Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

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,[6] 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 [7] 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[8]: "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)

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.[9] 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)