Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Effects of CRU Email Release on Public Opinion

I am beginning to look for sources on the effects of the CRU email releases on public opinion. Here are a couple of new sources we might want to consider:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/07/public-support-climate-change-declines?newsfeed=true

http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/national-news/122899-climategate-email-scandal-shatters-public-confidence-in-paying-to-go-green.html

--NewGuy5342 (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

One nice thing about the Guardian piece is that the source has already been established as reliable in the article, so there's hopefully one less thing on which we need to reach consensus.

Also, while the piece doesn't bear directly on the latest Climategate release, which goes unmentioned, it's interesting that the study found 37% in Britain say claims about environmental threats are "exaggerated", up 13% since 2000, in part due to Climategate I. That should perhaps give pause for thought to those arguing that skeptical views are not a significant minority viewpoint. --DGaw (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The significance of a view depends on the acceptance among informed opinion. Lots of people read horoscopes, etc., it does not make it a significant minority view. TFD (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

But if you think about it, both sides of any dispute can be relied upon to assert that their side is informed, and the other side is not. And it really doesn't matter, because Wikipedia isn't in the business of promoting any side in ANY dispute. "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." It describes all sides of a debate proportionately to their prevalence, notes which views are the majority and, (according to WP:DUE excludes a viewpoint completely only when "it is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." --DGaw (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And if you read our policies, we have guidelines to describe what counts as RS, and what doesn't. Wikipedia doesn't choose between sides, it represents them according to their prevalence in reliable sources. Sometimes that means giving one "side" little or no attention, even if that side can create an awful lot of noise outside of RS. You seem to be trying to teach the controversy here, rather than follow NPOV and RS guidelines.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's focus on the article, rather than what we think other editors are trying to do, shall we? We do indeed have guidelines that describe what qualifies as an RS and, unfortunately, what they say most prominently that it depends on the context. We have, it appears, at least two groups of editors here, each very confident it has a better grasp on the answer than the other. --DGaw (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

According to what policy? Horoscopes could certainly be a significant minority view, depending on the context. Oh look, a whole article about horoscopes.--Taylornate (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Horoscopes don't appear in Personal finance even though money matters are a common issue in horoscopes. Do you see the problem with simply asserting popularity as a grounds for material being WP:DUE?

Regarding DGaw's claim that we should alter our position on NPOV because of public opinion: RS Analyses of the effects on public opinion of the original climategate are certainly due (they need to be better, however, than single sentence speculation about the complex changes occurring over a decade). However, RS regarding public opinion does not count as the basis of how we balance articles to meet NPOV. The policy on NPOV is explicit about this: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So what would you estimate the ratio of column inches devoted to describing the views of those who released the emails relative to the views of the involved scientists to actually be? 50-50? 40-60? 70-30? 0-100? What is the basis for your estimate? --NewGuy5342 (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's more nuanced than simply counting column inches, but in roughly those terms I see very little RS that has been brought here that considers this second release anything other than much ado about nothing. Even the Daily Telegraph, home to Delingpole and Booker, has covered it like this - a "yawn" and a "damp squib".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's only more nuanced than that if you don't like the ratio that you get. Pick a representative set of RS (as defined by policy) that would be generally usable within any other political controversy on Wikipedia (i.e. major news outlets, notable opinion pieces, etc.) and let's see how it tallies out. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's consider that. But perhaps we should find some common ground on what is an RS. You agree that "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact", (per WP:RS#News_organizations, correct? --DGaw (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@NewGuy: It is more nuanced than that. We don't just count column inches. We certainly don't treat all RS as being of the same quality, and we don't treat every issue as binary. We also have to be careful of misrepresenting silence on an issue. (The Daily Mail routinely publishes absolute nonsense about what cures or causes cancer, but we can't take the BMJ or Lancet's silence on these reports as acquiesence, for example). But all of that apart, I don't see sources picking up the ball and running with it. Last time we even had George Monbiot questioning Phil Jones' position.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@DGaw: That's what the policy says. It also says When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue primarily for the 'other side' as I can best sum it up is two-fold: you have controversy pages on this subject that read like shadow-boxing. From thearticle on controversial pages: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" The fact is the pages on the issues of climate change are not accurate depictions of the history or politics of these issues. Frankly if its a 'controversy page' it should be handled by the standards of political pages not science pages. This is a political issue, people split almost evenly down party lines, just like they do with every red/blue political issue, the science is just detail. Second, your high-standards for citations seems to be unevenly applied, lots of pages have links to realclimate which seem to be acceptable sometimes and apparently some news articles are not especially if they have an eminent place in conservative politics? Something tells me an article from the New Republic would not be dismissed as quickly as one from the Weekly Standard. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Erm? Which "party lines" are you talking about? There is no such division on this issue between red/blue in Europe, i doubt if this is the case anywhere other than in the U.S. And this is a global issue - not a U.S. one. I also doubt that this is a political issue anywhere other than in the U.S. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a global issue, but the United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and I believe funds something like 10 percent of the IPCC budget, funding Republicans have already made moves to cut, in part due to ClimateGate the First. That would seem to make US climate politics of relevance. Presumably concerns about being suitably global can be addressed by indicating anything applicable to the US in particular (e.g. “In the United States…”) --DGaw (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That the US is the #2 emitter is irrelevant to this discussion, unless secondary sources state that this makes it relevant (do they? I don't think so). As for the IPCC budget - Think again, the total budget is extremely small, so i rather doubt if it has any relevance or not whether the US consideres cutting it. But then again, this is also irrelevant since no reliable sources state this as relevant. All you are doing here is WP:OR, considering your own speculations as to what is important.

Please provide secondary reliable sources that support your speculations - or have them in private. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"That the US is the #2 emitter is irrelevant to this discussion, unless secondary sources state that this makes it relevant" - Not unless someone is proposing adding that to the article, it's not, and I wasn't. I was merely replying to your assertion (also offered without sources, by the way) that it isn't. --DGaw (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Small difference. I can provide reliable sources to back up my statements about Europe (in general) and Denmark (in particular).... can you do the same? (i doubt it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, references are unnecessary, unless you are proposing an addition to the article. But I don't believe you can provide reliable sources that demonstrate that Climategate is not political in nature, nor that the US being the #2 emitter of greenhouse gasses makes US politics irrelevant in matters of global climate politics. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise if you like. --DGaw (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Quibble, it's very much been a political issue in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. . dave souza, talk 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly... i'll defer to your knowledge there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

More quibble. You can't find a country where climate change isn't a political issue. In Europe we have Green Parties, which tend to align more with the Left than the Right. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that all parties in my country have the same stand on the issue (except possibly the very new ultra ultra libertarian one)... There is no divider on this particular issue in Europe on Blue/Red lines. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)In case you've missed it - Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy are leading right wing coalitions .... and guess what their stance is on this issue? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but. The USA is rather different. In the UK all major parties accept the science and officially support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, though Conservative PM Dave "hug a huskie" Cameron appears to be backsliding a bit on reaching targets. The GWPF headed by Conservative ex-minister Nigel Lawson is a political climate denial front which gets excessive coverage in the media, but there is little sign that they have any wide political support. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Does the observation that the public divide over the issues related to climate change is not aligned with the political parties in some countries really make the controversy any less political? I don't think so. The recent negotiations at Durban looked pretty political to me. Anything that affects the public perceptions of climate change will ultimately affect public policy which makes it inherently political. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Durban discussions are not about this controversy... not even remotely. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is that anything which affects public opinion, which this controversy does according to the sources, ultimately shapes public policy which manifests itself in the political sphere which ranges from local positions of individual political parties all the way up to events like Durban. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Anything? That is some argument. Your claim that it shapes public policy needs to be sourced - not inferred by you. Where are the sources that say Durban is/has been influenced by this release? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I have still not conveyed my point adequately. You argue that "this controversy" is not political. I and others are arguing that "this controversy" is political. Nothing more. I have not asked to have Durban added here. My reference to Durban was purely as an example of why this controversy is a political one, as opposed to a scientific one. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Then please stick to the point. Your argument/example about Durban is completely flawed, it is based upon faulty logic. Paraphrased: Durban is political, Durban is about climate change, ergo Climate change is about Politics. That is a classic Fallacy of Accident; Also embedded within your comment is a Strawman argument (since i never argued "that "this controversy" is not political"); --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that you have accurately paraphrased my arguement. You have the flow of the logic reversed and have arrived at a conclusion that I never asserted. No matter. As long as you are agreed that "this controversy" is a political one then we are in agreement which is all that matters. Please ignore my discussion related to Durban and all should be good. I apologize for having misunderstood your position. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is yet another strawman from you. I have never "agreed that "this controversy" is a political one". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I seem to be unclear on what your point actually is. Can you please concisely clarify what your point actually is? --NewGuy5342 (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. It is neither entirely a political controversy, nor is it entirely a scientific one. It is quite obvious that the culprits who released the mails where trying two things: To undermine the science of climate change (or force it in a specific direction, that is tiny minority->fringe), to "out" certain scientists and to put a sprog in the wheel of the political process. The controversy caused by this has had political, public and scientific implications. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether I agree exactly with your characterization therefore a measure of the success should be the effect on public opinion right? We can certainly indicate the fairly unchanging views of scientists as well.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really - now you are talking about public opinion, which is neither science nor politics. This most certainly is interesting - but it also is an area where we need scholarly/analytical sources to be able to state anything. Individul comments from opinion articles might be an indication of public opinion, but it may also be indications of a loud minority. False balance is a pit-fall here. Another thing that needs to be considered is whether or not such public opinion is localized (for instance the US) or something that is globally an issue. I haven't so far seen any such material being proposed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

KDP: OK. I agree that there are implications for all of the areas you mention. So does this mean that you agree the various significant points of view from all of these areas have a proper place on this page, or not? --NewGuy5342 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Views"/Opinions in an by themselves are uninteresting. We certainly are interested in analysis of the various implications, so that we can present relevant individual views with the context and weight that they have in the literature about this. But that doesn't seem to be the focus here, which seem to have been to disassociate opinion from the relevance/weight that they have had in the controversy. In effect resulting in presenting minority viewpoints as if they had as much relevance/weight as majority views. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Where has this been argued? I have been arguing in favor of giving due weight as seen in reliable sources which are generally accepted for use in political controversies. Do you disagree that this is the proper standard emphasized in WP:NPOV for discussing the public/political aspects of this controversy? I think we are all agreed that peer reviewed sources are the proper standard when discussing any scientific issues. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I support the notion that that is a political controversy. Has the CRU e-mails produced serious questions of the science involved? Probably not as much as the skeptics like, the e-mails they highlight are more over the politicization of the science and accusations of Mann et all creation a biased/politicized atmosphere that attempts to squelch those who write papers that oppose their ideological views. And the other side thinks the e-mails are being blow out of proportion to derail legislation to address climate change and cast doubt on the science... Regardless its politics, no?--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

More

It was also reported that the scientific consensus is a hoax, the emails show eminent climate scientists conspiring to have PhDs stripped from sceptics, to have journal editors fired for publishing papers that contradict predictions of imminent apocalypse, and colluding with the media to slant coverage."Kartasto (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not what we mean by take to talk. We mean please explain why we should include this unbelievably biased and patently false opinion piece which makes unsubstantiated allegations involving living people. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Kartaso, I'm the token "skeptic" here, and this thing is way too much for me. Give it up -- though I appreciate this is a good faith edit. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Lost TOC?

I just looked through the voluminous header syntax and couldn't spot the problem. Help? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got to have more than three headers to make it appear, so it's showing up now because of your post. See WP:TOC. Ravensfire (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Doh.... Thanks! Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Media coverage section work

I removed this sentence from the section,

The intense media coverage of the documents stolen from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia created public confusion about the scientific consensus on climate change, leading several publications to comment on the propagation of the controversy in the media in the wake of a series of investigations that cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing. -- it is uncited, and appears to be editorializing.

I also removed this quote from Sharon Begley of Newsweek , as unclear & unneeded:

Begley noted that "one of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, 'No, we were wrong about X,' most people still believe X."

I've added comments on the UK investigation from Fred Pearce of the Guardian. For the Penn State inquiry, I added a comment from Clive Crook of the Atlantic. And I added a brief quote from a WSJ editorial on the Muir Russell inquiry. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Most of it was quote-mining... if you are going to cite Pearce, who has written intensively on this topic, then a balanced description should be made. As for Clive Crook - i fail to see how his views can be defended from a WP:WEIGHT perspective. The first sentence seems to be a summary of the various responses to the controversy, if you want it cited, then i doubt if it should be a problem, since it reflects the balance of coverage/reports/inquiries etc. (as you well know). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Kim: as you know, this section in particular is badly unbalanced. From reading our article, one would never guess that there have been substantial criticisms made of the inquiries and investigations.

If you can present some later remarks of Pearce that casts doubt on his conclusions here, please do so. It appears to me that he was unhappy with the way these investigations were conducted. As were many observers.

As for Clive Crook, you will have to make your objections clearer. This is quite a long and detailed analysis and criticism of the CG inquiries, by a senior editor at a distinguished, non-partisan monthly -- just what our article is lacking. Please spell out your WP:Weight objection.

As for the WSJ, I note you don't mention their editorial. We quote the NY Times extensively in this section, and in the article. The Journal, not at all here, once in the article. I wonder why -- since these are the two premier newspapers in the USA.

Here's the section Kim reverted -- along with other material, about which he did not see fit to comment: diff

While media reactions to the various inquiries into the affair were generally positive, there was also substantial criticism. Fred Pearce of the Guardian wrote that ""The three [UK] inquiries conducted into the "climategate" affair were all badly flawed." Pearce wrote that "One of the most serious charges to emerge from "climategate" was that CRU scientists did back-door deals to include unpublished research in the last [2007] IPCC report. ... And, when someone asked for the emails that would have exposed [this], they hastily deleted them... ... The Muir Russell inquiry said it found no evidence that the CRU scientists had done this. Observers were incredulous." The Wall Street Journal editorialized that the Muir Russell report "amounts to a 160-page evasion of the real issues." Clive Crook of the Atlantic, commenting on the Penn State inquiry, found it so deeply flawed that it "would be difficult to parody."

Kim, are you really happy with the "intense media coverage" bit you restored? And the Begley quote? --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Fox News as a reliable source

A recent edit summary notes that Fox is a fringe source. Although the edit being reverted needed to be reverted, the problem wasn't in using Fox. See Fox on the list here of. Although the list specifies "broadcast," the link goes to our article on Fox News, which includes Fox online. Yopienso (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's about as far from fringe as news comes... being the most watched Cable News Station! Certainly as relevant as any other news source at the very least. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it is the most watched television news, then it must be good! Right? Nothing wrong here, everyone turn Faux News on immediately and bask in its wisdom. Hey, Shadowy Sorcerer, care to point me to a single distinguished journalism award Fox won for covering a story, any story at all? What kind of awards and recognition has Faux won for its news coverage? Anything? Which investigative stories have they covered that changed the world? Anything? Viriditas (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Both Fox News and The Daily Mail are fringe in science reporting, and are primary sources for anti-science disinformation. They may be RS for some other subject area. Nature and Science are solidly mainstream in this topic, but have a tiny circulation in comparison to mass media. . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Dave, this is NOT a science article. Sources used already include the Norwich Evening New, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the London Times, the New York Times, Fox News itself, and Washington Post. Please stop saying that news sources are de facto not reliable sources for this article. You know there is not agreement on this point, and the facts on the sources in the article itself highlight your error.Slowjoe17 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dave can you site your sources on that? I agree Nature and Science should be seen as betters sources being peer-reviewed science journals but 'sources of anti-science?' that is a tall order, and requires something to back it up. Sure Fox reports without questioning things like psychics and ghosts sometimes, but so does every other local news station and broadcast channel. My point is not about quality or truthfulness, its about the definition of Fringe. Fringe is by definition a view held by few people. Therefore, its highly unlikely the most watched cable news show could be called 'fringe'. Changing the world is a bit subjective but the awards thing, I can do: Hume, Sustern Gonzalez, Rivera even has the coveted John F. Kennedy reward. And best of all Chris Wallace who even got himself a peabody. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Didn't check all, but van Susteren got her awards before she joined Fox, and Gonzales got an award for doing CPR in an emergency situation - laudable, but hardly a journalistic achievement. Rivera got the award for NBC work, not for Fox. This kinda starts to look like a pattern to me.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Le sigh. So the reward is invalidated if the journalist moves to Fox News? Like its some evil pit of journalistic-integrity death? Are you guys are really going to make me excruciatingly research the journalistic rewards system to allow sources from a popular news source whose politically ideology you are opposed to and vilify as faux news in comments... in an article on a political controversy? --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course the awards stand. But they are not awards won by Fox. There is no indication that Fox had anything to do with them. They can arguably be used to support stories by the particular journalists, but they confer no presumption of reliability to the organisation. And the CPR award has nothing whatsoever to do with journalistic achievement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Not true. Hiring journalists with demonstrated levels of integrity most certainly does reflect well on the overall organization. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fox News has been discussed gadzillions of times on the reliable sources noticeboard. Have a look through the archives. Lots depends on whether it is a news report or opinion. If news, is it from their own reporters, from a press release, a press agency etc.? If opinion, whose opinion? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note that in this instance the Fox piece is dated 23 November, within a day of the "release", and is by Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters:

  Almost exactly two years since damning email messages were released from Great Britain's University of East Anglia showing a pattern of deception and collusion between scientists involved in spreading the global warming myth, a new batch of such correspondence has emerged that seems destined to get as little press coverage as the original ClimateGate scandal did in November 2009.
  James Delingpole reported in Britain's Telegraph Tuesday:

Need I say more? . . dave souza, talk 12:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, you should perhaps also say that the piece is an opinion piece, and therefore "reliable for statements as to their author's opinion" per WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion --DGaw (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

'nuff said. Fox News cannot be considered a reliable source in any reporting on climate change. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, it seems that the BBC can't be trusted either. They appear to have been handmaidens of the CRU since 2001. --Myqwerty (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is out of sequence, but in response to Myqwerty's odd claim. The BBC is as reliable a source as can be found. Go to this page and search for the word "climate" to see what "fair and balanced means"; WP would do well to emulate the BBC. Here is an excerpt:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming.

More: Increasingly manipulative and media-savvy pressure groups are hungry for free airtime, and so are governments. They envy the BBC’s trusted position in Britain, and naturally turn to it as the surest standard-bearer for their latest cause. Frustrated by public disenchantment, some politicians seem to believe that the BBC, in a public service role, can be harnessed to a government agenda, whether on matters of climate change or social behaviour. There have been four such approaches in recent months, and the BBC quite rightly rejected them. Once again, they were ‘common good’ subjects, about which little opposition had been articulated at Westminster. But there is often coherent opposition in the world beyond – which can surface later in the political process. In any event, the BBC should be wary of political consensus: it may conceal intellectual laziness, and quite often turns out to be wrong.

While I am not at all convinced Fox News is never--or even usually--unreliable, we must not impugn the BBC. (I will be checking on Fox as time allows.) Yopienso (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, for purposes of editing this article, I will concede that Fox News should be used with care. I would even, against my better judgment, but for the sake of cooperation, agree to discount it altogether for this article. My reasons are the directive given by Sammons to Fox reporters noted above by Sailsbystars (Here's an RS.) and this paper.

Nonethelss, as confirmed by the Feldman study to which I link, the eye of the beholder seems to be of prime importance: it seems to be the bias the reader/listener brings to Fox News that feeds doubt, not so much the actual Fox reports, which explains why I haven't found it so objectionable. Checking the first four Google hits on a "fox news climate change" search, I found one, two, three four factual reports. The second one does make the facts seem sinister.

Fox Nation, apparently a news aggregator, has a far-out headline that links to Science News:Christopher Columbus Blamed for Climate Change. But, except for blazoning Columbus's name on it instead of more demurely referring to "European conquest and settlement," it accurately portrays an idea of Richard Nevle's. Yopienso (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this background information, Yopienso. I am surprised by your conclusion based on the evidence you have uncovered though. It is clear that the BBC has been allowing the CRU to influence the direction of their climate change news coverage since at least 2001. This is a far more serious concern than the Fox News revelation pointed to by Sailsbystars. It makes the BBC a media organ for the CRU and their associates. Notably this is something that the BBC disclaims in your quoted text but the evidence to the contrary is now available.

But even if you don't agree with that, when you read the BBC position statement you quote above and strip away the long winded British framing for political correctness, their position is essentially identical to that of Fox News: continue to acknowledge that credible critics have called into question some of the scientific findings related to climate change. They explicitly reject a doctrine of "bias by elimination" which is exactly the position as taken by Fox News. Beyond that people can quibble over how much airtime the "dissenters" should get and when precisely they should get it, but both organizations are taking the same firm stand on the need to air dissenting views. So if Fox News is not to be trusted as Sailsbystars argues then the BBC should likewise not be trusted by the same argument because their positions are essentially the same. --Myqwerty (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Myqwerty, are you really extrapolating from a broad request for ideas sent to Mike Hulme (who was then in the Tyndall Centre rather than in CRU) ten years ago to reach a conclusion that the BBC are a "media organ for the CRU"? This tells us more about the reliability of your judgement than it does about the reliability of the BBC's climate coverage. TimOsborn (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no news here. Delingpole's Daily Telegraph piece is a blog comment. WP:NEWSBLOG applies, and it can be treated as an op-ed, citable if Delingpole's view is relevant, and must be attributed. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

All I see is evidence that Fox is in the conservative community and its views therefore reflect that thinking, including the occasional distortion that all partisan news gobbles up without thinking. Its the difference between politics and science, and it is quite normal for editors to give guidelines for reporters on certain subjects as that is part of their job. Look, I mean this sincerely when I say I think all three of you are smart people, probably with successful careers to boot, but you are letting yourself get wrapped up in one side's political narrative... which is that conservatism can only appeal based on its better use of mistruth, appeal to reactionary elements, better funding, and better use of crass manipulation. Which is about as accurate as Glenn Beck's notion's of progressivism being one giant socialist conspiracy to gut america's traditions. What source of conservative opinion is acceptable to the people who push the 'faux news' meme? Just think about it for a second, what would it have to look like for these commentators to actually declare it 'acceptable' news? --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Times is conservative and usually reliable. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is conservative and usually reliable. Reliable sources distinguish between news and opinions to a high, if not perfect, degree. Fox, on the other hand, specialises in serving opinion disguised with a thin sprinkling of news. It is neither conservative nor reliable (except for simple facts from news agencies, and maybe the wether report). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

All of which are European papers where conservative means something quite a bit different, and quite a bit closer to moderate Democrat views. The only reason you feel Fox is more 'wrong' then other papers is because the slant of the reporters there is different than your own views. I feel the same way listening to MSNBC but I do not claim they are a propaganda department. Though I suppose this argument is going to get us nowhere...--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You failed to read the abstract criterion. Reliable sources distinguish between news and opinions to a high, if not perfect, degree. Fox, on the other hand, specialises in serving opinion disguised with a thin sprinkling of news. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I will just focus on Judith and Dgaw's argument. Since we have a ruling on this from the administrators a newsblog should be admissible. So unless you want to get a new ruling that the source is from Fox alone is not enough to disqualify it. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrators have no special power or influence on contend based on their status. Trust me on this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN stuff Judith linked does not have any effect on this discussion? I am admittedly new so I do not know exactly how all the rulings/bureacrat affects article discussion directly. Well there has to be some provable objective standard for a reliable source we can all agree on... --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please. You're not "new". You're part of the usual group of editors who moves from one account to the next in order to disrupt this article. That's like "William M. Conway" successfully convincing the rubes that his user account name was his real name. It was ridiculous the first time he made the claim, and it was still ridiculous by the time he was finally blocked for sock puppetry. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Been editing wikipedia less than two weeks, I thought it might show in my clumsy edits but I guess not. It really should not surprise you that you would get a few editors on the skeptical side considering how quickly opinion is moving against this. Funny thing about intolerance is it tends to turn people off, even if if its for a good cause.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How quickly opinion is moving against what? I work with new editors all the time, and your contributions show no learning curve whatsoever. They show you've been here a hell of a long time. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Proponents of Climate Science. Even if you are right, the way you treat people who disagree with your views its probably the primary factor moving public opinion away from you. But I want to start my involvement in Wikipedia without a cloud over my head: what can I do to prove I am not a puppet-master? --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no opinion moving against "proponents" of climate science. You either imagined that or misunderstood what you read. Your first contributions gravitated to sock-infested topics which is highly suspect. Try finding a quiet area of Wikipedia and contributing researched material. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is also a contentious matter of policy, and thus should attract new users as well as some scandal. And here. I know you are quite certain of your own intelligence, but I assure you that you are not the only one who is well read on the matter. I certainly plan to be adding to the Chinese philosophy and history areas... but I enjoy this subject matter too much to just leave it. I'll put some Chinese and an ip address on my talk page...--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this talk page isn't a soapbox for fringe views. Please keep your comments short and sweet and discuss only how to improve this article. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You might consider taking your own advice about staying on topic --NewGuy5342 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am and have been on topic "NewGuy". Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed.
• And V., please remember, WP:Don't bite the newbies. Thx, 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillman (talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Zip it, Tillman. There are no "newbies" here. The rule of thumb here, is when new editors show up to sock-infested topics their likelihood of being "new" goes down in proportion to how much they proclaim how new they are and how much they add the word "new" to their user name. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt in 2004 and wore it out till it became a shredded pile of rags. Ye olde "let's create a new account and pretend we're new editors and disrupt the article and when we're called it, proclaim our newness and accuse editors of biting newbies" thing went out of style in 2005. Time to catch up, Tillman. Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*rubs his bite wound* I wonder if I'll get gangrene because of this? HA! Get it? Get it??? Uhh... onto more important matters.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, I have been following this article since it was created in 2009, and though never having participated in the editing, I am now very familiar with the term "wikilawyering" and could probably do a good job of it if I ever wanted to jump in. If I signed in with my rarely used account to join this article you would no doubt call me a "sock-puppet" too, but you would be wrong. How many observers have felt that they needed to jump in because you scared off the others who were trying to give this article some balance, only to be accused of sock-puppetry I wonder? You'll be happy to know that I plan to stay on the sidelines, I guess.192.41.81.68 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that it is quite uncivil to accuse someone of wrongdoing such as sockpuppetry on a talk page instead of going through the appropriate channels.--Taylornate (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm very familiar with the "let's use and abuse process so that we can continue civil POV pushing until the cows come home" strategy as well. Don't you guys get it? It's been done, hundreds of times. Give it up. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I need to summarise my view again. It's consistent with previous discussions of Fox News, but if more consideration is needed, then I suggest you also take this one to RSN. Fox News may be reliable, it isn't ruled out on principle, it depends on the circumstances. The main problem with it (as a source for us I mean, not generally) is not its political stance but its rather superficial and lightweight nature. As with all news sources, we try to distinguish fact from opinion. Here, Fox News refers to a piece by Delingpole as if it were an original news report, when actually it is an op-ed. There is nothing factual that this Fox News report adds, on top of what we can read, for example on the BBC website. Therefore use a more mainstream media source: BBC or AP should be fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree a bit with you there, Judith. Fox news workers have had editorial directives from on high regarding climate change that rule it out as RS on this topic. Recent discussions (in my recollection) on sources like Fox have decided that on certain subjects it is not a trustworthy source (my own view is that we shouldn't bother with it at all, fwiw). Being lightweight on science reporting is a general media problem. Carrying an op-ed by Delingpole (of all people) as a news report is a systemic Fox problem.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is not a "problem" for Fox at all. It is business as usual. They ran a nice PR campaign today, claiming they are changing their ways and going "centrist" for the 2012 elections. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The source is NewsBusters, not Fox News,[1] and is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I noted above that the piece is by Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters, but that didn't mean much to me. It does rather undermine Fox's credibility that they put it out on nation.foxnews.com though don't know what "nation" signifies there. . dave souza, talk 19:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is basically a place you can blog, connect your blog to or repost your blog at. So yeah, probably better to find sources from the edited part of a news site.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Such as this, which seems pertinent: Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data? by Maxim Lott. The clumsy police raid on CG2 bloggers is breaking news here and elsewhere.. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Fox news piece seems more impertinent than pertinent, a more reliable source is needed if these alleged fishing expeditions come to anything. Funny how, when all the data is published and available, some bloggers keep wanting more and say they can't do calculations without more help. . dave souza, talk 19:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Since it is being taken seriously here, please note that the obscure BBC document quoted at length above was dated 2007, and has been largely superseded by that to be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/other/science_impartiality.shtml. Page 71 onwards seems particularly relevant, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the more up to date version of this material. After reading the section titled "Man‐made global warming: a microcosm of 'false balance'?" I am of the opinion that while this may have been an independent review of the subject, it most likely was not an impartial one. The author is quite clearly discussing the matter from a biased point of view. Frequent and gratuitous references to biased terms such as "deniers" and "conspiracy theories" are being used to frame the topic which is a big red flag for me. If you are willing to cast those who simply disagree with the mainstream science as being deniers and conspiracy theorists then you have certainly taken sides on the topic and are hence not being impartial. When large segments (nearly 20%) of society believe that global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven and nearly 70% believe that there is a chance that at least some of the global warming research may have been falsified it is simply not credible to refer to groups this large in those terms in my opinion. --Myqwerty (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Popular Science resource "phony scandal"

Did Global Warming Destroy My Hometown? Last May, a massive tornado leveled Joplin, Missouri. Was it chance, or a warning of things to come? by Seth Fletcher, posted 01.19.2012 at 11:39 am; excerpt ...

This type of reticence surely comes in part from healthy scientific skepticism—the hesitancy to overinterpret data and the impulse to accumulate decades’ worth of statistics before drawing conclusions. But it also seems likely that climate scientists are triply cautious with their public statements because of they way they’ve been dragged into the culture wars. Recall that the university where Andrew Watson works was implicated, and then vindicated, in the phony scandal called Climategate, in which skeptics used out-of-context bits from stolen e-mails to make it sound as if researchers were engaged in some great conspiracy. Climate scientists have become the abortion doctors of the scientific establishment: maligned, ridiculed, harassed, and even physically threatened. Several climate scientists in Australia, which had been debating a tax on carbon emissions, received so many death threats that their universities moved their offices to “secure facilities.”

• http://www.popsci.com/files/warmingtrends.jpg (included graphic)
• http://e360.yale.edu/feature/forum_is_extreme_weather_linked_to_global_warming/2411/
• http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-10/climate-skeptic’s-new-climate-study-confirms-‘global-warming-real

See Planetary boundaries, Effects of global warming, Climate change in the United States, Public opinion on climate change, Climate change denial, extreme weather, Carbon pricing 99.190.86.184 (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks for sharing. Are you suggesting this be included in the article somehow? Do you have a specific proposal for improving the article?--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Role of Royal Society in selecting publications

I have just made an edit regarding the role of the Royal Society in selecting publications for the CRU panel. I cited the following source: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAPannounce

The key sentence is: "The University, in consultation with the Royal Society, has suggested that the panel looks in particular at key publications, from the body of CRU’s research referred to in the UEA submission to the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee."

Thanks, Andeggs (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC) (Disclaimer: I am employed as Digital Communications Editor for the Royal Society.)

But [2] says "The eleven representative publications that the Panel considered in detail are listed in Appendix B. The papers cover a period of more than twenty years and were selected on the advice of the Royal Society". Your ref says "The University, in consultation with the Royal Society, has suggested that the panel looks in particular at key publications, from the body of CRU’s research referred to in the UEA submission to the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee. " So your ref doesn't say that the 11 were selected on UEA's advice, just that some be selected, based on another list. Whereas the other states directly that they were selected on the advice of the RS. So, given that they don't quite contradict, I don't see why we prefer the ambiguous one William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have restored Andeggs' wording and added William M. Connolley's source "7," linked to just above. The first line of his source reads, The Panel was set up by the University in consultation with the Royal Society to assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit in the light of various external assertions. Yopienso (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The additional source didn't work, a ref name= had been added without the ref itself, and the wording was still ambiguous. Have removed that failed ref, and reworded the sentence to read "During its inquiry, the panel examined eleven representative CRU publications, selected with advice from the Royal Society, that spanned a period of over 20 years" rather than "selected by the Royal Society". This closely reflects the source statement "The papers cover a period of more than twenty years and were selected on the advice of the Royal Society", and is fully compatible with "The University, in consultation with the Royal Society, has suggested that the panel looks in particular at key publications" which predates the decision of the panel as to whether it would use the suggested list, or ask for more publications. . dave souza, talk 17:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please specify what's ambiguous with During its inquiry, the panel examined eleven representative CRU publications selected by the University in consultation with the Royal Society[61] that spanned a period of over 20 years, as well as other CRU research materials. It also spent fifteen person days at the UEA carrying out interviews with scientists.[62]?

"On the advice" suggests to me the Society told them who to select; "in consultation with"--which is what both sources say--suggests they worked together on the selection. It's a slight difference, but I don't understand where you're coming from.

Sorry I didn't notice the link was bad. Here it is as Andeggs had it:

CRU Scientific Assessment Panel announced". 22 March 2010. Retrieved 06 February 2012.

His edit looked like an improvement to me, which is why I restored it. I also think we should cite to both sources. (The CRU statement from the UEA website and the report in the PDF document.)

Specific request: Please restore Andeggs' citation.

Specific suggestion: Please restore Andegg's wording or explain how it adds ambiguity.

Thanks! :-) Yopienso (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Andegg's wording[3]: "During its inquiry, the panel examined eleven representative CRU publications selected by the University in consultation with the Royal Society that spanned a period of over 20 years, as well as other CRU research materials." – source: CRU Announcement of 22 Mar 2010, which states that "The panel will meet in Norwich in April".
Current wording: "During its inquiry, the panel examined eleven representative CRU publications, selected with advice from the Royal Society, that spanned a period of over 20 years, as well as other CRU research materials" – source: Oxburgh report, 12 April 2010
Note the sequence: the initial announcement said "The University, in consultation with the Royal Society, has suggested that the panel looks in particular at key publications, from the body of CRU’s research referred to in the UEA submission to the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee." That says that UEA had compiled a list, and in consultation with the RS suggested that the panel look at key publications from it. The panel's report says "The Panel was set up by the University in consultation with the Royal Society", and in a separate statement "The papers cover a period of more than twenty years and were selected on the advice of the Royal Society." Andegg seems to be conflating the two sections. The Panel didn't say "publications selected by the University in consultation with the Royal Society", they were free to ignore the university's suggestion and make their own selection if they chose. . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC) amended 19:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK; thanks. Instead of arguing petty points, I'll leave this in your capable hands. Yopienso (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Spelling errors, apologetic comments

"Climate sceptics"?

There are a number of problems with the changes on this page. Not to mention that every mention from the Climategate emails seem to have a "context" explanation in the defense of the person making the comment, making this entire article read like an apology letter from the scientific community to the rest of the world. Please clean this up.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.206.43.5 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 February 2012‎ (UTC)

I appreciate that in many instances it should be spelt "climate change deniers" or "contrarians", but unfortunately the term "sceptics" is much misused in this context. Your suggestion that extracts of the emails should be shown out of context is at odds with WP:WEIGHT policy. . . dave souza, talk 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Did the controversy result in increased openness of data and models?

One of the charges was that the Unit's scientists refused to provide both their raw data and their climate model source codes, so that other researchers could attempt to reproduce their results. (Or could change the data slightly and rerun the model and see how sensitive the model was to small changes, such as picking a different subset of tree cores.) I see nothing in the Wikipedia article about how the data and the source code were opened up as part of cleaning up the controversy. Nor does it say that the reaction to the controversy failed to pry open the data, and thus that it's still all secret. Either way, I think it would be noteworthy to report on. But I have no sources on this. -- Gnuish (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The CRU didn't run GCMs (well, not much. I think they used HadXM3 a bit, but it wasn't theirs, it was the Met Office's. They didn't have their own). That didn't stop people accusing them of failing to release the code, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As shown in Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit, requests for raw data preceded the controversy, and CRU did not own the data, which remains the property of met organisations of various countries, some of which impose restrictions on giving the data to third parties. CRU announced that they were seeking permission to waive these restrictions well before the controversy became public on 19 November 2009, and on 24 November 2009 the university stated that over 95% of the CRU climate data set had already been available for several years, with the remainder to be released when permissions were obtained. Discussions with the ICO continued, and FOIA requests for emails were misrepresented by the press as requests for data. In a decision announced on 27 July 2011 the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) required release of raw data even though permissions had not been obtained or in one instance had been refused, and on 27 July 2011 CRU announced release of the raw instrumental data not already in the public domain, with the exception of Poland which was outside the area covered by the FOIA request. Oddly enough, the restrictions had been imposed by governments trying to squeeze commercial value out of research, one of the culprits being the UK government which included Nigel Lawson. Now that it's clear that any raw data given to British researchers is open to FOIA demands, met organisations concerned about keeping commercial control over raw data may refuse to provide it to those researchers; in which case openness of data will be reduced. . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

This edit is problematic - the source (Revkin) clearly identifies the websites as "skeptic". I think that if this is changed to "some websites", with the specific justification that Not all are identified as "skeptic" (per the edit summary) we may need additional sources. Not to mention that "some websites" is just bad writing - it's far to vague. Guettarda (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and changed back. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Current page ratings are low -- objectivity rating is lowest

Current average ratings: (at bottom of article page)

• Trustworthy: 2.3/5, 92 ratings
• Objective: 2.0/5, 103 ratings
• Complete: 2.2/5, 93 ratings
• Well-Written: 3.3/5, 90 ratings

---

Average rating = 2.45

It appears that the raters' consensus is there is much room for improvement in our article, especially in objectivity (aka NPOV). Comments? --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Do all pages have that info? How do I access it?

According to [4]: "English Wikipedia (full deployment)." It's still considered to be an experiment. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP has a mainstream bias. I'd guess the negative ratings come from people who don't. Yopienso (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

See also [5] and [6] - people may attempt to game the present system; ratings may reflect the popularity of an article's subject, rather than the quality of the article itself; and no, a low rating does not mean that an article needs to be improved at this stage in the trials. --Nigelj (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

An obvious drawback here is that it gives no information for how to improve the article. Makes me think an optional box to add a comment would be nice (though obviously this isn't the place to discuss it). But the biggest drawback is a lack of data on Wikipedia articles as a whole, and FAs in particular. Aside any issues of attempts to game the system, in the broader context of Wikipedia, what does a 2 mean? What does a 3.3 mean? And how the heck is someone supposed to interpret a mean with no variance? Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• "how the heck is someone supposed to interpret a mean with no variance?" Very good point, and I couldn't find any info about this at the project page at MediaWiki, Article feedback. Maybe I'll ask over there. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

One more thought - on a controversial article, isn't a middling rating to be expected? If it's biased one way or the other, then "half" the readers will love it, half will hate it. It is isn't biased, then all will think it's ok, but gives too much credence to the other side's claims. Guettarda (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC

• These things are easy to game; trust in ourselves. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Several editors have remarked about "gaming the system", as did the MediaWiki project FAQ. Could happen, of course, but no obvious reason to "shoot the messenger." The project does specifically caution against using the ratings as a sign that the article needs to be improved. So at this point it's an interesting experiment.

Their Article feedback dashboard does seem to indicate that this page is among the lowest rated ones in the English Wikipedia, especially in Objectivity. Long-time editors here will recall that a significant minority of active editors have considered this article to be unbalanced and biased. Which is, imo, a continuing problem. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"this page is among the lowest rated ones in the English Wikipedia"??! Problems with WP:SYN and misrepresentation of sources in that statement, I'm afraid! (a) the linked page does not mention this page; (b) it only reports ratings made today, so it may be possible to say, "this page has a similarly low rating to some other unrelated pages that have been given low ratings today in the English Wikipedia", but that wouldn't be so eye-catching as a 'take-out' for random readers; (c) the page is headed "This is an experimental feature", so actually we have no idea what it means - there could still be bugs in the code, like this one reported a week or so ago. Nice try at rubbishing the hard work of colleagues, but will need to try harder, and learn how to read a primary source. --Nigelj (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So, again, where do I find the ratings on this or any article? Yopienso (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Bottom left corner of the article, under all the refs and the navbox and the external links...there's a box that says "Rate this page". Top right corner of the box says "View page ratings". Guettarda (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, duh. Thank you, Guettarda! Yopienso (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 February 2012

Please change the first sentence "The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")[2][3] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).[4]" to "The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")[2][3] began in November 2009 with the release of more than 1000 emails and several documents from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).[4] It is not known how the material was obtained [footnote to spell out the various hypotheses, as mentioned in Fred Pearce, The Climate Files]" At present, the first sentence is factually incorrect as we do not have evidence for the claim.

RGrundmann (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This article says the emails were obtained through a “hack” because that’s what the references say (please see FAQ 5). However, I do support your request to change the first sentence as your suggestion is actually more accurate. The server got hacked, and the emails were stolen, but that didn't start any controversy. The controversy began when the emails were released to the general public.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose. We've already discussed this many times. The majority of the sources refer to it as a hack, and the so-called "controversy" was entirely manufactured on partisan blogs which then distributed the emails to partisan news sources. The general public was never involved, and frankly, had little to no interest in this PR stunt. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You are only four edits away from being autoconfirmed, so a short discussion will probably eliminate the need to use the template as well. Celestra (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the first paragraph could use to be refactored to make it more encyclopedic as well as more clearly neutral. Something along the lines of: "... refers to the hacking of a server at the UEA, the subsequent release of thousands of emails and other documents from the CRU, and the events which followed." The current paragraph has a story telling tone ("began with") and spends too much time on trivial details about the hack before finally mentioning the release. Celestra (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. There's probably some info in the lead which should be moved into the body of the article, and the lead simplified as you suggest. . dave souza, talk 18:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Or something along the lines of "began with the release of documents stolen from..." Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "began with the release of documents stolen from..." is good too.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good as far as I'm concerned, but the hacking of the RealClimate server on 17 Nov. is well established and we should mention that. . . dave souza, talk 22:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll pipe up again to agree with Celestra on the story telling tone. Almost a year ago (and that diff isn't the exact one, which I couldn't find, but shows the incorporation of the idea) I suggested we define rather than tell about the event. This was my proposal for the lede last April:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") refers to the unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other computer documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) on 19 November 2009, and the immediate controversy over allegations that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community. Subsequent inquiries found no evidence of scientific malpractice.

Dave souza had a similar suggestion about that time. I got tired of all the controversy about writing about the controversy and quit; I'm sorry to see the present state of the lede. History is interpretive, that's for sure, but putting Copenhagen into the very second sentence is more than interpretive, it's insinuating.

To summarize: I object to "began" for purely stylistic reasons. I object to Copenhagen because it suggests the reason for the hack instead of simply recording the fact of the hack. It's bias right off the blocks. Yopienso (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any bias at all, and if you tried to demonstrate it, I'm not seeing it. "Copenhagen" is mentioned in the majority of good, reliable sources on this subject, and in case you forgot, there is a very long history of this kind of propaganda being released to smear climate scientists and their research, and science historians like Oreskes have documented these instances going back several decades.[7] So, this is not a coincidence. This was a documented PR campaign funded by deniers whose names are well known and need not be mentioned. It is a matter of fact that climate change deniers (falsely referred to as "skeptics") are funded by the oil companies. This is not a conspiracy, this was a well funded attack on climate science whose intent was to disrupt the Copenhagen conference. That's why it is mentioned in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I recall the discussion Yopienso is referring to. About six editors had agreed to this wording and then Viriditas replaced the whole thing with a new version of his own. Yopienso is of course correct. The only fact here is that there was an unauthorised release of documents. No one knows or even pretends to know exactly how it happened, although it is widely suspected that the CRU was hacked. So widely suspected that many sources incorrectly pass this off as fact. That RealClimate got hacked on the same day of the release tells us nothing - it simply tells us that the files were released by people who knew how to hack into RealClimate. What is particularly problematic about our wording and sourcing is that the evidence given to justify the wording is a Washington Post article published only two days after the initial incident. At the very least, we should be linking to something that contains a reasoned argument that the CRU was "hacked". Alex Harvey (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, Alex. The only problem with your pet theory is the current lead section represents the work of multiple contributors. It is not "my version". Further, the best reliable sources describe this as a "hack" so that's not an issue that needs attention. In other words, we don't need to prove CRU was hacked. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in lede re Copenhagen meeting

I boldly removed this statement in the lede,

Several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change [removed], an unknown individual or group had breached CRU's server...

-- as this statement appears to imply causation: it's implying (imo) that the speculation that the email release was timed to disrupt the Copenagen meeting, is a settled fact. While this is a widespread speculation, sfaik it remains just that. Two other editors Yopienso (above) agrees that this statement is problematic. WMC reverted, commenting "pardon?" Other comments? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly stand by my remarks made three weeks ago:

History is interpretive, that's for sure, but putting Copenhagen into the very second sentence is more than interpretive, it's insinuating. [. . .] I object to Copenhagen because it suggests the reason for the hack instead of simply recording the fact of the hack. It's bias right off the blocks.

but I don't think you should have changed the lede (CE for NPOV, see talk) since my thoughts were not received by other editors. More's the pity. Yopienso (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It was boldly restored, with good reason as the connection was made by numerous reliable sources. Hence not synthesis - the suggestion comes from reliable secondary sources. . dave souza, talk 20:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dave: it's still speculation, sfaict -- have you seen a source that's found a reasonably-proven link? If not, I don't think it should be presented (or implied) as fact. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The timing of the Copenhagen summit and of the manufactured controversy are not speculative, and the obvious point that those opposed to action were trying to undermine the summit has been clearly pointed out in several sources. These are the facts. Proof is of course for whisky and maths. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and perhaps this should be added to this group of sources. . . dave souza, talk 23:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Dave, that might not be the best choice. From your source, The Times of London, December 7, 2009 :

[IPCC guy] "said that the theft from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was not the work of amateur climate sceptics, but was a sophisticated and well-funded attempt to destroy public confidence in the science of man-made climate change. He said the fact that the e-mails were first uploaded to a sceptic website from a computer in Russia was an indication that the culprit was paid. “It’s very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services,” he said." Um, pretty clueless ;-] --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my edit summary should have been, "The consensus on this page is to report speculation; we're stuck with it, Pete," instead of, "The consensus on this page is to synthesize cause and effect; we're stuck with it, Pete." That's what I was thinking. Now that I've informed myself a little more, I'll switch sides. Yes, it is speculation, but so many sane people have so speculated in print it's admissible. (Dave, I hope to see you as open to well-sourced speculations when you disagree with the conclusions. It was this article a few months ago that convinced me the speculations were true--but that's just my synthesis.) When the Norfolk police close this case, the trial's over, the verdict in, it will no longer be speculation.

If I were clever about barnstars I'd give Dave one for his brevity and wit that make him such a congenial, yet firm, editor. Yopienso (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm still unhappy with this -- first we have "Several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, an unknown individual or group had breached CRU's server..." then, 2 paras on:

The mainstream media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen.... Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers, and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the [Copenhagen] climate conference....

Do others see this as piling-on? This seems very inappropriate for the lede to a balanced, neutral encyclopedia article. WP:UNDUE comes to mind. Can't we tone it down a bit? --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's evident that the unknown perpetrators have been tried in the court of private--and professional--opinion. The article is repeating speculations and informed opinions reported in USA Today, Reuters, The Guardian, The SF Chronicle, and many other RSs. Yopienso (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

-- and that's fine, I guess, so long as they are clearly ID'd as speculations. And, for balance, we should include the speculation that the leaker was a FOIA whistle-blower. I believe we once did, but it was removed in the "Great Cleansing." --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not speculation that the incident occurred in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference, that's widely seen as significant without speculating on the exact meaning. As for the FOIA claim, that looks like minority speculation with no factual basis and WP:GEVAL applies. . dave souza, talk 21:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Dave: could you please speak to the question of why we need 3 mentions of the Copenhagen conference in our 4-paragraph lede? One of which looks inappropriate to at least 3 editors active here now? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I altered the second sentence to "The hacking and subsequent release of thousands of emails and computer files from the CRU's server onto the internet was particularly controversial being as it was just a few weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change in December of that year." As I thought this was more neutral and would satisfy both sides of the debate. It has since been reverted. I won't change it again, but simply leave my suggestion here and leave it for discussion. 109.157.206.15 (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

PSU 2nd report finding

I restored a few lines that included some criticism. It didn't seem clear why the information should have been deleted. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit adding this was questionable and removed as Rv to pre-SPA version, the added info in the lead wasn't cited to any source and unsupported by any of the cited sources. Having looked it over, I've removed it as undue weight in the lead to a minor criticism, misrepresented by wording taking it out of context:

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct but calling Mann's decision to share "unpublished manuscripts with third parties, without first having received express consent from the authors of such manuscripts...careless and inappropriate."

Firstly most of the attention was on CRU and not on Mann, so this is questionable weight and misleading as only one of the eight committee reports discusses the criticism.The words come from page 19 of the PSU second report which noted that "One issue raised by some who read the stolen emails was whether Dr. Mann distributed privileged information to others to gain some advantage for his interpretation of climate change. The privileged information in question consisted of unpublished manuscripts that were sent to him by colleagues in his field. The Investigatory Committee determined that none of the manuscripts were accompanied by an explicit request to not share them with others." and "Although the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Mann had acted in good faith with respect to sharing the unpublished manuscripts in question, the Investigatory Committee also found that among the experts interviewed by the Investigatory Committee there was a range of opinion regarding the appropriateness of Dr. Mann's actions." The Committee decision on this matter was:

"The Investigatory Committee considers Dr. Mann's actions in sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties, without first having received express consent from the authors of such manuscripts, to be careless and inappropriate. While sharing an unpublished manuscript on the basis of the author's implied consent may be an acceptable practice in the judgment of some individuals, the Investigatory Committee believes the best practice in this regard is to obtain express consent from the author before sharing an unpublished manuscript with third parties."

After discussing that issue, the Committee stated their final conclusion that "here is no substance to the allegation" and "Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community". This decision was unanimous. Thus the issue is not simple, and mention in the lead highlighting the more critical points out of context gives undue weight to this "issue raised by some who read the stolen emails". . . dave souza, talk 16:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly not correct to write that "Eight committees investigated [...] calling Mann's decision [...] "careless and inappropriate."" Eight committees did not do this, and that is clearly what the sentence said. Secondly to highlight that even one committee found that would only be appropriate if that committee explicitly made exactly that the main point in the summary, abstract, or conclusion of their report. To put such a statement in the lede would mean that others, such as the mainstream media at the time, must have picked up the finding and made it a headline feature. Yet it appears that it didn't even make up a part of that one committee's the final conclusion after discussion, let alone the headlines. --Nigelj (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Placing this in the lead is UNDUE. Putting it in the context of "eight committees" is misleading. What's more, saying Mann's decision to share "unpublished manuscripts with third parties, without first having received express consent from the authors of such manuscripts...careless and inappropriate", without the context (experts had "a range of opinions", implied consent) creates the impression that the findings are far more serious than they actually were. Guettarda (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

CRU paid GBP 113,000+ for "Climategate" PR

• Guardian article by Leo Hickman.
• University of East Anglia spent over £100,000 managing media storm surrounding ‘cimategate’ scandal, Norfolk Eastern Daily Press

It is truly remarkable that an MP had to file a FOIA request to get financial information from a publicly-funded university. Perhaps they need to hire another PR consultant? --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what an idiotic waste of effort, time and money those hackers and their supporters caused. And not a single scientific fact has been changed by hacking those e-mails! Just nasty, ad hominem politics, wasting everyone's precious time. --Nigelj (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is an improvement to the article being discussed here, or is the thread just trolling? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where to put this bit, though it seems worth adding somewhere -- and I've been busy in RL....

I'm still hopeful of returning some balance to this article, which is (I think) the least NPOV-compliant of the major cimate-science articles at Wikipedia. Would you be interested in helping? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Translation: moar Heartland. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Three new academic review articles on climategate

• Reiner Grundmann, "The legacy of climategate: revitalizing or undermining climate science and policy?" WIREs (Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews) Climate Change 2012. doi: 10.1002/wcc.166. Full text, free registration required.
• Reiner Grundmann, " 'Climategate' and The Scientific Ethos, Science, Technology Human Values", published online 23 April 2012, DOI: 10.1177/0162243911432318. Full text, free registration required..

The two Grundmann articles are both thoughtful and outspoken. Interesting reading, and both are good resources for improving out article. Grundmann is a sociologist at Aston University, UK: [8], [9]

• Edward Maibach, et al., "The legacy of climategate: undermining or revitalizing climate science and policy?", WIREs Clim Change 2012. doi: 10.1002/wcc.168. Full text: [10]. A counterpoint to Grundmann.

There is also an editorial commentary by Myanna Lahsen at WIREs Climate Change, on Grundman and on Maibach, et al. Full text available here

All of these papers are worth reading. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Norfolk Police statement

I've added a few sentences to the end of the 'Timeline' section covering today's statement by the Norfolk Police, which, while not finding a culprit, lays a few things to rest. Mikenorton (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well caught. We also now have the most definitive statement that this was an outside job via the internet, and that there's nothing in the rumours about inside jobs. I've amended the lede a bit to match this new stuff. --TS 01:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've also updated Q5 of the FAQ to match. Prioryman (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we Finally fix the title?

This article is much improved since I last looked a year or two ago. I still think it gives the 'climate science' community more credit than it deserves, but at least what exists here (in the lead/lede) makes some sort of sense.

Climategate is a scandal. Honest reviewers, in a position to render judgment, have looked at those emails and come away convinced that there was something at least a little amiss. I write software and the Climategate source code is particularly damning to an expert. Climategate looks pretty bad out of context, but it looks *even worse* in context. The term 'Climategate' refers to something that has a name in common parlance and that name is 'Climategate'. The article about Climategate should be titled Climategate in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary. The apologia in the FAQ does not convince me of anything other than the fact that people with an axe to grind were persistent in their efforts to memory-hole the term Climategate. It is not up to Wikipedians to invent new terms for things, especially if those things have a name already. Certainly it is improper for people who know they have a conflict of interest or particularly strong views on the subject to change the perception of something by renaming it. There is no reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia rules that allows the changing of the entry on 'Climategate' to something else. The terminology on Wikipedia should reflect what is actually in use. Below is a graph of a search for the term 'climategate' on Google. The lone star beside (1) is Wikipedia's anti-climategate term page versus pages calling it climategate.

(1) *
(2) *************************************************

After years of *not* calling it 'Climategate', Wikipedia, despite its stature in cyberspace, is the only one in the top 50 pages that does not call climategate by its real name. Wikipedia, due to its prominence, occupies the second place and gives entirely undue weight to the notion that Climategate should be called something else.

It was improper to rename this page from Climategate in the first place. It is long overdue to correct this stain on Wikipedia's reputation. A page that purports to speak to Climategate should be called Climategate and should actually speak to Climategate. Redirecting the Climategate page to this one puts an undue editorial slant on Climategate before the article even begins. I thought to myself, what would be an example to support my case? The notorious 'N' word. That word is downright offensive to some and cannot even be uttered in polite company. I think that Wikipedia is correct in forthrightly naming the page, but if there *were* an argument for directing a page to a softer euphemism, it would apply to that page a lot more than to this one. If we can call a fig a fig with the 'N' word, we can surely call Climategate by its name.

In summary: the article on Climategate should be called Climategate, because, duh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepNorth (talk • contribs) 10:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No. As repeated investigations have found, the only scandal is the misrepresentation of the emails by those denying the significance of global warming, in order to manufacture a scandal and attempt to cast a slur on the work of scientists. Use of the made-up word "climategate" has been an attempt from the outset to cast that slur, and only reinforces the BLP issues involved. . . dave souza, talk 11:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I really don't think anyone wants to revisit that old argument, and you've certainly not brought any new arguments to the table. Second, when I read your user talk page it's all too familiar where you're coming from - climate change is a scam, the data is falsified, there's a conspiracy to suppress critics and blah blah blah. You've been banging the same drum for at least two and a half years. It's a fringe view, certainly not something a mainstream encyclopedia should take seriously. Prioryman (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If anything the case for the term Climategate is weaker than it was before making it even less likely that it will become the title of the article.--70.49.74.113 (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Biased POV

This article is EXTREMELY biased in favor of the scientists that bullied a journal. This one article alone is one of the biggest blights on Wikipedia as a whole. I mean, FFS, you guys won't even post some of the incriminating evidence and let readers decide for themselves! I find this entirely stupid that even after years talking about this, I can't even use Wikipedia as an unbiased reference on this issue. You won't even call it "climategate"! But whatever, I guess I'm a nobody (read: non-regular contributor) that doesn't matter, right?

173.29.158.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

See Climatic Research Unit documents#Peer review issue. . . dave souza, talk 05:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no incriminating evidence. Also "Climategate" is a misleading and biased name which doesn't fit the details of the controversy 199.60.104.18 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

scare quotes in second paragraph

The second sentence states that "Climate 'sceptics' argued that...". To me, these appear to be scare quotes. I tried to search for the quotations in both sources by doing a CTRL-F source for '"sceptics"' and '"skeptics"', which didn't give any results. I was going to remove it myself, but it's a really controversial article and I just wanted to get consensus. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, the terms sceptic and skeptic are often misleading in this context. The source for the first part of the paragraph uses the phrase "climate change critics" which avoids that ambiguity, so I've tried out alternative wording which covers both these critics and those acively denying the significance of human caused climate change. . dave souza, talk 08:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That actually turned out pretty well. Thanks! Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Climatic Research Unit email controversy → Climatic Research Unit email hacking incident – This doesn't appear to be a controversy anymore. Current sources on this page are in nearly complete agreement that the emails are not evidence of scientific misconduct. I found only one post-2010 source cited in this article that suggests otherwise (News Corp.'s Weekly Standard). I believe continuing to title this article as a controversy gives undue weight and legitimacy to this diminished minority view. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: The last move action on this article was the reverse, from Climatic Research Unit email hacking incident to Climatic Research Unit email controversy. The discussion for that move closed March 2010 and can be found at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 30#Requested move. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds good, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. History, along with all the investigations and reports, has shown that the 'controversy' was entirely manufactured. The police have said it was definitely an outside attack on a server. Good call. --Nigelj (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Modest Support I saw the req. move and was afraid it was a certain moribund equine that continues to be pounded How many inquiries has it been now with not one finding fault with the science? Anyway, suffice it to say there aren't any real controversies remaining. However, there was certainly controversy in the past (even if largely manufactured) so I don't have a huge problem with the current title. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is clearly against the previous decision which had a much larger participation. It was described as More neutral title; a compromise between "CRU hacking incident" and "Climategate". If the title can be changed, you will need to respond to demands that it is moved to its most common title, and it just is not worth having the debate. Wikipedia survives best when compromises are recognised as such and respected, as with Derry/Londonderry --Rumping (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:DEADHORSE. A minor change in the existing title from "email" to "data" and/or "information" might be appropriate, as not only E-mail was — looking for neutral term — improperly published. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • And now I'm kicking myself for not being aware that information other than emails was also involved. Thanks for calling that to attention. I'd say that's a dealbreaker for the exact name I proposed. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, there's always Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. From what I remember, the word e-mail only got in there because people at the time said, 'but everyone's only talking about the e-mails'. I think the useful idea here is to get away from the terminology that the hackers and their supporters hoped to see in 2009, to go forward with a neutral, non-committal, descriptive WP:TITLE. First, they hoped for a 'climategate' which would bring down climate science like Watergate brought down a government; then they hoped for a massive controversy in which the whole of climate science would be re-written and many scientists' heads would roll. In fact they got nothing much - the science was left unchanged and 8 reports exonerated all the scientists of any misdeed. So all that really happened was that a computer got hacked and the hackers got away with the crime. The rest was smoke and mirrors. And bloggers. --Nigelj (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per previous arguments. Proposed rename not an improvement, imo. Sorry. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No need to apologize. Mr. Rubin's argument on the word "email" was convincing. I think scrapping this proposal and restarting the discussion from scratch might be best. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Also Known as Climategate? Really?

I have never heard or read anywhere but in Wikipedia a reference to this case as the "Climatic Research Unit email controversy". This should have given me a hint of what was coming in the article which is heavily biased. I can understand disagreements but these must be reflected on the article itself and yet no disagreement appears at all giving the the impression that bad bad hackers constructed a big conspiracy to damage some poor climatologists.

The article leads you to believe that all experts agree there was nothing wrong in the Climategate and this is patently false.

Dr. Richard A. Muller, (Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley, and Faculty Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, where he is also associated with the Institute for Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics) talking in a public conference about the Climategate said:

"As a scientist now I have a list of people whose papers I won't read anymore. You are not allowed to do this in Science" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk)

As a response to what he considers was a deliberate attempt to hide data.

I was going to fix the article with professor Muller remarks but long ago I stopped attempting to fix heavily politicized articles like this one, instead, when I read one of these, I go to the talk section to check what other people with less influence in the editing have to say about it.

Unfortunately Wikipedia still has a long way ahead to become a reliable source for these kind of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viraltux (talk • contribs) 11:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot agree with Viraltux, as the statement is not relevant to the controversy; however I agree that Muller has shown he is no longer a scientist. Correcting the quote to produce an accurate statement.:

"As a scientist now I have a list of people whose papers I won't read anymore." You are not allowed to do this in Science.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As for Muller's quote, I've read that Muller reversed his position in 2012. Could you find a more recent source from him?

As for the title of this article, [[Climategate]] may indeed be the best choice. That term's prevalent in current media, even the article's own recent sources. The complication is that the term "climategate" implies not just a scandal, but also a conspiracy or coverup. This article's recent sources often enclose the term in quotation marks, suggesting non-endorsement, and most reject that any conspiracy or coverup occurred. An article with text and sources contradicting its own title could be awkward. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not for us to consider whether a given name "implies not just a scandal, but also a conspiracy or coverup" in deciding whether to use that name as an article title. That's up to reliable sources, in their decision as to whether to use that name in referring to the topic. Our job, in deciding titles, is to follow their usage. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct; the 14th chapter of Michael E. Mann's newest book is titled, "Climategate: The Real Story." Yopienso (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also tend to use the term "Climategate", simply because everyone uses it. I am wondering, however, whether the rule for the best title is as simple as usage. The discussion on the other move request above suggests otherwise and that the name is already a compromise after a long debate. One exception to the "most-used rule" is on the German Wikipedia: the article about the Kristallnacht is called Novemberpogrome 1938 as people did not want to use the Nazi euphemism and explicitly state that it was a pogrom. Sorry for the Nazi comparison; I simply do not know another example. VVenema (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Climategate is useful as an AKA at the beginning and perhaps throughout the article in particular places; I'm not sure if anyone suggested renaming the article to Climategate --- if so I would respectfully disagree, because of its somehow informal or unencyclopedic tone. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Answering to Matt Fitzpatrick, no, Dr. Muller did not change his mind about the Climategate, he did though changed his mind about the global warming being caused by humans after he lead the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature. Dr. Muller criticism in the Climategate has nothing to do with the global warming being real or not, but with the fact that data was hidden from the 60s on to give the impression that the tree ring proxy temperatures were a good measure for estimating global temperatures. When the Climategate revealed this trickery he no longer could trust the rest of data and so he repeated the measurements to make sure no more "tricks" were used in the rest of studies. Once he finished his own study he stated that global warming is real and probably caused by human produced CO2, but this does not change the fact that proxy data was removed and that the Climategate is a great example of bad science even if legally cannot be called fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viraltux (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the treatment of data and the divergence problem in general were carefully "hidden" in the published literature... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Climategate III

All 200,000 emails have been released today March 13, 2013. In one, Michael Mann's tree-ring hockey stick proxy data is referred to as "crap" by the peer reviewers. Lots of data there.

The wikipedia whitewash of the Michael Mann nature trick is insufficient to contain the actual goings on.

Therefore we should create a new section "2013 release by FOIA".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.68.87 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 March 2013‎

We must have verification from high quality published reliable sources before anything is added, and where allegations are made against living people, the more stringent requirements of WP:BLP apply. Please sign your posts in future. . dave souza, talk 08:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything exciting from it - just a couple of retreads from v2, which itself had nothing exciting over v1. Looks like a damp squib so far William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Totally uninteresting indeed. All a bunch of yelling from a mountain top, which used to hold snow and no longer has any. Something that has not happened in thousands of years, but hey. These retards are still trying to deny reality. Please, Adam Curry and John C Dvorak, and all you No Agenda type people, go see this, as a whole: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xugAC7XGosM&t=13m44s and FOR ONCE try and actually listen to what she is trying to explain here. She has no motive(s) to lie or make shit up on any of these matters. You, Adam Curry and John Dvorak o.t.o.h. have. 86.93.250.232 (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Just ... wow. Shaking my head. The belief in AGW is really, really starting to resemble a very bad religion. Like Catholicism during one of its "burn the witch" centuries. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Barking? Got any properly sourced proposals for improving the article? . . dave souza, talk 19:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a historical note: You might be surprised to hear that the Catholic church banned Malleus Maleficarum in 1490 (three years after publication), and that most alleged witches were burned by protestants. Salem was hardly catholic. Of course, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that most (but not all) of the alleged witches were burned by Protestants. Let's focus first on sourcing. How do you feel about this one? [11] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

An editorial citing an anonymous letter? Not useful for factual information. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see anything of Encyclopedic Value in that article. The anonymous letter's content is certainly plausible, but it's not independently verifiable, and would fall afoul of primary sourcing guidelines. Can you suggest how or where the context of the article might be useful? Sailsbystars (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the language used in that anonymous letter indicates that its author is probably Slavic, and most likely Russian - that certainly fits with the use of a Russian FTP site. But I agree that its unverifiability is very problematic. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Larry Bell, according to his bio (written in the first person), is "a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled 'Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax'. It can be previewed and ordered at www.climateofcorruption.com." It's reliable enough to report the fact that an unverifiable anonymous letter was released in March 2013, along with a password that could be used to access a third batch of e-mails. You're aware that this event occurred, right? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Significance? Your source, published on 15 March 2013, is an opinion piece by someone apparerently promoting a global warming conspiracy theory. If this has any significance to the topic, there will be more and better factual sources rather than this questionable opinion. Remember that minority views have to be shown in a mainstream context, and awareness depends entirely on reliable published sources. . . . dave souza, talk 05:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. So if the Climatic Research Unit doesn't admit that it happened, it didn't happen? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Leave aside the opinion piece aspect and the dodgy views of the writer, the key problem here is that the email is completely unverifiable. For all we know someone's hoaxing him. If there's a secondary source or some kind of corroboration it might be worth considering but a single unverified source like this isn't a good choice for inclusion. Prioryman (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A blog: [12] Another blog: [13] This blog is Dutch: [14] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

..... Not one of which is a reliable source.... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow, see WP:SPS and WP:ARBCC#Use of blogs and self-published sources. . . dave souza, talk 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow dude. I stopped editing this article and Talk page in 2010 (I think), because it was starting to get ugly, and I've just recently returned. As my comment at the bottom of this page might indicate, I was completely unaware (or had forgotten) there was an ArbCom proceeding on this. Judging from the number of topic bans, it really got ugly. I will refrain from any comments about specific editors, but will observe that some of the names on that list come as no surprise to me. ... Let's focus on sourcing. So when three blogs and a magazine op-ed are all saying the same thing, the sourcing is still unacceptable? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not only are such poor sources unacceptable, you (or any other editor) will be liable to sanctions if persistently pushing such low quality sources. As stated above, good quality factual sources are needed. . dave souza, talk 18:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd say that. However, some blogs are much, much better than others: [15] Also this is a non-partisan think tank, taking a climate-skeptical position: [16] Regarding the blog from The Daily Telegraph, I would respectfully suggest in good faith that it's obviously an exception to the ArbCom prohibition. Look at the different treatment it gets at WP:NEWSBLOG when compared to WP:SPS. and the author, James Delingpole, seems notable enough to have his own biography at Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Some blogs are much better than others, but those you're citing are notoriously bad, and any blogs should only be used with great care to comply with policies. . . dave souza, talk 03:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I only intend to use the blog from The Daily Telegraph (the best of the lot), plus the CFACT website, and only to establish that "Mr. FOIA" sent a final message in March, along with a password to an online cache containing what were purported to be more CRU e-mails. Maybe a few other details. I will of course present proposed text here and obtain a consensus prior to editing the article mainspace. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would you want to use CFACT? Their website is notorious crap (if glitzy), and in no way close to reliable. I also have a hard time taking serious your claim that they are "non-partisan" (or a think tank, but then that word has outlived its etymology for many years). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, Delingpole's blog is an opinion piece by a blogger with less credibility than Glenn Beck, "an interpreter of interpretations" who doesn't read the scientific papers he opines so forcibly about. If the only attention an issue has received is his blog and CFACT, it doesn't look to have any significance to the topic. . dave souza, talk 09:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

CFACT has been cited as reliable by such other sources we recognize as reliable, such as The Boston Globe and The Arizona Republic. And Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NEWSBLOG, indicates that Delingpole's blog at The Daily Telegraph is also sufficiently reliable. Also I don't believe that with regard to ArbCom, amendment is really necessary. All I'm looking for is clarification of their decision as it stands. Hence the appropriate action would be a Request for Clarification: [17] There are no amendments or clarifications pending, but ArbCom is pretty busy at the moment with other types of proceedings. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I kinda suspect that your source is http://www.cfact.org/about/, which is a) circular reasoning and b) does not even support your claims ("a Boston Globe columnist" is not "The Boston Globe", and, indeed, might not even have published this in the Globe).. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Seems odd to bring this up again. Round 3 was even more boring that round 2, and seems to have sunk without a trace. D's blog certainly isn't reliable for anything other than D's own opinions William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We just got a clarification (of sorts) from ArbCom. According to ArbCom member User:AGK, Delingpole's blog is reliable enough. I'll probably go to WP:RSN, if necessary, regarding the other two sources (CFACT and Forbes), and I really don't plan to write a lot about this in the mainspace. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, AGK is definitely wrong on Delingpole. Being a reliable source means having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and Delingpole has neither, to put it mildly. He's not just inaccurate, he's flagrantly, wilfully and egregiously so. Prioryman (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a very selective and far-fetched reading of what AGK. Delingole's blog is a pure opinion blog and not reliable for anything factual (just like an opinion piece in a newspaper). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I just read AGK's statement for what it says. I'll be posting this question at WP:RSN in a few minutes. Please feel free to participate there, but try to allow previously uninvolved editors to have their say. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Does the article still need 1RR restriction?

The edit-warring has seemed to have stopped a long time ago. In fact, no one's even edited the article in a month.[18] Do we still need a 1RR restriction? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. It's been pretty quiet 'round these parts.... given the existence of discretionary sanctions in the topic area, and the low probability of this article again causing a flare up given the rather tepid responses to the sequel releases, it doesn't seem like the 1rr here is still relevant. On the other hand, I've never seen a sanction like this rescinded and don't really know what the proper metric for judging "no longer needed" is, nor where it should be requested. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction is a community-based sanction. If you want it lifted, you have to go to WP:ANI. Personally I would support removing all restrictions. It's been quiet for a long time. I'd like to propose some edits here and get consensus for them before putting them out there in the mainspace. There was a new set of e-mails released in March 2013 and I don't see anything about that. Time for a new section. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The ARBCC restrictions are not just about 1RR but also sourcing and undue weight in articles in this topic area. As the discussion above shows, those are still very much live issues. Lifting the sanctions would be way premature. Prioryman (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The general discretionary sanction still exist and are important, but I'm not sure that 1RR on this article in particular is useful. Also, @Phoenix and Winslow, while the original sanction was community-based, I believe the ARBCOM case turned all of the community sanctions into arbcom discretionary sanctions. Thus the avenue to appeal them would be Ammendment requests. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@Prioryman: I'm not suggesting that discretionary sanctions be lifted, only the 1RR restriction on this particular page. Discretionary sanctions would still apply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sailsbystars: I read through WP:ARBCC and I don't see where it turned all of the community sanctions into ArbCom discretionary sanctions, but maybe I missed it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess we can try it experimentally. If there's a renewed problem with edit-warring it would be easy enough to re-implement 1RR. Prioryman (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've asked the admin who enacted the 1RR restriction if they could lift it.[19] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments - I've reviewed the page and the comments here and lifted the 1RR restriction. Please remember that the article is still subject to discretionary sanctions so the 1RR restriction could be placed back if edit warring continues. That said, looking over the history of the page, it seems that editing is a lot more collaborative these days and I suspect that further sanctions won't be necessary. Well done on your progress. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"After Climategate . . . never the same," essay by Mike Hulme

"Has Climategate been a good thing?" – Mike Hulme. This interesting short essay by Prof. Hulme is an extract from his new book Exploring climate change through science and society: an anthology of Mike Hulme’s essays, interviews and speeches. It's an interesting reflection on the consequences of Climategate, worthy of mention in our (awkwardly-named) article.

Judith Curry has posted a reaction at Climate Etc.. She writes that "Mike Hulme describes the lessons that we should have learned from Climategate, and it seems that many in the UK have learned these lessons. I am not at all sure that the IPCC has learned many (or even any) of these lessons, and in the U.S. I don’t see much evidence of scientists having learned anything at all." --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see, Hulme and Curry have been saying roughly the same things about climate science for some years - e.g. "the publication of private CRU e-mail correspondence should be seen as a wake-up call for scientists" - Hulme, 2009; and "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust" - Curry, 2010. Such views are already clearly expressed in the article, and I don't know if there's anything new in these primary sources that makes their repetition noteworthy at the moment. --Nigelj (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit email controversy → Climategate – It's the common name. NE Ent 11:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. Does anyone else call this event by the current title? 115.85.18.169 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Still oppose. No new, persuasive arguments. --TS 10:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:WASTEOFTIME. We've been here before William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• hell no WP:NPOV trumps WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, many of the other -gate scandals use a similar pattern (e.g. Iraqgate, Pardongate, Nipplegate, see List of scandals with "-gate" suffix) for further edification. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this perennial proposal, for the same reasons that have always been advanced - it's blatantly non-neutral to accept one party's framing of the issue. WP:NPOV is paramount. Prioryman (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose we also don't use Attorneygate either. If anything the case is significantly weaker than it was ahen it was last made where it this was clearly rejected. This ship has long since sailed and unless there is a significant twist in this story I see no chance of success.--174.95.109.219 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NDESC. The derivation of climategate is clearly based on the word watergate. For those who need reminding, the Watergate scandal started with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. The US government attempted to cover up its involvement and the scandal eventually led to the downfall of that government, the resignation of Richard Nixon, and the indictment, trial, conviction, and incarceration of 43 persons, dozens of whom were Nixon's top administration officials. When the computer hackers broke into the servers at the CRU, and this name was coined, they were clearly hoping that, by analogy, their theft would lead to the downfall of climate science, the exposure of endless lies and illegal activities under the covers and behind the scenes, and the indictment, trial, conviction, and incarceration of numerous lying and scheming climate scientists. Clearly none of this happened. Climate science was shown to be robust and accurate, and the only scandal was that someone had managed to break into their computer system without getting caught. The analogy is so far from accurate or helpful, that to use this term as the title of the article describing the attack would be a disservice to the known facts. --Nigelj (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Another important difference is that unlike the Nixon administration the climate scientists were cleard of wrongdoing when the accusations were investigated meaning that the connection is even weaker.--174.95.109.219 (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Ummmm...not really. IIRC, they violated the Freedom of Information act. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

      I think, per WP:BLP even on a talk page, you need to be able to cite a court case and a conviction before you accuse living people of violating Acts of Parliament. Certainly committees' reports called on scientists to take steps to improve public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their data and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests, but this very different to anyone receiving a conviction for violating the law. BLP policy does not depend upon what we 'recall correctly', but on citations. --Nigelj (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

      • Looks like you could start here Arkon (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

        No, I think we should start either with a citation supporting AQFN's statement that these people violated of a law, tried and convicted in a court of law, or the remark should be deleted per WP:BLP policy. --Nigelj (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

        • Considering I see your name in the edit history of the article I linked, I'm sure you can do your own research. Happy trails. Arkon (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

          Actually, I'll help. [20] Arkon (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Policy (WP:POVNAME) clearly states In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. NE Ent 17:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that arument had already been rejected numerous times on the grounds that most of the articles that POVTITLE apply to historical events with titles agreed on by historians. While it true that some time has passed since the last request its not enough time for that to hsve happened. In short, nothing has changed.--174.95.109.219 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

B-class review

I believe this articles passes B-class criteria; I am upgrading it from C class to B class. Interested editors may consider a WP:PR or a WP:GAN as the next step. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The psychology of believing "Climategate" happened

Perhaps it would serve to take a brief section regarding why people still believe "Climategate" happened, even after they have seen there is no evidence it happened. I find the subject of such belief fascinating, and maybe others do as well. --Desertphile (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What experts have published about this in reliable sources? We do of course have to comply with WP:SOURCES and WP:NOR policies. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2014

Reference 2 is not available anymore. Xiaoxin.yo (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing out the dead link! I updated it with an archive link. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Timescales of interest..

Published assessment of the difference in timing between public and fringe interest in this paper; Lewandowsky, S. (2014). "Conspiratory fascination versus public interest: The case of 'climategate'". Environmental Research Letters. 9 (11): 111004. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/111004. . . . dave souza, talk 22:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Lewandowsky again. He seems to have checked for a trend by googling date ranges on 20 'skeptic' sites. I can do that too, for example to find the number of wattsupwiththat.com postings in 2012 I said "climategate daterange:2455928-2456293 site:wattsupwiththat.com". I found that the count between 2012 and 2013 goes down. Then I stopped looking, since I couldn't see how such a trend is meaningful unless I knew what sites are counted as skeptic, what the comparison was with non-skeptic blog sites, what numbers would be statistically significant, how use of a term shows conspiracy ideation, and why anybody would care. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, can you get that published in Environmental Research Letters or another equally good reliable source? Until you do your comments are no more than unpublished original research, Lewandowsky remains a published expert on the topic and this study is a rs for this topic. . dave souza, talk 09:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean: would I pay $2700 (the article publication charge) and get a journalism student to do "peer review" (as Lewandowsky did for his previous now-retracted article)? No, but it's me who's making the original-research objection, specifically for the WP:PRIMARY section: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." My hope was that some educated persons -- i.e. other Wikipedia editors -- would see that Lewandowsky's method leads to nothing, or leads to everything (even wikipedia.org shows an increase for 'climategate' hits between 2011 and 2014), and therefore there are no verifiable facts. If that's not the case, I'll make no further objection. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean, you've evidently no published expertise in the topic to refer to, and are violating WP:BLPTALK in casting slurs against a topic expert. As for the quality of the journal, Environmental Research Letters sets a pretty good standard, as would be expected from the publishing company of the Institute of Physics. This remains a worthwhile source for the topic. . dave souza, talk 18:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. If you think that paying the publication fee for an open access journal is the hard part about getting published in a proper scientific journal, you obviously don't understand the first thing about scientific publishing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Dave souza, if you're serious, then make your accusation on the wp:blp noticeboard. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's see: you've responded to a new study by making vague unsupported slurs against a living expert and his previous publications, which are irrelevant to this study, and have shown your ignorance about article publication charges. If you desist now no problem, remember WP:ARBCC applies. . dave souza, talk 11:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Dave souza, I invited you to take your accusation about me to a noticeboard if you're serious. Since now you bring up arbcc: if you're serious, then make your accusation about me there. Anyone else: please remember that the appropriate subject on this section of this talk page is whether Lewandowsky's article is desirable for this Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Link to IPCC consensus

A statement like "There is no evidence to justify trying to drive a wedge between 'the IPCC' and 'science'" is sort of nonsens. A link to the more generic IPCC consensus article is relevant, as it is pointing out something different as mere (natural) "scientific opinion on climate change". The political cloud and social science assessments of the IPCC consensus process, its findings and conclusions are quite different from the mere natural science findings (which do not face much of a controversy per se). In so far I ask to restore the link. Serten II (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your IPCC consensus essay appears to be mistitled and is rather incoherent. The statement you're calling nonsens is this edit summary, and the point stands: "Please discuss relevant sources on Talk". . . dave souza, talk 09:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Balance of text

The article seems to include more text supporting the defense of the scientists involved than the actual content or description of the subject of the controversy. The sections on the scientists' defense and the inquiries that followed take up more space.Milkchaser (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the citation of the various authorities claiming that the controversy is unwarranted seems like argument by authority. Where are the dissenting views and investigations? Milkchaser (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Which dissenting investigations would you expect to be reported? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I could suggest this analysis from Laviosier.com which is by a climate sceptic but is factual and objective in its presentation of why the CRU emails expose scientific malpractice. I reckon the important thing to always keep in mind is that issue being examined here is scientific malpractice, NOT the validity or otherwise of climate change theory. Even having precisely the right answer to a research question does not make one a good scientist if that answer was obtained by pathological methods. --Anteaus (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like an opinion piece by John Costella written on 10 December 2009 republishing stolen emails, starting with his view that "Climategate began on 19 November 2009, when a whistle-blower leaked thousands of emails and documents" and reveals "a small team of incompetent scientists". Oh, really? Published by the Lavoisier Group, which our article says is an Australian organisation formed by politicians and dominated by retired industrial businesspeople and engineers. It does not accept the science of global warming and works to influence attitudes of policy makers and politicians. So, a primary source self-published by a propagandist group. Vary questionable, especially as it makes numerous BLP allegations. Of course, when you say you could suggest it, that indicates you're not really suggesting it. . . dave souza, talk 13:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I said that this report was written by a climate change sceptic. You don't need to launch into a diatribe over what I've already stated as fact. ;)

The OP was asking for a well-presented and logical contrary view. This seems to be one such. Since it references its claims to original material, it does not AFAICS fit the definition of propaganda. --Anteaus (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Logical? Factual and objective? "That background now paves the way to our understanding the historic email which generations of schoolchildren to come will study as the 33 words which summarize one of the most serious scientific frauds in the history of Western science. Phil Jones.... regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement: 'I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick....". Pure fantasy and conspiracy theory, instead of a reasonable explanation. Odd that Inhofe's pal the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce didn't quite see it the same way as Costella. . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

p.s. Costella continues that section: "It is their silence and collaboration over the following decade in 'hiding the decline' which justifies the use of the word 'conspiracy'; a conspiracy which will rob the 'discipline' of climate science of any credibility, and which will cast suspicion about the integrity of Western science for many decades to come." ........ dave souza, talk 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE (part of WP:NPOV) says "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it". There is no legitimate dissenting view of the email incident. After all those enquiries, every stone was turned, and no grand conspiracy was found. The science is robust and the scientists were not guilty of any fraud. There is no need to dilute the facts with any fiction. --Nigelj (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Nigelj, you have just taken a stand on the issue. Since there is an embargo on quoting or referencing the emails in question, it would seem to be impossible to validate any quoted counterargument to the claims of innocence made in this article. Therefore since WP does not allow unreferenced material, that would seem tantamount to an outright ban on quoting dissenting opinion. I do not see any justification for such a ban; in legal circles it is considered 'fair usage' under copyright Law to quote relevant sections of material which constitutes evidence. It is also considered fair usage for the press to quote such sections. If that were not the case, it would be impossible to have any transparency or accountability in the legal system.

In passing I could add that the claim that the 'Hide the decline' quote was misrepresented by sceptics is solely supported by a reference to the Guardian. Which, is hardly a dependable source where such matters are concerned. There may well be numerous other questionable references; I haven't the time to check them all out. However, to declare that a quote from John Costella is inadmissible whilst a pivotal content item is referenced from that sensationalist rag, would seem to be sinking to the utmost depths of hypocrisy. --Anteaus (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You write as if Wikipedia was a court of law where everyone has a fair chance of a hearing. Even if it were, in this case, the hearing is over and the verdict is in. Nine times if I recall correctly. Yet you expect us to go back to the primary sources and re-evaluate the whole thing here on a talk page as if we were better judges? I think a look through basic WP policies might be more help. --Nigelj (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Anteaus, the Grauniad a "disreputable rag" and you want to use a CC denial group's selfpub pamphlet as a source? Read on in the linked article, perhaps you prefer Nurture – "One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies." Also, earlier, "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories." And if you don't like science pubs, note that the EPA rejected allegations as both irrelevant and inaccurate. But of course, perhaps they're part of the conspiracy? Still doesn't support giving "equal validity" to Lavoisier Group fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

ClimateGate Source Code Findings

It appears that no one has mentioned the issues in the climate model source code that were found.

http://www.oneutah.org/2009/11/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/

The fact that values were hard coded into climate models that were used by the public and government agencies should at least be mentioned, no?

(I apologize if this is a duplicate. it appeared that my other post wasn't saved.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanofharvard (talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's see: "Utah's Favorite Public Square for Loud Political Debate" puts something on its self-published website on November 28th, 2009, and somehow no-one thinks to bring it up in their submissions to the various enquiries – or did they? Have you a better source for the actual use of the codes? Looks like noise with no substance. . . dave souza, talk 22:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Does anything supersede this BBC report? YoPienso (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably something in documentation of the various inquiries, but Myles Allen dismisses it nicely, as summarised at Climatic Research Unit documents#Code and documentation. . . dave souza, talk 02:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The Guardian debunking the BBC isn't very convincing, though. Tim Lambert is more convincing, but since I don't write code I can't really follow his argument, except to notice the code in question did have something to do with the HadCRUT temperature record. But Lambert was nonetheless dismissive of the allegation. I'd like to learn more about this. William Connelley may know something about it. YoPienso (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

1.3.3.3 “Harry Read Me” file and other code opening paragraph – "The petitioners submitted a large number of quotes from a 300 page, 90,000 word document named HARRY_READ_ME.txt 45 . The HARRY_READ_ME.txt debugging notes are a record of “Harry’s” 46 attempt to update the CRU TS2.1 product to TS3.0 during the years 2006 to 2009 by merging six years of additional data (covering 2003 to 2008) to an old dataset running until 2002, and migrating the code to a new computer system at the same time. As noted in the science background in Subsection 1.3.2 of this document, CRU TS2.1 and 3.0 are different from the HadCRUT temperature record that is referred to in the EPA TSD. Arguments made by petitioners about the TS datasets are not relevant to the HadCRUT temperature record." Read on and enjoy. . . dave souza, talk 08:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Too heavy-duty to enjoy, but thanks for the link.

Graham-Cunningham was concerned enough about substandard coding in the project that he wrote to Parliament about it.

Nature published a paper to which he contributed that used the Met/CRU data as an example of poor coding. (Click on Box 1.) Lead author Darrel C. Ince was not critical of the scientists, writing, "These errors do not in any way reflect badly on the original authors. The code rewriting simply plays the part of peer review and it is normal to find such errors." Ince wrote a more accessible article in the Guardian about the problem, calling it "One of the spinoffs from the emails and documents that were leaked from the Climate Research Unit . . ." So, yes, there's actually some substance behind the noise, but it seems peripheral to this article. It's interesting to me but I don't see that we should add it to the article. YoPienso (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This issue is covered in Climatic Research Unit documents. Any expansion would be appropriate there under "Code and documentation". There's a link in this article to that one. YoPienso (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso, I think it will be worth adding something to that article section, which I linked above. The Graham-Cunningham memo relates agrees that the readme files are about the CRU TS2.1 and 3.0 product (which incorporates all sorts of climate data, including rainfall), a different product to the CRUTEM/HadCRUT temperature record which was the centre of controversy. However it may be worth noting Ince et al.'s investigation and improvements to the code used in CRUTEM, providing we're clear this doesn't support the claims that these minor issues overturn all the science. The EPA investigation gives useful clarification and context. One item is particularly appropriate this evening:
Comment (1-48): The Coalition for Responsible Regulation provides the following quote from the HARRY READ ME.txt file
  OH F[---] THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.
It's of interest as Harry was trying to put together datasets produced by different organisations in different countries, and in this instance the datasets used different sized grids for calculating rain days: nothing to do with the CRUTEM land temperature product. Anyway, it amused me. . . dave souza, talk 19:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources

You just cant say that numerous sources were climate change deniers - you need to be accurate and neutral here in Wikipedia - because Climategate was a huge incident in Finnish media as well. Kartasto (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality requires due weight and care with pseudoscience: many sources have promoted climate change denial [or have denied aspects of climate science while claiming to be "skeptical"] so each has to be considered on merits. . . dave souza, talk 18:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

citation 30 is a 404

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

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

BIAS IN ARTICLE

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump's recent comments

Going nowhere

President-Elect Donald Trump recently mentioned Climategate in an interview with the New York Times as one of the reasons he's skeptical of the theory of human-caused environmental warming. So, looks like this incident has influenced public perception of the theory. Mention in article? Here're the sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/science/donald-trump-obama-climate.html?_r=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-symons/trump-now-blames-scientis_b_11228538.html TariqMatters (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Beyond his usual broad-based ignorance, Trump tends to parrot whatever the last person in the room happened to tell him on any particular issue; it's possible he'll have an entirely new opinion next week (and the week after that...). Stuff that Trump purports to believe in one interview often disappears or changes dramatically a few news cycles later. As far as the links you've provided, the New York Times article doesn't mention Climategate (or the CRU); I can't find any mention in the full interview transcript either (though I didn't dig deeply). The HuffPost article quotes a Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly (both always-reliable and editorially-responsible sources...ahem); it takes a Trump mention of "emails" and infers that Trump must be talking about the CRU controversy. In other words, it may be another one of many dumb conspiracy theories that Trump believes (or at least publicly espouses, or likes to JAQ about), but I don't think we've even got that far with the sources provided. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC) If Trump's administration does end up purging the EPA, Energy, NSF, and other government agencies of people strongly in favor of the theory of human-caused climate change (I don't know how to say that in fewer words) and pursues policies that support the skeptical side, AND, if Trump again mentions the Climategate emails in context for his policies, then I think mention should be made in this article, because it will mean that Climategate DID end up having a significant influence on environmental politics. TariqMatters (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC) I'm not sure about him mentioning them "again", as it's unclear that he actually mentioned them a first time; it's based on a third-party guess as to what Trump might have meant. Even if Trump does purge the EPA, NSF, and so forth of reality- and science-based experts in favor of cronies and sycophants, it's not clear that it would be based on much beyond his usual ignorant susceptibility to grifters and lobbyists (and inability to comprehend the term conflict of interest). He's previously declared that global warming is a Chinese hoax; I'm not persuaded that he's well-enough informed to have moved to asserting it's actually a British hoax. That is to say, Trump has never had any difficulty in fabricating a personal version of reality from whole cloth; if he decides that global warming isn't real, he isn't going to go looking for a handful of poorly-worded seven-year-old emails from a British university he's never heard of, he's just going to say it isn't real. And then blame it on the Mexicans. Or the Chinese. Or liberal elites. In other words, it's going to take a pretty substantial and explicit statement from Trump on this point for me to believe that this email controversy actually is driving any of his 'thinking'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC) You appear to have very strong opinions on the topic and aren't shy about expressing them. I know I'm new here, but after reading the NPOV policy, that doesn't appear to fit with the tone of your comments. Does Wikipedia operate like a lot of other organizations in that there are rules, but everyone ignores them? TariqMatters (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC) To a certain extend - like, really, any organisation from the Knights Templars and the Spanish Inquisition to the NKVD and the US Senate. But anyways, WP:NPOV applies to article space. In talk space, we are trying to hash out what is NPOV, where it is useful to communicate clearly. See WP:SPADE. Also, Wikipedia does have a strong bias for reality, no matter how it aligns with current political party politics in one country or another. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC) (ec) WP:NPOV is the policy when writing articles. Talk pages like this are the behind-the-scenes area where the sausages get made. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Don't worry about the lack of NPOV, it is actually quite revealing. Just look at the wall of text that prompted your concerns, nothing but rambling personal attacks. One of the reasons why some people find consulting the talk pages increasingly useful. In this case confirming the rise is less than a degree for the last 150 years, even less before the actual measurements are routinely "adjusted" (new buildings casting shadows?), large chunks of raw data are missing / deleted, prediction models are failing, the "scientific consensus" using "could" and "may" instead of "will" and "going to". Decades ago it was global cooling, using the same arguments - similar graphs and articles from that time, with "cool" and "warm" swapped. Excluding the Talk pages from NPOV is absolutely great. Dear Anon, see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK#USE, and sign your posts. . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509041910/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100925191452/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130074750/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120719071718/http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx to http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100925191452/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130074750/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725073107/http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0238017.pdf to http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0238017.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703034849/http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0282488.ashx to http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0282488.ashx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829131139/http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0280033.ashx to http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0280033.ashx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5r1sXRN45?url=http://articles.mcall.com/2010-03-28/news/all-a1_5warming.7216773mar28_1_mails-e-mails-global-warming to http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-global-warming-penn-state-0328%2C0%2C777593%2Cprint.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Reduce the amount of clutter on this talk page?

Now that it's been 9 years since this happened, and activity on this page is very quiet, perhaps someone could think about reducing the quantity of headers/boxes/warnings on the talk page? --JBL (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at improvement. --JBL (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Qu: Hacking

Was there any proof that this was a hacking I remember reading in the EDP or somewhere that they thought it was a leak. All conjecture but was this every proved or traced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.200.4 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's discussed in the references cited in the article. Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Link/Citation 69 is dead

Well it says it all in the headline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathcounter (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I've added an archive url for that citation. Mikenorton (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The scientific consensus (sic) was changed completely

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The emails showed that the current scientific consensus (sic) is that there was a "decline" in the rate of warming despite massive increases in co2 which is easily apparent in the satellite lower troposphere measurements This dramatically changes it and disproved all of their previous models. It also proved that they wanted "hide" this decline which definitively did show misconduct. Editorial claims to the contrary are just claims. Facts are facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.65.126 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Do you have any credible sources whatsoever that confirm your "facts"? Can you please tell us where you're getting this from?Gireen (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I was not the author of the original statement by 70.195.65.126 above but, I just read it and am returning an answer to your question Gireen. It is old news but it might lead you to the answer. I think Forbes is not a bad source that could be used for your consideration: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/?sh=509978a227ba See this part, in particular: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. [...]” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.24.225.161.193 (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Forbes isn't a great source, particularly for science, the article's almost a decade old and that's a cherry-picked quote from an earlier private discussion. Outdated. And the article's not by Forbes staff, it's by James M. Taylor at The Heartland Institute, well known source of climate change denial.. . dave souza, talk 04:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Why hack UEA?

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
UEA is a largely unknown 'university' in the UK. Why such a furore over the hacking of this University's online data when there must be more 'credible' targets (such as Oxford, Cambridge, etc) who must have a huge trove of data on climate change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B11D:A35A:7923:574A:289E:EF41 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of 'trick'

The recent BBC TV film titled 'The Trick' is likely to arouse new interest in the meaning of this key word. The present article refers to an inquiry report by Penn State, which said that the 'trick' was 'a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion'. Is there a source for the statistical method used, preferably with some explanation that might be intelligible to a lay person? The impression given in the film was that Phil Jones simply decided that the proxy data after a certain date (I think he said 1960) was wrong or unreliable, since it conflicted with the instrumental data, and therefore omitted it from the relevant diagram. This may have been a correct judgement, and a legitimate decision, but it is not on the face of it a *statistical* method. Nor does it seem to justify the use of the term 'trick', which in a scientific or math context usually implies something especially neat or clever. Just cutting out data you think is incorrect may be justified, but it is not especially clever. There *might* be some statistical reason for excluding data from a graph, for example if it is an outlier known to be due to measurement error. If there is in fact some technical statistical basis for the 'trick', a reference would be helpful. 2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:28AF:6BB6:74DF:B930 (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

As is linked in the article, this is fully covered at Climatic Research Unit documents#Climate reconstruction graph, including the point that tree ring data post 1960 was an outlier known to be due to the (already published) divergence problem, a detail Jones chose to exclude from the figure for the WMO report cover illustration. For the statisticl basis of MBH98/99, see the hockey stick graph. . dave souza, talk 10:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this still Wikipedia?

I admit it, I am not educated on the topic of "Climategate", so after hearing someone mention it today, I visited this article to learn what the supposed emails said. Having read the article, I still don't know. In paragraph after paragraph, I was informed that a laundry list of people and organizations disagree with "Climate Skeptics" interpretation of the emails, yet, outside of some vague "trick", I still have no idea what the emails said. As such, I don't what, specifically, they are disagreeing with. Furthermore, it really feels like the author(s) don't want me to know what they're disagreeing with ... only that they disagree, and disagree strongly. This may be the least informative article I've ever read on Wikipedia. It's just one breathless denial of Climategate after another, while doing it's very best to never mention what they actual claims were that they so vehmently disagree with. I am unable to believe that anyone could say with a straight face that this article is even remotely encyclopedic. All I learned was what a bunch of supposed experts thought of the controversy.

It's like going to an article about a 'Lion Controversy', where the content was:

Lion experts disagree with the Lion Controversy. 98% of good lion people agree that people who agree with the Lion Controvesy are very bad people, and deserve nothing but scorn and derision. NBC News called people who believe in the Lion Controversy "sad and pathetic people", and they state that the Lion Controvery dramatically overstated the real nature of lions. Leona Liontamer, the keeper of a lion herself, stated "I haven't found the Lion Controversy to be true with MY lions!", while Jack Lionlover said "The Lion Controversy is preposterous, and no one should talk or think about it ever again!" When asked if they would consider dating Lion Controversy believers, 102.85% of supermodels said, "No way, I don't find Lion Controversy believers to be attractive at all! In fact, every one I've ever known is poorly-endowed!" When asked if they believe in the Lion Controversy, 205% of non-racists said "No way!" while the tiny minority who did believe in the Lion Conteroversy lifted their hands in a nazi salute and shouted "Hail Satan!", before sacrificing, then consuming whole, two infant children. "No, really, I don't believe it either", said one, fresh infant blood still dripping from her fangs, "I'm just here for the infants .... you gonna finish yours?"

I can only surmise that none of the Sr. Wikipedia editors have gotten around to looking at this thing. At least I sincerely hope that's what it is. This is embarassing, and I'm holding out hope that, if nothing else, maybe it was an attempt at parody. If so, well done, except you may want to pull it back a little. There's a fine line between parody and absurdity and this one crosses a little too far into the latter, IMHO, and when asked by Newseek, 98% of Absurdity experts agree with me. Opie8 (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The second section of the article is titled "Content of the documents". It generally describes them, and includes specific details as relevant to the controversy (rather than everything about the contents) because this here article is focused on the "Climatic Research Unit email controversy". The very beginning of that section has a prominent link to the separate Climatic Research Unit documents article. That article goes into further detail about what they contain. DMacks (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)