This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
While the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate"?
A1: There have been numerous discussions on this subject on the talk page. The current title is not the common name, as is generally used for Wikipedia articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent [needs update]Requested move discussion has indicated that there is no consensus to move the article to the title of Climategate, and so further discussion of the article title has been tabled until at least June 2011.
Q2: Why aren't there links to various emails?
A2: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Wikipedia avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to Copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email.
Q3: Why is/isn't a specific blog being used as a source?
A3: Blogs are not typically reliable sources. Blogs may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.
Q4: Aren't the emails/other documents in the public domain?
Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ?
A5: Wikipedia reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary have said that the information was released through an attack carried out remotely via the Internet and that there is no evidence of anyone associated with the University being associated with the crime. Both the University  and a science blog, RealClimate, have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained".
Q6: Why is there a biographies of living persons (BLP) notice at the top of this page? This article is about an event, and the Climatic Research Unit is not a living person.
A6: The BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, specifically to all potentially negative statements about living persons. It does not apply solely to articles about living persons. The notice is there to remind us to take care that all statements regarding identifiable living persons mentioned in the article or talk page comply with all Wikipedia policies and with the law, per the BLP.
Q7: What do I do if I have a complaint about the conduct of other people editing or discussing this article?
A7: Follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional. Unduly cluttering the talk page with complaints about other editors' behavior is wasteful. In the case of egregiously bad conduct only, consider contacting an administrator.
Q8: I think there is inadequate consensus on a matter of policy. What should I do?
Q9: Why doesn't the article report that BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson received an advance copy of the leaked content?
A9: Because it isn't true. In fact, the only involvement Paul Hudson reports (see here) is that he had been the subject of emailed complaints from CRU climatologists concerning a blog article he had recently published, and that he was able to confirm that those emailed complaints which had been copied to him by the senders, and which later appeared in the zip file of stolen documents, were authentic. That is to say, Hudson received some of the later leaked e-mails, but only those originally also addressed to him or the BBC, which forwarded them. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. This was also confirmed by the BBC on the 27th November 2009 and on the 13th March 2010 when the issue arose again.
Q10: Newspapers have reported that this article and a lot of the global warming articles are being controlled and manipulated. Why don't we report that?
A10: The items in question are opinion columns by James Delingpole and Lawrence Solomon. Wikipedia's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Wikipedia article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Wikipedia coverage to be a major part of the controversy. There is no consensus that the two opinion columns meet this criterion. This does not preclude coverage of those writers' opinions on Wikipedia in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Wikipedia, but that would be a matter for the editors of those individual articles. On specific charges against an individual named by Lawrence Solomon and repeated uncritically by James Delingpole, please see this discussion on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.
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 Letters9 (11): 111004. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/111004.edit . . . 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)
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)
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)