail hacking incident. While it's been somewhat linked by the source, given how much else there is that is directy related, it seems unlikely this belongs in this article. Maybe another article (e.g. Climatic Research Unit) but as I've said so many times, that shouldn't be discussed here Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this criticism of UEA's work is entirely unrelated to the hacking incident. If relevant, it can be covered at the Climatic Research Unit article. For what it's worth, I think the writer of this news article overstates the significance of the information as evidence for global warming. --TS 18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Metaproposal

Given the current full-protection, I suggest that the best way to proceed is to identify a potential improvement to the article, make a specific proposal, (not just "shouldn't this be in here", but specific proposed wording and location). Let people debate the options, and reach a consensus. A sysop can make the change. At the end of the week, we can discuss whether reduction of the protection level is the best approach, or if protection should be continued, and edits made by generating consensus on each item.

I gave an example in the last section. I deliberately chose a narrow issue, as major changes might require overhaul of the article structure, and I don't think we are quite ready for that yet.

Perhaps if we show that we can work together and reach consensus on small issues, we can then tackle bigger ones.--SPhilbrickT 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's like a pillow fight at the moment. The article has attracted all the deniers on wikipedia, eager to score a point (finally!). I think it should only be edited by admins for a while, only when new facts emerge. Not many new facts are emerging. Seems like a storm in a teacup, if there are only the Trick, Travesty and Trove (as in treating your data like a treasure trove) "scandals". Pffft. ► RATEL ◄ 08:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the page view stats, you'll see that it's fallen off precipitously since reaching a peak four days ago.[41] I expect the article to be much quieter in a week's time when the anti-science blogosphere has moved onto its next manufactured outrage. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's the most notable aspect of this story that will last: The fact that during a brief period in the fall of 2009 a rumor about climate scientists falsifying data was circulated. With this in mind, I think we should think about including reactions from notable right wing bloggers like Michelle Malkin and what Rush Limbaugh had to say about this. Count Iblis (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. These logorrheic party hacks are digging very deep holes for themselves, and this should be documented. Also interesting are the comments of the deniers' pet scientist, Ian Plimer, who said that the CRU people have engaged in "fraud". He's already made up his mind, no need for an investigation. More of his blather here.

Geologist and climate change denier Ian Plimer says he hinted in his recent book Heaven and Earth that there is fraud afoot among climate scientists. "This substantiates what I hinted at," Plimer says. "Here we have the Australian government underpinning the biggest economic decision this country has ever made and it's all based on fraud."

Of course, he's wrong, as he always is. ► RATEL ◄ 15:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Limbaugh isn't a scientist, his field of expertise isn't climatology and his opinion hasn't been widely reported by third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A Wikipedia reader in the year 2050 will find Limbaugh's comments far more interesting to read than any discussion in a newspaper in which a more rational analysis is given of what really happened. This is because nothing of substance really happened. So, in the future people already know that the scientist in the year 2009 were correct and no data was forged. The only reason why someone would want to read about this issue, is to read about how this controversy developed, who the people were who were making a lot of noise about this, what they were saying etc. Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for this kind of protection on a developing article?Smallman12q (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[42]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

<- I had hoped we could use this section to debate the merits of the proposal to improve the article. Is anyone willing to discuss it? Or offer a better alternative? --SPhilbrickT 00:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Proper perspective and appropriate comments

I see several comments in the "Metaproposal" section just above that simply attack people who believe that this controversy has brought to light bad conduct by the scientists whose e-mails and documents were publicized. I've seen similar comments on this page by AGW skeptics trashing the opinions on the other side, either about the controversy or how we are able to cover it.

This isn't what a talk page on an encyclopedia article is for. You all know that.

Each one of you also knows that these kinds of comments are simply emotional and are factually empty: It's a fact that this notable subject has raised concerns about what the CRU scientists were doing, and it's a fact that these concerns go beyond AGW skeptics and partisans on either side. I've provided plenty of links to opinion and news articles that prove it. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] It is also a fact that even if every speculation about wrongdoing concerning these scientists is shown at some point to be true, it doesn't wipe away the case for anthropogenic global warming, as there is plenty of other proof out there for it (reliable sources for that exist, too). For either side to babble on as if these sourced facts didn't exist is simply taunting the other side and therefore disruptive to the serious work of writing and improving this article. If you want to emote about the unfairness of the world and how horrible the public advocates on the other side are, put it on your talk pages -- or, better, email it or say it off-site. If you're here for the serious task at hand, be respectful of the other editors you have to work with, as if you were an adult in a relatively civilized workplace, because you have to work with them in order to get consensus to improve the article, and you're going to close their minds if you continue to insult them. Your comments here should be based on convincing enough of the other side that your ideas and proposed language is reasonable. Cite sourcing. Cite policy. Be reasonable. Be civil. It saves time.

And you all know every bit of this already. Editors who won't try to get along here and who won't leave should be getting warnings, topic bans and eventually blocks for the good of the encyclopedia.

And if you really wanted to do the best job of working collaboratively with people you disagree with on a contentious subject, actually acknowledge where your own preferred side is weak and where the other side is strongest. You aren't here to advance your political position. You're here to present information to readers. Focus on that, please, and let's get to the job at hand. </sermon> -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All 5 of your sources are editorials or other opinion material. Perhaps if you used really reliable sources instead of opinions? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're misreading the purpose I stated for providing these links. I wrote: it's a fact that these concerns go beyond AGW skeptics and partisans on either side I'm not trying to prove that the authors of those articles are correct or even that they make a great case. I'm proving that there are prominent commentators who accept global warming and who believe the emails show something was wrong over at CRU. That means that this isn't simply some kind of anti-AGW meme. Because those concerns extend to people with varying POV on AGW, those concerns should be taken seriously. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I have no idea whether these are prominent or not, and frankly i do not care what side of a political spectrum they are - but using opinion articles for anything other than citing the particular persons opinion/expertise - is a No-no. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's not the point I was making. The point I was making was the point I clearly made. Here it is restated yet again: To ignore important facts is an aspect of talk page comments that are not constructive. Criticism of the CRU scientists exists apart from AGW partisanship. Recognize it. Come to terms with it. Accept it. Deal with it. (I will propose adding commentary such as the Washington Post editorial to the "Reactions" section later, but that is completely beside the point of this talk-page section, so I won't discuss that here.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth makes you think that we haven't "come to terms with it"? The trouble is that you are trying to synthesize its importance. In case you've missed it every comment here is on due weight of criticism... You cannot determine anything other than personal opinions from opinion pieces. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes me think too many "haven't come to terms with it": Seems like a storm in a teacup; when the anti-science blogosphere has moved onto its next manufactured outrage.; the most notable aspect of this story that will last: The fact that during a brief period in the fall of 2009 a rumor about climate scientists falsifying data was circulated That's three comments by three editors in the "Metaphysical" section just above. Here's a comment from further up the page, This entire incident is a distraction that only serves to discredit the people promoting it. (I'm not saying that these comments are themselves disruptive, and the last one only came an hour after I started posting articles indicating that this controversy doesn't seem to be a distraction -- the earlier you go on this page, the more comments like that you get, but to be fair, the issues in the controversy have become clearer over time.) You keep insisting that I want to use opinion pieces as sources for facts in the article. Where's your proof that that's my purpose? I won't repeat myself any more to you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, i believe those editors could make the same kind of synthesis (with an equal amount of sources) to support that their opinion is correct, as you are doing. And that is the thing that you will have to "come to terms with". No one here really knows what impact all of this will have, and i will repeat that again: No one. Synthesizing what you personally feel is important from opinion articles is certainly not a way forward. The only way forward on this is to wait for a picture to emerge... and strangely enough both you and the other editors are trying to get a "jump start" on that.. And that is not what wikipedia is about, we are not the news, nor are we in possession of a crystal ball. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You have to have a mighty peculiar definition of "storm in a teacup" to encompass editorials and commentary in the most prominent newspapers in the U.S. and U.K., news articles in same, and reprints of entire, multiple emails in three of them (Canada's Financial Post, WSJ, Daily Telegraph). How do you have a "manufactured outrage" when the outraged include prominent, responsible commentators on both the skeptical and not-skeptical sides of AGW? I'm not referring to future impacts, I'm referring to the impact we've seen so far: concerns have been raised. It isn't a "jump start" to write an article based on the facts at hand. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Did i say it was "a storm in a teacup"? Nope. Perhaps you should take your own advice and carefully read what is being written - do try to catch the point i was making. (incidentally: FP,WSJ and DT are all well-known for their sceptical columns) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

worst scientific scandal of our generation

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation (telegraph.co.uk): Published by a reliable source, this can be cited in the article as commentary on the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really that useful, more op-ed as described above. Reliable only for the views of the author. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See also hyperbole. HTH. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything to be had on this topic is commentary, sourced, quoted or otherwise. The cited source is quite reliable and meanwhile, one can't cite Wikipedia articles (such as hyperbole) to name-call and exclude sources one doesn't like. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the more articulate opinion pieces from the AGW skeptics, and it appears in one of the most prominent publications, so it's a good candidate for inclusion in the "Reactions" section. I notice that very many of the critics are focusing on the same areas. What I've suggested in previous threads, above, is finding the best quotes on widely repeated topics, using those in the article and then simply mentioning other prominent sources, with footnotes so that we can cover a range of opinions succinctly. This would be a candidate for a quote, IMO. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ever read WP:SYN and WP:WEIGHT? (as a sidenote: i'm quite frankly baffled over the "one of the most prominent publications") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Sorry, but this isn't a reliable source. The only thing this could be sourced for is Bookers' personal opinion (on which it is reliable of course). Why would Bookers opinion be interesting here? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a reliable source on the topic which can and should be cited in the article. As I said, the only sources to be had on this anywhere are batches of commentary, quoted or otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Daily Telegraph, big newspaper, widely read and influential. Other big newspapers widely read and influential that have published on this issue: The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Guardian (some "storm in a teacup"). Prominence lends weight. Picking and choosing among many sources isn't a violation of WP:SYN, it's called editorial judgment: Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. (guess where that comes from). Trying to find the best quotes and summarize similar statements from representative points of view on a particular subject, after having looked over a number of such reactions is the essence of WP:WEIGHT in terms of using particular sources, as the first sentence of WP:WEIGHT explicitly states. The only thing this could be sourced for is Bookers' personal opinion -- sorry, that's what "Reactions" sections are for. Opinions are personally held by people. Wikipedia finds it worthwhile to let readers know abgout the most prominent ones relative to the subject. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Try to separate opinion articles in those "prominent" news sources from journalism. When you state that "big newspapers widely read and influential that have published ..." then we are automatically assuming that you are talking about regular journalistic articles... and you aren't, you are talking about op-eds/editorials/columns... you are simply trying to summarize/synthesize individual opinions in to a collective picture, and that is certainly not a way forward. This column by Booker - no matter how much you think its important - is only sourceable to Bookers personal opinion, the same goes for Monbiot and other columnists. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece by Christopher Booker, a writer well known for his very unorthodox views on several scientific matters including white asbestos ("chemically identical to talcum powder"), evolution (" nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions"), global warming ("disproved", he claimed in 2008), and other issues. If Christopher Booker says it's going to be a sunny day, take an umbrella. We don't normally regard opinion pieces as reliable sources for such characterizations, in any case. If we include this piece of hyperbolae in the article at all, it will have to be made plain that this is a person well known for mouthing off on matters of which he knows very little. --TS 19:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your uncited opinion on anyone, as above, would be your own original research. Meanwhile, since the peer review process itself has come into widely noted and verifiable question in reliable publications, commentary from these publications would have even more weight on this topic, not less. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly some Opinion pieces and a lot of blogs that regard peer-review as being bogus, but that doesn't make it so. And Booker is certainly not a source where we can determine this from. Sorry but you are spilling your own OR/POV all over the place. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't know that about him. If that could be substantiated, TS, that would cut into the case for using his comments over the comments of other AGW skeptics who have made much the same points. Opinions in "Reaction" sections are not included to support facts but to support the fact that there is a prominent opinion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Many reliable sources are now strongly noting that the peer review on global warming has fallen into question and may not be reliable. This talk page but echoes something going on in the wide world. The way to handle it on en.Wikipedia is through WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If the peer review itself is being widely and verifiably questioned in reliable sources, peer review becomes much less meaningful as a reliable citation on the overall topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And which reliable sources would that be? (this one for instance isn't reliable to such a claim) Can you please cite these? (and do try to keep away from Op-Eds/editorials/columns and blogs - they are not reliable for such). And can you also please explain what expertise such RS's have about scientific publishing and science in general? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

www.telegraph.co.uk can easily be taken as reliable, whether or not an editor of en.Wikipedia agrees with what is being cited, or what a given writer may or may not have written otherwise in the bygone. Please keep in mind, criticisms of living persons, even on talk pages, must always be most carefully cited. Commentary bearing other PoVs can also be cited to reliable sources and is indeed needed, whatever that outlook of any en.Wikipedia editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the Telegraph, it's Christopher Booker. Earlier you described my characterization of Booker as my "uncited opinion." No, it's a fact that he's known for his repeated false statements of fact and mischaracterization of the issues in science (of which I gave the three most infamous examples). I cited the Wikipedia article on him which, in this context, is adequate to establish who Booker is and how poor his reputation is on matters of science. --TS 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

One could cite that in the article, if there are cites to be had. As an aside, the published peer review's reputation has fallen mightily, which is widely verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, you've been told ~7 times now (I believe that this is number 8) that this is an opinion piece. Please stop wasting our time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already answered this many times. Saying I'm wasting anyone's time by citing reliable sources on this talk page edges very near personal attack, which isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. These games of WP:ICANTHEARYOU isn't helping. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a game (saying it's a game is a personal attack, which is very much untowards on this website). WP:RS allows commentary from reliable sources cited as such, as I've said many times. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If so, Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion (as below). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

When will personal abuse of other editors stop? It is a service to our readers to give them all the facts and not a biased selection by editors who should know better. Booker is a well respected commentator: you may not like his views but the facts from Norwich speak for themselves. Peterlewis (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To describe Booker as "a well respected commentator" is simply false, as far as the field of science goes. He is not reliable. --TS 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you can qwuote chapter and verse on his "unreliability", or are you another green fanatic who can't bear the thought of being wrong or deluded? Peterlewis (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Before carrying on more about that living person, please find some sources and cite them. They'll be welcome in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's an opinion piece which is distinct from news articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It can and should be cited nonetheless, also some editorially controlled blogs may be taken as reliable sources for commentary on topics, see Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, please stop playing "I didn't hear that", and read the article on Christopher Booker in which his record of blatantly false factual statements on matters of science, and his record of mischaracterization of scientific disputes, is dealt with using reliable sources and at some length.

Whether we use this opinion piece is a matter of editorial judgement, but if we do use it we must not give a false impression of the source of this rather controversial characterization. To have Booker decribe this affair as the "worst scientific scandal of our generation" has little significance. If a person with a good reputation on matters of science said that same words, this would have greater significance. --TS 20:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to hurl personal attacks at me and start citing some sources, like I've done, Tony, that's what this website, and this talk page, are (or are said to be) about. Meanwhile, as you know, articles on en.Wikipedia cannot be cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not propose that we cite Wikipedia in an article, but I am asking you to read the article Christopher Booker, which amply supports my statements with reliable external sources. I trust that you are able to discern a distinction between the two. --TS 20:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony, en.Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for anything, you can't cite it here, however much you'd like to do so. Please don't mistake what I'm saying, en.Wikipedia is a wonderful and very handy tool with which I look up stuff almost every day, but I do keep a wary eye on both the openly edited text and the cited sources and often dig into the latter for myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Also please note, Christopher Booker is bedecked with tags questioning its neutrality, reliability and sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't be dragged into this nonsensical discussion any more. You seem to be urging me to put the sources, which you know exist, on this page. I will not. You know they exist yet you still pretend that they do not. That is unacceptable conduct on Wikipedia. --TS 21:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Gwen isn't the one with her fingers in her ears. "Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away". 2009-11-25. Retrieved 2009-11-28. {{cite web}}: Text "Environment" ignored (help); Text "George Monbiot" ignored (help); Text "guardian.co.uk" ignored (help) Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue in this discussion is not whether a crisis has been precipitated but on whether Christopher Booker is a reliable source. --TS 21:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not citing sources, so there's not much to talk about. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Booker in the Telegraph is surely a good source for Booker said it was the "worst scientific scandal of our generation". Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no dispute there. But the question is whether this is worthy of any weight, and is so what weight, in this encyclopedia article. At any given moment Booker can be expected to say of some piece of mainstream science that the mainstream scientists have it totally wrong and that they are engaged in a scandalous coverup. BSE, evolution, asbestos, global warming, you name it he's agin the mainstream and utterly convinced that whatever nonsense he is pushing is correct and all those scientists are wrong. --TS 21:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're still not citing any sources at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Sure, of course, but that's wholly different from saying it is the worst scientific scandal of our generation. The next question is whether the opinion is notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Following WP:V editors can disagree as to truth, but not verifiability. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We summarize what the reliable sources publish. We don't filter that through our own opinion of who's valid. The judgment to include it or not has little to do with its content, and nothing to do with Booker's thoughts on anything else. It's a notable opinion because the Telegraph published it, and so should be briefly summarized. Separately, we can't have any name-calling of Booker, even if it's only the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that just because the Telegraph published it, it automatically makes it notable. These days, lots of newspapers publish online blogs - there are probably dozens (hundreds?) of such opinion pieces on this topic; I don't think each one should get mentioned here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tom, you seem to be saying that because an opinion is published by the Telegraph we must summarise it. That really isn't any part of Wikipedia policy. We may summarise it, and whether we do so and how is a matter of editorial judgement, which does include weighing up whether the opinion is worth including in the article. Booker's poor record and poor reputation in this matter does count. --TS 21:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Very much agreed. The Telegraph publishes several editorials every day, i.e. thousands per year. Multiply that by the number of major newspapers, and we do nothing but becoming not even a news accumulator, but an opinion accumulator. And yes, I will call a dunce a dunce, per WP:SPADE. BLP stops us from including unsourced criticism, not from discussing public statements by a person. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to pick and choose, what criteria would we apply to determine which to mention? "Let's discourage people from mentioning opinions we don't like" works until it fails, spectacularly, and then here we are. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How would we cover it? Here's a tentative suggestion:

Christopher Booker, who has used his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, to make claims such as that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008,<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html</ref> that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health,<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1381270/Christopher-Bookers-Notebook.html</ref> that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist",<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1556118/Christopher-Booker%27s-notebook.html</ref> and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans,"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1387271/Christopher-Bookers-Notebook.html</ref> described the incident as "the worst scientific scandal of our generation.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation]'</ref>

--TS 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of that seems to have nothing to do with this page's topic. Assuming you're not just trying to make a point, that's quite remarkable slanted. Wasn't it you who made that nice page of synonyms for "POV"? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain. Isn't Booker's tendency to perverse contrarianism and crankish views relevant to his current opinion? Newspapers often retain columnists because they state their opinions in provocative ways. This is obviously the case with Booker. --TS 22:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we're all experienced editors here and I don't want to get carried away with BLP, but explicitly calling him a crank is over the line. I understand your point about Booked. Turning this into a BLP dispute is counter-productive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, that suggested paragraph appears to have some serious WP:SYN issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We should not use Booker William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess we could just vote on it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well not to rub it in too hard, I think it's becoming obvious that one of the kindest words in the English language to describe Booker would be "contrarian." He certainly doesn't represent scientific opinion. He doesn't even represent mainstream intellectual opinion in his own country. He represents Christopher Booker. --TS 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We SHOULD use Booker. --GoRight (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that we determine an opinion's weight by the amount of coverage it receives by other third-party, reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said earlier, the peer review ("scientific opinion" as you call it) on this topic has itself fallen into question in a widely verifiable, notable and reliably sourced way. Meanwhile, consensus is not a vote. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. If reliable sources start to take Booker seriously that will merit inclusion of coverage. --TS 22:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source has taken Booker "seriously," by publishing what he had to say. That reliable source is telegraph.co.uk. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way newspapers work or the way Wikipedia handles these things. Шизомби (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You did indeed say this earlier. To which particular peer review did you refer and what did you mean by your statement? --TS 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't refactor my comments. Rather, please start citing sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Please answer the question. I won't ask it again if you choose not to. Recall that my question related to your repeated claim that "peer review on this topic has itself fallen into question in a widely verifiable, notable and reliably sourced way." I want to know specifically what you are referring to. --TS 22:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony, truly, I'm not trying to be flip here. We can disagree on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think if the Telegraph publishes Booker, we mention Booker. Our articles must summarize, with due weight, what the reliable sources choose to publish on the topic. On this topic, prominent newspapers have chosen to publish opinions of people with whom some violently disagree, and for whom they have no respect. Sorry, that happens every day on every topic. It's unreasonable to demand, beyond publication in a reliable source, that subsequently other reliable sources have reported on that publication. This kind of opinion, of which Booker's is representative (the Telegraph having chosen to publish it; see Gwen Gale's comment above) should be included, subject to due weight. In particular, it should not be excluded because some of us don't like it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we've already been around this one once. As has been said by others, there are many opinions. Just because Booker's is one of the more extreme opinions, does not mean we give it a lot of weight. And if we do summarise it be must be careful to set it in context. Booker's long record of provocative and ill-informed statements on scientific matters is part of the context.

Nobody has suggested that they don't like it. I'd say it's just the kind of nonsensical hyperbolae I may choose to write abiout in my blog. But I'm not writing a blog now and I'm suggesting that if we want to represent opinion on this matter we can do better than Booker. --TS 22:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would support adding this citation. Comments like "hyperbole" and "not reliable" made earlier are merely personal opinions. The comment is in a reliable source, therefore, it warrants addition into the article. GardiaP (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user scibaby Kim D. Petersen (talk)

• It appears to me that denier-sympathetic editors want to include the Booker quote because it frames the issue in a way they wish to see it framed. They do not care that Booker himself has a poor record on scientific issues. If they were neutral, as they should strive to be, they would not wish to include the opinions of a 72-yr old History graduate with a reputation for odd ejaculations on matters of science in the article. Think about it. ► RATEL ◄ 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It also appears to me that warming-sympathetic editors want to exclude the Booker quote because it frames the issue in a way that they DON'T want it framed. Go figure. Thanks for the intuitive insight and ad hominem attack (a logical fallacy, look it up). --GoRight (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about it. Booker represents Booker. He may also represent a certain political (as opposed to scientific) point of view; I am not sure about this. The Telegraph is a reliable source for news, and publication of a column by the Telegraph is an indicator that the columnist is taken seriously by a substantial British demographic; it doesn't even start to indicate that the columnist has any scientific credibility. And indeed he hasn't any. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Ratel's assessment is spot-on. Also, I don't think it's desirable or practical to attempt to summarize every opinion piece on this topic. There are already dozens of such opinion pieces. Several institutions have launched or are considering launching investigations/reviews into this. These investigations/reviews may last months, if not longer. As this plays out, we may end up having thousands of opinion pieces to summarize. I don't think it's realistic to try to summarize all of them. I repeat my suggestion that we determine an opinion's weight by the amount of coverage it receives in third-party, reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the way this article in the telegraph neatly summarizes the three problems created by the leaked emails. I would like to see these three teased apart as separate subsections of whatever section the problems are enumerated within. After all, organization is key to understanding. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)