Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

NOTICE: Per the probation sanctions logged here
this article is currently under a 1RR editing restriction.

Lede still violates WP:NPOV

From Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_33#Lede_still_violates_WP:NPOV

Here is the 4th version of the proposed first paragraph of the lead, crafted to take into account feedback given over the course of the process.

(4): The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. Climate change skeptics argued that the emails cast doubt on global warming. Reports in the media claimed the emails showed evidence of efforts to withhold scientific data and to ensure the IPCC include their own views and exclude others, of attempts to remove journal editors with whom the researchers disagreed and suppress the publication of articles that they disliked, and of failures to appropriately fulfill requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The BBC also raised concerns about the quality and accuracy of the CRU's coding methods as prompted by coding documentation released with the emails. The UEA and CRU rejected the allegations and a number of academics, climate change researchers, and independent reports found that most or all of the allegations of fraud were baseless, though concerns remained about attempts to stonewall critics and hide data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyitspeter (talk • contribs)

No, that's POV rubbish. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Please refactor your comment and replace it with constructive commentary.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead ok, as discussed

The current lead includes the statement "Climate change sceptics's allegations that they revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media, provoking the controversy." which is accurate and does not give undue weight to the relatively minor criticisms allegedly made by non-skeptics once the controversy began. The second paragraph of the lead covers the points "that there was room for improvement in some of the CRU's working practices", The UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information", and "although the CRU's use of statistics was generally commended, some of their methods may not have been the best for the purpose." The balance is reasonable as an overview of the article and the "controversy". . dave souza, talk 05:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence you refer to does not accurately summarize the information contained in the article. The media did not publicize skeptical allegations, they made independent allegations. And not allegedly. There are many RSs in the article that contain those allegations. Nor are these allegations minor. They include for example extremely well-publicized statements made by the british government.--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh? By the way, the ICO isn't the British Government. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We're mixing american and british terminology. It is the British government in American.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't – it's an article about what is primarily a UK topic, and as such is written in UK English. . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have allayed the concerns raised here

I'm just giving a courtesy 24 hour 'warning' indicating that I will add this text by then if I don't hear any further response from people. Consider this encouragement to raise concerns if you have any.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What text is that? Sorry but I'm a bit unclear on that. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries! A lot of this discussion was left in the archive by request to avoid cluttering the page. Maybe we should have brought more out.

I'm referring to (4) in this section, which would replace the first paragraph you see on the main page.

Let me know if you have any other questions or comments. I don't mean this subsection as a threat or anything, I'm honestly looking for feedback and won't post the text if approximately serious concerns are raised.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Must say I'm totally lost as to what the fighting is over. Sometimes these discussions are like the old soap operas. If you miss an episode it's hard to catch up. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The current edition of the lead describes the controversy as restricted to: allegations from skeptics that the case against climate change is weakened by the leaks. (4) would bring the lead in line with WP:UNDUE (WP:NPOV) and WP:LEAD by summarizing the controversy as it has been treated in the main stream media.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link or diff (as if I know how to find a diff!) to that archived material? Yopienso (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The diff of the archive is at the top of the section Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_33#Lede_still_violates_WP:NPOV. As for the substance of this change, I can see what you're trying to do here, which is to make a more informative lead, which is objected to as being POV. What I don't understand is why you feel that the milder wording is POV. It conveys the same information, but in less explicit detail. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The milder wording? Can you explain what you're referring to? (It may be worth reading comment directly below in case I've inadvertently answered your question).--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your version (No. 4) is more explicit in describing the emails, hence is milder than the more restrained language there now. The discussion below is helpful in clarifying the issues. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happens to the lead, it has be noted that sentiment that these documents reveal misconduct is held primarily by climate change skeptics. The "Reports in the media claimed" wording is doesn't make this clear. Suggesting it is a non-partisan POV fails WP:NPOV. NickCT (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that that is not correct, NickCT. The view that these documents reveal misconduct on the part of the researchers is certainly held by climate change skeptics, and notably, as is displayed in (4). However, there have also been well publicized reports by reliable sources that the documents reveal misconduct ([4] includes reports from the Wall Street Journal and the BBC). And there have been extraordinarily well-publicized statements made by the British government that the documents reveal misconduct as well. These latter two categories are notable, are not skeptical, and are not covered by the current lead in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. (4) fixes that. I hope I'm making myself clear.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You're still trying to give relatively obscure issues undue prominence in the lead. To make your case, you need to show the sources here for discussion, and not just have the tags hidden as inline cites. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

These are not relatively obscure issues, they define the controversy. To describe only assertions made by skeptics, when numerous main stream media reports and government organizations are also making these assertions (occasionally identical ones), violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. That's the last thing I'll say about that to you as per WP:HEAR.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure how to insert the sources here. But all of them are included in the main article under the same refnames. If you want to look through them one by one you can check there. Or look at the archived part of the discussion which includes versions of the proposed text that go into more detail about which newspapers and govt orgs we're dealing with here.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You can provide links to them for discussion. However, this really looks like original research on your part – there were clearly many news reports of "skeptic's claims", and some that looked into issues without making it explicit, but you really need a secondary source assessing the proportionate importance rather than doing it yourself. There's also the problem of making claims in one paragraph of the lead, only to show them being dismissed by the reports of independent inquiries in the second. So, we shouldn't be giving undue weight to these baseless claims by showing them out of the context of more up to date reports. . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's silly, dave souza.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your response shows a failure to appreciate WP:NOR and WP:STRUCTURE policies. . . dave souza, talk 09:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As sources have shown, the controversy was initiated by skeptics and most of the allegations were directly attributed to skeptics. It's unclear what news sources Heyitspeter's using to try to support your the assertion that these were general, but for one example the WSJ is notoriously skeptical and not that typical of mainstream media on the issue. The proposal gives undue weight to detailed issues, which as stated are dealt with in the second paragraph, and misleadingly attributes skeptical claims to the mainstream. Not acceptable. . dave souza, talk 19:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV of the article has to move with the times too. At some points in the the history of this 'controversy' some media reports may have said this or that, but then the enquiries and the reviews started to appear, and it was found that a lot of the sceptic hoo-har was in fact baseless. That has to be taken account in the lede. There is no point in trying to turn the clock back to December 2009 and present in the lede what people didn't know then. The present wording summarises the current situation well. --Nigelj (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nigel in general terms. Dave, can you articulate please the problem with No. 4? You have to admit that it is more informative. What's the problem with it? What am I missing here?ScottyBerg (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Two issues. Firstly, going into detail of accusations without the context of the findings gives them inflated weight, and attributing the accusations to media rather than to skeptics reported in the media is, in general, inaccurate. There are some cases of issues being raised or discussed without explicit reference to "skeptics", but essentially the media were responding to a "skeptic" agenda. Similarly, the deputy commissioner making an improper and unofficial statement got blown out of proportion, and the more measured language of the finding gives better concise coverage of the issue. Presenting ill founded accusations out of context gives undue weight to them. . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm beginning to understand the problem here. I think the overarching problem is that since the allegations were rejected, it doesn't seem right to include them in such detail in the lead. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it gives a misleading impression if the accusations are stated in isolation without the more nuanced conclusions of the investigations to date, and the lead isn't the place for the sort of detailed context that's needed. . dave souza, talk 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We're supposed to assign weight based on prominence given in third-party reliable sources. We used to have a WP:NPOV version of the allegations in the lede but it was edit-warred out of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEDE is quite clear: "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific. It should establish the context..." We should be defining the topic and establishing the context, not going into the level of detail proposed in (4) regarding one side of the controversy, leaving para 2 to put the other side - the actual and official one. I know that analogies will always fail at some point but I'm reminded of the way the media speak before a trial compared to afterwards (when they can say "murderer" or "innocent person once accused of murder" without further qualification. I'm also put in mind of the fact that even the most strident 'skeptic' campaigners have moved on from this cause now that the reviews are coming in, to focus on "The IPCC is a political pressure group", sunspots and what-have-you. What they were campaigning on six months ago is now too specific for the 1st para. "Allegations by climate change sceptics that they revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media, provoking the controversy" says it just fine. --Nigelj (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that a version that doesn't go into too much detail can be constructed. Heyitspeter's suggestion looks like a good start. I know that as a reader I would like to know what all the fuss was about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see the concern here. This proposed lead goes into copious detail, overshadowing the fact that it had all been repudiated, which is at the bottom. I don't think this does the reader any favors, and on balance is misleading. If the charges and early news coverage had been confirmed it would be a different story entirely. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The skeptical response is not more notable than the response of the mainstream media and foreign governments. Either we include all of it or none of it. Since we obviously can't include none of it, and since something like (4) includes all of it, we need something like (4). If that leaves us with a long paragraph, that leaves us with a long paragraph. WP:LEAD fully supports long leaders if they contribute to the quality of the article.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, can we think of a way to shorten Heyitspeter's version without it overshadowing its repudiation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain that his version is an appropriate basis for a lead. We may be in an "if it's not broke, don't fix it" situation. The problems with his version weren't immediately apparent to me at first, but became evident when I gave it a wee bit of thought. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this? I tried not to change too much while still attempting to explain what the controversy is/was about.

"The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server hacking. Various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted e-mails and raw data to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010. The CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, stood aside temporarily from his post during the reviews. Reports by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee and an independent Science Assessment Panel commissioned by the UEA concluded that there was no evidence of malpractice on the part of the CRU and Phil Jones, though they did find that there was room for improvement in some of the CRU's working practices. The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the emails and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." The UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information" and although the CRU's use of statistics was generally commended, some of their methods may not have been the best for the purpose. The reports concluded that Phil Jones had no case to answer and that better statistical methods might not have produced significantly different results. The CRU's detractors were also criticised, with one of the reports deploring the tone of their criticism and finding that some of the criticism had been "selective and uncharitable". The findings of the third review have yet to be published." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No. You haven't taken account of the section in WP:LEDE that I partially quoted earlier. In an article about a controversy (especially one that's now largely over), you don't have the first para state one side of the story (now largely repudiated) and the second para give the other (mainstream, consensus) view. This first para should introduce all aspects of the story. In our case the 2nd para then goes on to explain the mainstream findings, per WP:FRINGE. --Nigelj (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point. To be honest, I didn't like it either, but I was trying to make as few changes as possible. The fact that the mainstream POV isn't explained until the 2nd paragraph is the way the lede is currently written. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In very brief form, the current 1st para has, "Leak from CRU. Server hacking. Allegations, publicised, controversy. Rebuttals. Criminal investigation." That's why I said 'all aspects'. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Refocus

To refocus discussion: the view that these documents show misconduct is certainly held by climate change skeptics, and notably, as is displayed in (4). However, there have also been well publicized reports by reliable sources that the documents show misconduct ([4] includes reports from the Wall Street Journal the BBC and the British government). These sources are notable, are not skeptical, and are not covered by the current lead in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. (4) fixes that, and does so within the space constraints laid out by WP:LEAD. I hope I'm making myself clear. How are people feeling about its inclusion right now?--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion (like each of its three brethren) has already been rejected and the long discussion archived. You resurrected it, and again at least 5 people have explained to you how it is not an improvement according to various standards, policies and yardsticks (as well as AQFN concluding "That's a fair point" just above). So you put a new heading and want start all over again. I don't see anybody else arguing for the proposed text apart from you. --Nigelj (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I see several requests for clarification, some complaints and a new proposal by AQFN (it was this proposal that he was referencing when he admitted that your point was fair). I do not see a 'rejection', and do not believe such a thing as a rejection tout court exists on wikipedia. I believe the complaints were addressed sufficiently and would like to refocus discussion in a less cluttered environment. Please stop the rhetoric and rejoin the discussion constructively.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your tendentious proposal has been rejected multiple times by many editors. Please find something more constructive to do with your free time. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to second Viriditas's motion. NickCT (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean to conclude anything. I had hoped someone would take my version and attempt to improve it. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, after all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? A glance through the archived discussion linked to at the beginning of this section shows that the proposal was not rejected at all. In fact, the first version of the proposed lead received widespread support. It was rejected solely by a group of editors, yourself included, who consistently and doggedly remove material that they do not like regardless of consensus. Hence the myriad of counterproposals designed to appease you.--Heyitspeter (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

On to number five, shortened to adress concerns raised here. We would go all the way from:

(1) The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. The emails prompted allegations by climate change skeptics and widespread publicity in the media. The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to withhold scientific data and to ensure the IPCC include their own views and exclude others. Reason reported that the CRU evidently plotted to remove journal editors with whom they disagreed and suppress the publication of articles that they disliked. The ICO made a statement that the emails revealed that freedom of information requests were 'not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation' but that they could not prosecute due to statute of limitations. The BBC and Computerworld also raised concerns about the quality and accuracy of the CRU's coding methods as prompted by coding documentation released with the emails. The UEA and CRU rejected the allegations and a number of academics, climate change researchers, and independent reports found that most or all of the allegations of fraud were baseless, though concerns remained about attempts to stonewall critics and hide data.

to

(5) The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. The emails prompted allegations of misconduct by climate change skeptics, the mainstream media. and the British government The UEA and CRU rejected the allegations and a number of academics, climate change researchers, and independent reports found that most or all of the allegations of fraud were baseless, though concerns remained about attempts to stonewall critics and hide data.

Newsweek Report

• Begley, Sharon (June 25, 2010). "Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done". Time.

Found it while reading Pharyngula. Use if you wish. NW (Talk) 15:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The story should have been retracted 24 hours after it was first reported. Instead, it was given legs by large media conglomerates, using op-ed pages as a platform, and few if any science journalists. This is a great reason for anyone interested in this topic to make their way over to WP:RS and change the guideline so this doesn't happen again. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for the tip. Note, however, that the Newsweek blog title is misleading: the retraction had nothing to do with the "Climategate" this WP article treats. Although Begley first drags the red herring of Phil Jones and Michael Mann across the trail, the subject of her deliberately confused blog is what she calls a retraction but the Times calls a correction regarding a "bogus rainforest claim" by the IPCC based on a WWF report prepared by what the Times called "'green campaigners' with 'little scientific expertise.'" The Times acknowledged the report was accurate and peer-reviewed. It also apologized for twisting the words of Dr. Simon Lewis.

Oddly enough, I can find neither the original report from January nor the June 21 correction on the Times website. The new reports are widely disseminated across the internet, mainly through blogs. This "Green" blog from the NYT is the most reliable report I've turned up, with a link in the 5th paragraph to a copy of the "retraction," a link to a PDF of the original article, a link to a PDF of Lewis's 31-page claim against the Times, and a link to a scan of the "retraction" that omits the date and the last line or two. --Yopienso (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sunday Times deleted the original report from its website but I gather it only ran the correction in print, not on the web - which rather makes you wonder how serious they were about publicising it... -- ChrisO (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The blogosphere is gung-ho on publicising it! Even more oddly, this March 12, 2009 Times report is still available. The third paragraph states:

Up to 40 per cent of the rainforest will be lost if temperature rises are restricted to 2C, which most climatologists regard as the least that can be expected by 2050.

--Yopienso (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

See also the recent article in the Sunday Telegraph by Booker [6], who is pretty much standing by the original story. But as noted above "Amazongate" is not "Climategate", so I doubt any of this has much relevance. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

s/article/opinion column/ Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"s/article/opinion column/"--Please translate. --Yopienso (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Geekspeak. It means substitute "opinion column" for "article". From Linux, I believe. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag, again

As near as I can tell, HiP re-added the tag purely because V called him an SPA (bases on HiP's comments). This is clearly wrong; also, again as far as I can see, HiP's reasoning has been rejected by numerous editors. so I've re-removed the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Has the POV dispute been resolved? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please state the nature of the POV dispute in two sentences or less, and I will reply to your question. Remember, the burden is on the editor adding the tag, not removing it. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See the other section with the word "NPOV" in the title, which editors were directed to in the text of the tag by way of explanation, and which WMC apparently missed. I will be readding the tag now. WMC, you are not to remove the tag until the dispute is resolved as officially stated. "I don't like it" is not an argument.--Heyitspeter (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that this page is on 1-revert. I'll readd the tag after 24-hours are up, though I encourage another editor to do it themselves when they see this. It requires only an undo of WMC's most recent. Cheers.--Heyitspeter (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And, I'll be removing the tag. Heyitspeter, the links you provide in your above reply do not answer the question I asked at all, and in fact, have nothing to do with this topic. It's entirely possible that you made a mistake and added the wrong links, but you need to stop threatening to hold this article hostage because you think it deserves a POV tag. That's not how we edit Wikipedia, and if you persist, you could be blocked. To recap, the person adding the tag has the burden of proof. If you can't answer a simple question about why you feel the need to tag this article, then the tag obviously doesn't belong. Viriditas (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You are threatening to make a direct violation of WP:HEAR. It isn't threatening and is of course actionable. Happy editing. I will not be commenting further in this section.--Heyitspeter (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The dispute has obviously not been resolved. I am restoring the POV tag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What dispute? Please provide what, specifically, violates NPOV. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide what, specifically, violates NPOV. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You can find my suggested rewrite of the lead here.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"I'd like to rewrite the lede" != POV tag William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What he said. "Please provide what, specifically, violates NPOV." Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Weight isn't being assigned accordding to proportion presented by reliable sources. Now, I've given you the reason along with my suggested fix. What more do you want? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem by removing who orchestrated the scandal. I hope that allays your concerns. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. How does that even address my concerns? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Weight on what? If you want to tag this article, it should be clear why William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Weight to the critics. There's no explanation of what there claims are in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Which claims from critics need mention in the lede, specifically? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims that climate scientists:

1. Colluded to withhold scientific information
2. Interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published
3. Deleted e-mails and raw data to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act
4. Manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide sources, and the current status of those charges? How should we include charges that are now debunked? Would you like a seperate paragraph in the lede detailing each of the charges, and then how those charges were debunked? You agree it would obviously be a violation of NPOV to say "skeptics charged that scientists colluded to withhold scientific information," without also including the sourced fact that "charges that scientists colluded to withold scientific information were rejected by XY and Z, right? Hipocrite (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Per H. Those claims have all been examined and refuted by investigation. They are part of the *history* of the incident, but not part of its current state William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Could you provide sources, and the current status of those charges?"

Sure, but give me some time to find them. I'll get them to you within the next day or so. Is that acceptable to you?

"How should we include charges that are now debunked?"

I think that should be included as well.

"Would you like a seperate paragraph in the lede detailing each of the charges"

No, just a single sentence would be fine.

"and then how those charges were debunked?"

That should be there, too.

"You agree it would obviously be a violation of NPOV to say "skeptics charged that scientists colluded to withhold scientific information," without also including the sourced fact that "charges that scientists colluded to withold scientific information were rejected by XY and Z, right?"

Yes, I do. We should include both POVs and assign weight based on their prominence in third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting on your sources. It's a shame that you couldn't work this out on your own - I mean, who would ever propose an entire change that merely reflected their own personal PoV on a contentious page like this and expect it to reach consensus? How many times do people need to realize that you have to insert a little of something you don't want and a little of something you do want? Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you've been editing this article for months. I assumed that you were already familiar with the article topic by now. In any case, I will honor your request and provide sources within the next day or two. I hope that we can work together to resolve this dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that the claims have all been refuted, what exactly would be the purpose of putting more emphasis on them in the lead? We are not back in December 2009 when the full facts weren't yet known. The verdicts are in and the scientists involved have been given a clean bill of health, as Lord Oxburgh put it. If there's one thing we mustn't do with this article, it's give a false impression about the status of the now-refuted claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Because this is an article about a scandal. It behooves us to explain what all the fuss was about. Also, the charges were largely discredited, but not completely. The FOI charges turned out to be legit, and there's still an charge against Mann that remains outstanding. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A fabricated scandal with unsustainable allegations, it behooves us to take more care with these blp issues. The FOI charges turned out to be misrepresentation of an informal briefing, and the current investigations into FOIA issues have not yet reported. As for the "charge" against Mann, that report certainly seems to have got lost in the long grass. Presumption of innocence remains. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything will be sourced to third-party reliable sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and in strict accordance to our policy on biographical information on living persons. But if you spot any specific BLP issues, please let me know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What sources? Also note that incorrect claims must be shown in the context of their refutation to meet the high NPOV standards required on blp issues. As I'm sure you know. . . dave souza, talk 23:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, give me some time to find them. With the ArbCom case and everything, it'll take a day or two. Yes, absolutely the claims should be should in context with their refutation. BTW, it looks a recent edit is being sourced to a blog. That probably needs to be taken out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gaggle

I really wish you'd read WP:RS, specifically the part that reads ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Hipocrite (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read WP:RS many times and I'm one of the regular contributors to the Reliable sources noticeboard so I am familiar with this guideline. In any case, is this blog subject to the news outlet's full editorial control? If so, please state your evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(a) Apparently current practice is to assume as much; (b) this is not a BLP issue, so that's beside the point. Guettarda (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek publishes official announcements on the gaggle - see [8]. That makes it quite clear that their official blog is under their editorial control. Hipocrite (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which part of that link supports the argument that this blog is under their full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The part where they publish official statements on the blog. What part of that is hard to understand? What leads you to believe it's not under their official control, exactly? Do you apply this assume-not-official stance to all blogs in all articles you follow? Could you show me some examples of you suggesting other blogs are not under editorial control? Hipocrite (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they issued an official statement about a blog. I'm not sure what that has to do about whether their blogs are under their full editorial control. Can you please just answer my question: which part of that link supports the argument that this blog is under their full editorial control? Yes, I do assume that all blogs are not under the full editorial control unless evidence is provided otherwise. You can check my contributions to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article if you want evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, they released an official statement ON the blog. Please read the links I provide for you, in full, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But I don't see where it states that blogs are under their full editorial control. Can you please point me to the statement where it's stated that it's under their full editorial control? I've asked you three times now (this makes four) and so far, you have failed to do so. BTW, you are now citing a blog as evidence that a blog is reliable. The standards for reliability are really starting to drop, methinks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand - you insist that I provide a statement from newsweek, not on the blog, that says "the blog is under our full editorial control?" I suggest you wait for results from RSN - please don't disrupt that process. I'm not jumping through your hoops anymore. Hipocrite (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to argue that this blog falls under the full editorial control, then you should provide evidence. OTOH, if you think that WP:RS is wrong, I suggest that you take this up with the editors at WP:RS. If you can get the editors there to change the guideline, please let us know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG applies. . . dave souza, talk 07:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite:

• You asked what the POV dispute was about and I've provided an explanation about the weight issue.[9]
• You asked what specific claims I think should be added to the lead and I've given you a list of the specific claims.[10]
• I've also provided my suggested fix.[11]
• Now, you've also asked for me to provide sources and here they are.[12][13][14][15][16]

I've done everything you've asked of me. Is there any other information that I can provide for you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes - you could read what has already been said to you. The point is that newspaper reports from back in November, or those that pre-date the reviews findings, are badly out of date. So you need to review your list of newly provided sources and remove those that pre-dates the inquiries. On a quick scan, they all fail William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Those articles are all old. I thought you were going to put each of the claims in context - to note that all of them have been rejected by further findings. Are you not doing that - above, you agreed it would obviously be a violation of NPOV to say "skeptics charged that scientists colluded to withhold scientific information," without also including the sourced fact that "charges that scientists colluded to withold scientific information were rejected by XY and Z - but you only provided the charges, and your proposed change only adds the charges to the lede, unless I misread something. Hipocrite (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't even make any sense. Are you saying that the critics didn't make these charges? If not, why were there investigations? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you might consider choosing your words somewhat more carefully, as well as reading mine somewhat more carefully. Yes, it makes sense. The point is that newspaper reports written *then* don't really describe the situation *now*. Without checking, I would guess that our article on WWII doesn't have in the lede stuff from 1939 newspapers about how maybe there might be trouble ahead. You see the point, I hope William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine. Provide reliable sources about the article topic that don't explain the article topic. I've provided my sources, now you provide yours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you renegging on your statement that merely including the charges, without including the resolution of the charges would be a violation of NPOV? Hipocrite (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not. Your suggestion is fine with me. Both the accusation and the refutations should be included. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you intentionally proposing edits that fail NPOV, then, or are you just providing a framework for someone else to fill out when they get around to it? Hipocrite (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. The refutations are already in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if you're going to include specific charges in the article, it's imperitive that right after said charges are noted, it's also noted that they were all rejected. I mean, it's like saying "Timothy Evans was accused of murdering his daughter. He was convicted of the crime. (many paragraphs about the trial, his biography). Timothy Evans was actually innocent." You might want to read Timothy Evans to see how we deal with charges that are later proved wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with your suggestion with the caveat that the charges were largely rejected. The FOA violations turned out to be accurate and there's still an outstanding charge against Mann. Can we please write this article in a neutral way? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for your ability to follow NPOV. I've tried to include the information about largely rejected charges in the lede. Hipocrite (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge, your assertion that "The FOA violations turned out to be accurate" is badly wrong, the serious accusations against individuals have been rejected and the case against the university is still under investigation. The outstanding charge against Mann has been presented with a clear understanding that he'd previously been cleared of similar accusations. Please read the article and relevant sources more carefully. . dave souza, talk 17:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this New York Observer article settles the question definitively, as it describes the editorial regime for "The Gaggle": [17] It's edited by Newsweek's senior editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gaggle - the link in the New York Observer article is broken. Q Science (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The NY Observer article is nearly four years old, so evidently "The Gaggle" changed its URL in the meantime. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So how do you know it is still accurate? Might they not have changed their approach within the past 4 years? This assumes, of course, that your interpretation of what the referenced article actually states is accurate to begin with. That's not entirely clear either. --Rush's Algore (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. The article is crystal clear. The blog was established by the magazine's senior editors. It's written by the reporters and edited by the editors, just like the rest of the content. There is no reason why that arrangement might have changed and no indication that it has. If you genuinely doubt that the arrangement no longer holds, as opposed to bad-faith wikilawyering, the onus is on you to find some evidence of that. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite should self-revert.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He has apparently violated 1RR on this page and when quietly asked to rectify that he refused and banned the requester from his talk page. I then politely and quietly asked that he honor his pledge to self-revert if asked by someone that had not already reverted the page, which I have not, and again he apparently refuses to comply with his own pledge. --Rush's Algore (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like only one revert to me, please provide diffs. . . dave souza, talk 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1RR was not my claim, see the diffs provided by someone else on Hipocrite's talk page. If this is not a 1RR violation then fine, I am not an expert. However I can read his pledge plainly enough and interpret his (lack of) response in that regard. --Rush's Algore (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(As of this typing), Hipocrite has not violated WP:1RR. OTOH, Hipocrite is citing a blog without providing evidence that this blog is subject to the full editorial control of the publication. This appears to be in violation of WP:BLP. Editors should be more careful regarding potential BLP violations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have accepted, above, that it was an official statement on the blog. Per WP:BURO, that's not a hair worth splitting. In addition, of course, since this isn't a statement about a living person, I'm not sure how the 'full editorial control' issue matters anyway. Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't see any evidence that this blog is under their full editorial control. At least, so far, none has been presented. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek has responded to my email enquiring if The Gaggle was under their editorial control with:

"Yes, it is.

Elizabeth Isaacson

Newsweek Letters Department"

I believe this resolves the issue. Would someone not currently revert limited remove the reliable source tag? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work, Hipocrite. Although we've had our disagreements, I've never know Hipocrite to be dishonest. My concerns have been satisfied. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good, that's been done. However, this edit went rather far in detailing the accusations and state of play, while the lead still omitted created the "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal", weaselling out of noting what the source clearly states, that the emails were "spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is altering the world’s climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally cooking the books." More tactfully, "climate change sceptics". The phrase "provoking the controversy" is rather odd, better put as "starting the controversy" which of course leaves the option of others joining in with related allegations. That gives a better balance if we're going to have so much detail of the allegations in the lead. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Before we consider this settled I have one request and one question for the record here:

1. Can Hipocrite please provide the full text of BOTH their email and the reply (including full headers)?
2. Does this mean that both Hipocrite and DS agree to accept similar evidence when presented by, say, myself or some of the resident skeptics should the same question arise with respect to our use of blogs as sources?

--Rush's Algore (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not provide you with email headers or text that identifies me. You can email Newsweek yourself. If you were to present the same evidence about a source I would either trust you or verify it. Your failure to assume good faith is noted. Hipocrite (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I do wish to verify it which is why I wished to see the headers, however you make a fine point about being identified. That was not my intention. I was actually more interested in knowing the server from which their reply originated. So feel free to remove the headers but I would still like to see what you actually asked them, and exactly how they responded if you wouldn't mind.

I am not assuming bad faith. "Trust but verify" does not assume bad faith. To whom did you send your original query and what is the return email address on their reply? That should suffice for my purposes. --Rush's Algore (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You most certainly are assuming bad faith - but that's fine, you're trying to walk it back while saving face now, so I'll just assume you're apologizing. Letters (at) newsweek.com in both cases. Hipocrite (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. (I altered their email address in the usual way to avoid spamming them.) You are free to believe what you wish, but failing to accept my explanation most certainly is a bad faith move on your part as well. If it is an apology that you want, no problem, I apologize if my previous request gave you the impression that I was assuming bad faith. That was never my intention.

Oh, and can you please provide the exact text of your inquiry and the exact text of their reply (if it differs from above)? This will help me to formulate my own inquiry so that they will know what I am referring to. Thanks. --Rush's Algore (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough. Hippcrite has provided more than adequate answers on this subject. This thread may be considered closed. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

All I asked was to see the actual text of his inquiry and the actual text of their reply. If he chooses not to provide it I can't force him but given the simplicity of the request I think a refusal doesn't look particularly good. Collapse this thread if you like. --Rush's Algore (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An unfortunate turn of events

I had high hopes that we finally resolved the POV problems with the lede with Hipocrite's edit here.[18] Unfortunately, after Hipocrite's edits, there was a series of edits [19][20][21] which have undone this compromise and created new POV issues. In particular, the lede has been changed to remove the word "largely"[22] even thought claims about FOA violations were found to be valid and an outstanding charge against Mann needs to be resolved. Not to mention the fact that not all the people who criticized these people were climate change skeptics. I suggest that we restore Hipocrite's version of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been told repeatedly that your assertion that your assertion that "claims about FOA violations were found to be valid" is wrong. Why are you having difficulty understanding this point? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite's edit wasn't a "compromise", it went too far in providing a shopping list of complaints before mentioning any refutation. The orchestrated manufactured scandal was clearly initiated by deniers or "skeptics", that doesn't preclude a few others from having added some criticisms afterwards, and the lead mentions such criticisms. The state of allegations vs. Mann is specifically described in the lead. As for the FOIA, those familiar with the topic will be aware that all is to be revealed on 7 July. . . dave souza, talk 09:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: You have not provided any evidence to support your argument. Can you please provide some sources?

Dave: This is an article about a scandal. Are you honestly saying that in articles about a scandal, we're not allowed to talk about the article topic? BTW, future events which happen in the future should be handled in the future. Give us something we can verify.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You've got the burden of proof the wrong way round. You're the one claiming that "claims about FOA violations were found to be valid". What are your sources for that? As for this being "an article about a scandal", that's wrong too - it's about a set of allegations that were found to be unfounded. It's hardly a "scandal" if there wasn't any wrongdoing, was it? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris:

• Here are my sources about the FOI acts.[23][24][25]
• Here are my sources about Climategate being a scandal.[26][27][28]

Is there any other information that I can provide for you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

AGFK, you're tendentiously stuck in the past, dredging up press reports from before proper consideration of the isssues and the finding, specifically, that the ICO made a statement to the press that went beyond that which it could substantiate. That's an ill-conceived informal statement, not a proper finding. Wikipedia isn't news, and the Muir Russell inquiry has been requested to review this specific issue. It is indeed a scandal that this "manufactured scandal" has been used in an attempt to damage science, but then that's been obvious for some time. . . dave souza, talk 17:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Dave, all of these are third-party reliable sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. AFAIK, none of these sources have been superceded and the information in them is accurate. But if you have reliable sources which contradict them, please let me know. I've shown you my sources, now you show me yours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are largely superseded by this which, to save you having to look carefully, states:

We regret that the ICO made a statement to the press that went beyond that which it could substantiate and that it took over a month for the ICO properly to put the record straight. We recommend that the ICO develop procedures to ensure that its public comments are checked and that mechanisms exist to swiftly correct any mis-statements or misinterpretations of such statements.

92. The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information (disclosable or otherwise) may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. The Deputy Information Commissioner's letter of 29 January gives a clear indication that a breach of the FOIA may have occurred but that a prosecution was time-barred.[130] As, however, UEA pointed out, no investigation has been carried out.

93. It seems to us that both sides have a point. There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It would, however, be premature, without a thorough investigation affording each party the opportunity to make representations, to conclude that UEA was in breach of the Act. In our view, it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved simply because of the operation of the six-month time limit on the initiation of prosecutions. Much of the reputation of CRU hangs on the issue. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively—either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner.

See also references cited in the article, including the recent statement about a "manufactured scandal" which you may remember from the discussion below this. . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Dave. Frankly, AQFK's comments have a Groundhog Day kind of feel to them; you wouldn't know from reading them that things had moved on. In particular, the fact that the ICO thought there was evidence of a possible breach of the FOI Act does not mean that "claims about FOIA violations were found to be valid". The issue has simply not been determined either way. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Dave, do you realize that you've just provided a source that agrees with me? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, do you have problems with reading comprehension? The statement "there was evidence that a breach may have occurred" is not equivalent to "claims about FOIA violations were found to be valid". -- ChrisO (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It says that there's evidence that they violated the FOI act but there won't be prosecutions because the statute of limitations had passed. So, they were not vindicated of all charges. Just like I said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what it says. It says there was "evidence that a breach of the FOIA may have occurred." The word "may" is critically important here. They did not make any determination that a violation had occurred. When you say "there's evidence that they violated the FOI Act", that's wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a very peculiar reading of the ICO saying "the prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence." Clearly the ICO thinks there is clear evidence. No "may" about it.--Rumping (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What you are missing is the difference between may and did. The ICO couldn't investigate any further because of the statutory time limit. Don't forget that "prima facie" simply means "at first sight". Something which appears to be one way at first sight may well turn out differently when looked at in depth. The ICO didn't do any investigation because it couldn't, nor did the inquiry that Dave is citing from. The only inquiry which may cover this in depth is Muir Russell, due to report on 7 July. In the meantime we cannot say one way or the other whether any FOI Act violations occurred, because nobody has established this yet. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In most legal matters, a prima facie case is an absolute necessity before any accusations can actually be investigated or tried in court. It certainly does not mean a foregone conclusion, or there would be little point to rest of the whole legal system. --Nigelj (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

FOIA allegations

The point is that the article currently states they were vindicated of the FOI allegations and that's NOT factually accurate. We're misinforming our readers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Subsequent inquiries rejected allegations that climate scientists...deleted e-mails and raw data to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act". That's not factually accurate at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

How is that related to this? I thought the "breach" was that they didn't reply quickly enough, not that anything was deleted. What source do you have that suggests that anything was deleted? Guettarda (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The ICO said "the prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence." It was the emails themselves which indicated an intention to delete information if an FOI query were to come in; later, after an FOI query had come in, the emails then had requests to others to delete information and those requests being passed on.--Rumping (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict.]

The lead says, Subsequent inquiries rejected allegations that climate scientists had colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted e-mails and raw data to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is, but the UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information." The first phrase seems to contradict the last one. They didn't "collude" to withhold info, but they had a "culture" of withholding it.  ?? The referenced source does not support that, being initially about sharp criticisms of the CRU not responding appropriately to FOI requests, while casting Jones as the scapegoat and not personally responsible. But the committee did not condemn the actions of Prof Phil Jones, the head of the UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) because it said he should have been better supported by the university in dealing with requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act. It added that the scientific reputation of Jones and the CRU was untarnished.

The article goes on to clear the scientists' use of "hide" and "trick" as part of a conspiracy, and of meddling with peer review. It does not conclude anything about whether any emails were deleted: The MPs were unable to look in detail at allegations that data had been deleted by Jones.

It's astonishing that this article was not allowed to be titled, "Climategate" because that was "POV," even though as time goes on it is more and more being called that. (Since there's a redirect, I'm fine with our title, except for the fact it makes WP look silly.) Now Dave and Chris are saying it's not a scandal despite the fact journalists on both sides call it that, not only back in November and December, but in Jan., Feb., Mar., April, May, and now June. I have a list of refs but will take up the space for only one from today that lambastes skeptics: The reverberations of the scandal many refer to as "climategate," which erupted last December... (Later the article calls it a "pseudo scandal." Please consult Webster to select a definition of "scandal" you're comfortable with, perhaps "malicious gossip.") Oh, I'll throw in this one, too: How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies.

It seems to me there's enough actual work to do on this article we could skip this squabbling. --Yopienso (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumping is correct. We are misinforming our readers. Hipocrite's edit should be restored. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, this might be a minor issue, but the editors who control this article won't allow us to write in a editorially neutral point of view so I choose issues I have a reasonable shot of fixing. Yes, there are many problems with this article. Yes, Climategate is the most common name. If you want more sources, here's the research I came up with when we last examined the issue: List of reliable sources which use the term Climategate. Welcome to bizzarro world of the Climatic Research Unit unautherizied data release hacking incident by evil climate change deniers against brave, innocent scientists who did not violate the FOI act and never did anything wrong in their entire lives article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the squabble! I mentioned Dave and Chris because of their recent posts, but not because I'm alleging they have commandeered the article. Dave has been my patient mentor in navigating what to me have been quite treacherous WP shoals. After some beachings, I'm learning to read the waters. (More beaching doubtless to come!)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge, your assumptions of bad faith and allegations of WP:OWN are disruptive to the collegiate discussion needed on this contraversial topic to improve the article. Please assume good faith. You seem to have bought into the bizzarro world of the climate change deniers where scientists are presumed guilty no matter how much they're found innocent, please accept that in the UK we have a presumption of innocence and prima facie evidence does not equate to a finding that allegations are valid. Climategate is the most common name promoted by deniers, and as such is politically loaded on the agenda of a fringe group and unsuitable as an article title, as discussed previously. Start a new section if you really want to reopen that discussion, but in my view that's time wasting. The whole issue is commonly described as a scandal, but those accused of scandalous behaviour include the deniers who concocted the false accusations against scientists. The wording "allegations that climate scientists had colluded to withhold scientific information" is not supported by the FOIA case in question, as it was a request for private emails, not "scientific information". A "culture of witholding information" is the norm in most areas of science where research information is provided for bona fide research, not for clear malicious misrepresentation, and is held back until researchers have published: the committee thinks this should change, and that's an interesting debate but not evidence of evil "collusion" between scientists. Hipocrite's phrasing could perhaps be improved, but be clear that the scientists concerned were specifically cleared of wrongdoing. . . dave souza, talk 06:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a basic matter of factual accuracy. Oxburgh was very explicit about the question of FOI Act violations being unresolved: "It would, however, be premature ... to conclude that UEA was in breach of the Act. In our view, it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved simply because of the operation of the six-month time limit on the initiation of prosecutions. Much of the reputation of CRU hangs on the issue. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively—either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner." Since the issue is as yet unresolved (Oxburgh's own words) you simply cannot state or imply that any firm conclusion has been reached by anybody. Muir Russell's review may address this (we don't know yet) but until then the issue is still open. It seems to me that AQFK would like the article to reflect his personal opinions rather than what the sources actually say. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris, you just agreed with me: "Oxburgh was very explicit about the question of FOI Act violations being unresolved" If it's unresolved, that means they weren't vindicated. I don't know why you keep agreeing with what I'm saying while paradoxically insisting that I am wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge. the paradox it that you're wrong in your claim that "claims about FOA violations were found to be valid", and it's hard to tell if you're being tendentious or obtuse in continuing to claim that you're right. As we've said all along, and as the article makes clear, the inquiries are not yet complete, and living persons should not be presumed guilty until the findings come in. The specific allegatations listed by Hipocrite have been rejected, please preent proposals for refining the section if you have problems with the language.

@ Chris, the above report is from the Select Committee, don't think Oxburgh went into this issue, and Muir Russell's report is to provide more detail. Which we should await patiently. . . dave souza, talk 10:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this again. The article currently states that they were vindicated of the charges of violation the FOIA. Which investigation cleared them? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Where? . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Subsequent inquiries rejected allegations that climate scientists...deleted e-mails and raw data to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act". Which investigations rejected the FOIA allegations? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That statement conflates allegations of deletion of raw data with the issue of FOIA requests for emails. The data issue is covered here, "51. Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.", and by the refutation by Oxburgh of allegations of scientific malpractice. The unresolved allegations re. FOIA requests relate to possible deletion of emails,[29] and are to be investigated in Muir Russell's report due in less than a week. Since this confusion could arise, I've amended the lead to clarify this point. . . dave souza, talk 11:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the confusion. Your amendments to the lead look good to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I'm troubled by something I hope I am misreading. You provided a relevant citation, then go on to analyze it, putting some phrases in quotes, phrases that support your position. However, I do not find those quotes in the material you cited, and what looks like the closest wording is worded differently, and leads to a different conclusion. On the chance that I've read it too quickly, can you tell me where you found your items in quotes? Specifically, your quote

there was evidence that a breach may have occurred

while I read

clear indication that a breach of the FOIA may have occurred

then you repeated the quotation, dropping one extraneous word

evidence that a breach of the FOIA may have occurred

but that still doesn't match what I see in the document. I realize these are, arguably, minor differences, but I hope you can agree that when someone puts something in quotes, they should copy and paste it, not paraphrase it.

Are the items you include in quotes actually in the material you cited?--SPhilbrickT 13:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point. They were paraphrases, not direct quotes - apologies if that caused confusion. It doesn't change the validity of my comments, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that, as I have evidence I cannot always see the nose in front of my face :) However, in my view, the phrase "clear indication" is a strong term, far stronger than mere "evidence". In my view, the term "may" is required in same way that we used the word "alleged" in the absense of the completion of a trial. So while your comments may reflect your opinion, I didn't find them persuasive.--SPhilbrickT 15:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should editors remove POV tags before the dispute has been resolved?

There is currently a POV dispute with this article as can be seen by the discussions on this talk page. The POV tag states, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Should editors remove the POV tag before the dispute has been resolved? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on the answer, it appears you are begging the question - are you sure the dispute isn't resolved? Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, if the dispute has been resolved, are you saying that this discussion isn't taking place?

Can you please not raise RFC's for every trivial issue William M. Connolley (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is trivial. Editors should NOT remove POV tags while discussion is ongoing. I don't recall ever filing an RfC ever about this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes - They should remove them - The fact is that this article/subject is v. contraversial. That being the case, it is sorta doomed to always be subject to POV debates. Should we simply leave the POV tag on in perpetuity? I'd say no. Once enough editors have looked at an article and weighed in, I think it is generally true that there won't be any gross POV violations. I think that is true here, and I don't think having the POV tag is warranted or helpful.

And that's your dose of truth for the day. NickCT (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove tag. The last RFC, which seems to be about the exact same issue, is only 13 days old at the top of the page and has been well discussed. If the consensus of your debating partners goes against you, you shouldn't just keep trying to start again from the beginning. Bring new referenced evidence, or accept consensus. --Nigelj (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I have not been following this exact issue. But in general, I favor removing tags if the issue is resolved by consensus, or if it never gets resolved. They should be there for the benefit of the reader, who ought to be informed that there is bona fide disagreement about how the subject should be described. They're not there for the benefit of editors (who presumably follow the page and discussions), and particularly not as a way to register protest or proxy for dispute resolution after failing to get consensus for something. Also, articles shouldn't be in a semi-permanent state of being tagged. If editing dies down and there's not a specific active dispute that editors are currently working on, the tag should go. Having said all that, this article may be an exception. There is a specific if longstanding and far-reachind dispute. Whichever side of the dispute you're on, I think it's fair to say that readers of the article should be informed that it is not in a settled state. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The specifics of the dispute are found here.[30]. I've provided sources here.[31] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd prefer not to wade in on this particular issue, but I do see that the immediate dispute is fairly new, involves longstanding / respected editors, and isn't a slam dunk consensus-wise on either side, hence it's a bona-fide POV dispute. I'd still base the tagging on whether it serves the reader, because I doubt adding the tag will help settle the dispute. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No The text of the tag is clear. The tag should not be removed as long as a dispute exists. --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Penn State clears Mann of all wrongdoing

See this press release for reference.

http://live.psu.edu/story/47378

Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a surprise, but thanks for the info, Tony. We'll update the article accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And then we'll keep adding claims back in and give the article a POV badge of shame if anyone complains. StuartH (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. That's a great ref because it links to the actual report, but for something this big we'd better have a second ref. http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/07/penn_state_clears_michael_mann_1.html Interesting (and telling) that CBS puts it on its Political Hotsheet instead on a science page. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009501-503544.html --Yopienso (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

True, the theft of emails and the malicious claims about scientists were certainly political rather than scientific in nature. That much has been obvious from the start. Mann's work in paleoclimatology, of course, is science. Tasty monster (=TS ) 02:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO--I don't know what went haywire with footnote #13. It's dead. It says it was retrieved in Feb., but the report wasn't written until June 4 and wasn't released until July 1. I'm notoriously bad with footnotes, so am merely alerting you rather than fixing it. Yopienso (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's presumably the first report, we need to add the current references suitably formatted. . dave souza, talk 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Interview with Mann . . dave souza, talk 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Now, that was weird--when I pasted in the ref it kept reformatting to the dead link. The Nature link worked just fine. --Yopienso (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my fault entirely. I've fixed the link. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Manufactured

I see we already have a quote for the "scandal" being manufactured. Boehlert also says the same, more recently "This exoneration should close the book on the absurd episode in which climate scientists were unjustly attacked when in fact they have been providing a great public service," Boehlert said in a statement. "The attacks on scientists were a manufactured distraction, and today's report is a welcome return to common sense. While scientists can now focus on their work, policy makers need to address the very real problem of climate change." [32] William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Manufactured scandal, investigation results, FOIA

I wanted to comment on a few issues spread out over the talk page, apologies for cluttering things up with yet another section.

1. The "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal" quote is from an opinion piece by Sharon Begley of Newsweek. Who is this Begley and why is her opinion so important? Early in this article's history editors were very rightly resistant to including material from opinion pieces. That quote should probably be removed.
2. The second paragraph describes the conclusions of the two completed reports but mixes quotes from each in a confusing way. For instance: "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity" is from the House of Commons investigation, but the article text implies both of the reports came to this conclusion. I think that both reports came to the same basic conclusions, but their results should probably be described separately and quotes should be directly attributed to one report or the other.
3. The allegations of FOIA violations are confusing and it seems often misrepresented. My understanding is that: so far the investigations have cleared all individuals of any wrongdoing with respect to FOIA, while one report was critical of the university's practices. The ICO, in both it's original statement and later clarification, was critical of an individual, but the ICO did not have a formal investigation. Statements by the ICO should not be confused with the results of the formal inquires described in the article's second paragraph.

—eric 19:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You make some good points. While Begley's piece is a reliable source, I agree that it's problematic to give such prominence to her opinion. You always end up with questions of why this commentator is being cited rather than that commentator. However, when all this is finally over next week with Muir Russell's report, I think we need an overview of where opinion stands. It certainly seems to be trending towards Begley's view that it's a manufactured controversy with no substance to it. I suggest taking Begley out of the lead, and out of the article altogether for now, and then re-adding her view as part of a summary of post-Muir Russell opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You can use Boehlert instead, as I said in the previous section William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait for it

Muir Russell's inquiry has announced that it will publish its report on the 7th, which is next Wednesday. The encyclopedist in me has been saying to me, ever since the inquiry was announced in early December, that we cannot begin to consider this article to be much use until that inquiry reports. Of course we should update the article but I don't think any major changes should be considered until the report is in. Let's wait and see. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. First, we wait until the report is released and then summarize what it's major findings are. Then, we wait for the all the books to be published on the incident, which should be in about three or four months time, and add those author's opinions to the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree again with the need for patience until the report is published, then we will add expert opinions published in reliable sources. We don't need to wait for "all the books to be published on the incident", particularly as most books on the topic published so far seem to be polemical pieces by non-experts promoting fringe views. As ever, care has to be taken over the reliability of the work itself, of the author and of the publisher. . . dave souza, talk 08:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The court of public opinion

The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication: "Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust" [33]91.153.115.15 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, talk about missing the point by a million kilometers. 24 pages and 44 references and not a single substantial analysis of the media that perpetuated the problem in the first place. It's as if the Fourth Estate doesn't even exist. Is this the best Yale can do? Viriditas (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean miles... they are American. I'm not sure what kind of analysis you expected to see? IMO the press did a bad job and so did the inquiries. Well... Fred Pierce actually did give it a go and came out with something resembling fair and balanced.(IMO)130.232.214.10 (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the study only reviewed the impact of the claims, not whether they were justified or not. I think this is the kind of thing we should include in a post-controversy roundup of views (as I proposed above under #Manufactured scandal, investigation results, FOIA) after the delivery of Muir Russell's report next week. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of this issue is that the facts show that it was yet another media-driven, propaganda campaign carefully carried out by the same usual suspects, and once again, academia ignores or refuses to address the fundamental issue at hand. It's shameful, really. This is a job for Bruce Page, the only man on the planet with balls big enough to call a spade a spade. Of course, when has academia ever helped to elucidate a topic like this? All they care about are their investment returns on their endowments. Frankly, the paper is a joke. Blaming the decline of climate change beliefs on a poor economy, a new administration, and abnormal weather is just absurd and anyone who has studied the issue knows it. The paper does mention "diminishing media attention" but fails to investigate this premise, and instead ignores it, all the while knowing that the relationship between the media and their audience is at the root of the problem. This has been covered before on this talk page, so I don't think I need to post the sources for this claim yet again. The problem is not with public opinion; It's with the continuing, deliberate and purposeful misinformation fed to the public on a daily basis. Anyone who has spent an hour on the topic knows this. So why do we have a working paper that fails to address it? Follow the money... The public is getting proverbially fucked, and instead of telling us how, why, and what we can do about it, this working paper is measuring how much we enjoy it. This is ridiculous. Academia, like the mass media, has an ethical responsibility to help inform the public and solve problems to benefit society. This responsibility is the primary foundation for journalism, and it is also the guiding light behind education. Lux et veritas, indeed. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, Yale is one of the most highly respected universities in the world and Anthony Leiserowitz is a widely recognized expert on American and international public opinion on global warming.[34]

I note that they use the term, "Climategate" 24 times in their report compared to our article which only uses it once. They also call Climategate a scandal 10 times in their report compared to our article which only uses it once. In fact, they plainly state that "Climategate [is] an international scandal". You said that they "missed the point". I don't know what point you expected them to make, but it's not our job as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong or that they failed to miss some point we had hoped they would make. We simply present what the sources are saying about our subject without editorial bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We most certainly can evaluate sources for accuracy, authority, and reliablity based on their coverage of a topic, and we do it all the time. And, we never "simply present what the sources are saying" - we always evaluate a source to determine if it is suitable for the topic. The obvious misdirection of the paper, and its complete and total avoidance of any analysis of the very media sources that promoted the story speaks volumes. The reaction of the public to media manipulation doesn't matter in the slightest. What matters is how and why the media continues to do it and get away with it without a single admonishment or critical paper from any academic researcher. Climategate was not an international scandal; The real scandal is the continuing free pass given to the media to keep pushing stories that have no basis in reality. There was a time, before you were born, when the media were watchdogs who investigated stories and reported on issues. That time, alas, is long gone, and now all we have left are the empty dregs of infotainment and sensationalism rooted in nothing but naked gossip and rumor. This isn't reliable, it's crap. Shit is still shit no matter how nice you make it look. No, the real story here is how the public is being given shit and being told it's shinola, and how the average Joe lacks the necessary critical thinking skills to tell the difference. Viriditas (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, it is you who so woefully missed the point. Yale conducted a controlled survey of public opinion and faithfully reported it. We may hope the upshot will be clearer and more professional communications within and from the science community. Anthony Leiserowitz's credentials are unimpeachable; the source is eminently reliable and suitable for the topic. As ChrisO points out, the report should be included in an aftermath section. And, as AQFK says, we cannot question the truth of Yale's assessments since they are overwhelmingly verifiable. --Yopienso (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I prize transparency, but am striking a comment that is unwarranted in the discussion, both because it's slightly off-topic, and because as a layperson I'm not fully cognizant of the whys and wherefores of communications within and from the scientific community. Yopienso (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, quite interesting but only a "Working Paper Subject to revision". A survey carried out from December 24, 2009 to January 4, 2010, at the height of the scandalmongering and before proper rebuttals or inquiries had reported, found that only 29% of those polled were aware of the story, half of them had only followed the story a little or not at all, and just under 25% of those polled had followed the story at least a little. Of those, 47% said it made them rather more certain that GW isn't happening (11.5% of those polled) while 11% said it them rather more certain it was happening, 53% said it made them trust climate scientists less (13% of those polled) while 5% said it them trust scientists more. So, assuming the poll typified public opinion, at that time the story had a negative effect on the perceptions of around 13% of Americans. The effect tended to vary with preconceptions or political persuasion on unsurprising lines.
More recently, a survey carried out between June 1 and June 7 found that "huge majorities of Americans still believe the earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop it." Jon A. Krosnick, professor of communication, political science and psychology at Stanford, wrote that
"Growing public skepticism has, in recent months, been attributed to news reports about e-mail messages hacked from the computer system at the University of East Anglia in Britain (characterized as showing climate scientists colluding to silence unconvinced colleagues) and by the discoveries of alleged flaws in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Our new survey discredited this claim in multiple ways. First, we found no decline in Americans’ trust in environmental scientists: 71 percent of respondents said they trust these scientists a moderate amount, a lot or completely, a figure that was 68 percent in 2008 and 70 percent in 2009. Only 9 percent said they knew about the East Anglia e-mail messages and believed they indicated that climate scientists should not be trusted, and only 13 percent of respondents said so about the I.P.C.C. reports’ alleged flaws. "
No doubt the working paper will be revised, dave souza, talk 17:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Per DS, we shouldn't use this working paper until it has actually been published. If it were published in its current form I would have no objection to it being used, but only as a ref for American public opinion (which is what it is about), not on the actual substance of the dispute (which it isn't about, unless I missed that bit) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, it could be worth mentioning the findings by Krosnick's Political Psychology Research Group, I've not yet downloaded the paper from the link in the NYT article... dave souza, talk 08:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Dave and WMC for constructive input. Here is a June 10 report about a newer survey from Leisorowitz with a link to one from March. Public opinion is fickle. Yet our article needs to include it since in a democracy presumably public opinion matters, at least in regards to who gets elected to make the momentous decisions the climate question presents. Yopienso (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to paste in this June 10 link to info from Krosnik and Cooper. --Yopienso (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

November 19, 2009

Anyone with a single functioning brain cell can see that this event was planned, coordinated, and orchestrated, involving collaboration between different people and groups. In the space of 24 hours, data was uploaded and reported by bloggers, ending up on conservative talk radio, television news stations, and newspaper columns. This is an unheard of response time in regards to a niche topic involving stolen computer data (yawn) that nobody possibly had the time to sift through, analyze, or consider. The event has all the indications of a carefully planned talking point that was already cued up and ready to disrupt Copenhagen. This aspect of the topic needs to be expanded. I've followed the media for decades, and this kind of response time simply doesn't happen. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree personally, but where's the evidence? Whatever happened to the Norfolk Constabulary investigations? --Nigelj (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the timeline of the release of the emails from what I've read:

1. November 13, 2009- Phil Jones leaves work early after sending out the last email contained in the Climategate archive.
2. November 16- McIntyre starts a new thread on Climate Audit about a short article he had just written on tree bark and Dr. Mann's research.
3. November 17, 7 a.m.- An anonymous poster posts to McIntyre's thread with a message, "A miracle just happened" with a link to the archived emails in the post title. No one reacts to the post.
4. November 17, 18:25- A moderator at Watts Up With That plows through a bunch of comments awaiting approval and finds a post with a link to the same email archive. He emails Anthony Watts about what he has seen and does not post the link.
5. November 18- Watts contacts McIntyre and they, plus Audit regular Steven Mosher begin to review the files without making any public comment on them yet.
6. November 19- CRU informs its employees of the breach in data security. Hearing of CRU's announcement, Mosher informs Andrew Revkin of the New York Times about the leak.
7. November 19- The link is posted on JeffIds blog site by an anonymous poster, moderated by "Lucia". Word begins to spread across the Internet and Revkin and other journalists begin to look into it very seriously.

Whoever got ahold of the emails, whether a hacker or an internal whistleblower, did a very awkward job of releasing the emails into the Internet. It almost didn't get noticed. That person does not appear to have contacted journalists his/herself. Journalists got involved after the three blogs finally realized after a couple of days what the email and document archive really contained. I think all of this will be explained in great detail when the books I imagine will be written on this incident come out in several months time. Cla68 (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

8. November 19, 1:32 PM -Anthony Watts posts "Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released" on Watts Up With That

9. November 19, 6:00 PM -Christopher C. Horner blogs about the incident in "The Blue-Dress Moment May Have Arrived" on National Review Online

You are absolutely right. This kind of response does not happen over night. I found the data file the same day it was posted (19th). It took me around 3h to figure out it was most likely important and genuine. The key piece of data I found in that 3h was the "missing" tree ring data = hide the decline data. I remember it took maybe a week or two(?) before anyone else noticed the same thing. (As it happens I was taking a statistics course and the timing was unbelievable. My gut reaction on seeing the data was WTF???) As you should be aware the hockey stick and other related controversies had been brewing for at least 5 years prior to this post. It was pretty easy to connect the dots. The story was pretty much written by then. The book The Hockey stick illusion was announced on the 21st of November and finally published in January(?). The tag-line "Global warming and the corruption of science" was changed to "Climategate and the corruption of science" during this time and a extra chapter was added on Climategate. I see this as a result of hardworking passionate people with a genuine interest and knowledge in a subject being heard. And yes, I mean bloggers and hobbyists not the NSA/FBI/CIA oil funded corrupt whatever.130.232.214.10 (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible Russian security services involvement? [35] [36] [37] We need police investigation reports though, rather than media speculation and bloggers'/pulp authors' opinions, and they haven't appeared yet, AFAIK. --Nigelj (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you read Megan Goodman's "Climategate: An Autopsy", which is the best overview I've seen so far of how the hack was publicised. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it mention that as soon as November 25, Myron Ebell was saying: "It's not clear, by the way, that this was a hacking job, that it was a hacker. It may have been a whistleblower inside the CRU who became disgusted by all of the nefarious things going on there." (01:55-02:06)[38] Could someone explain where Ebell got the idea that it could have been a whistleblower instead of a hacker? Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I recall some denialist bloggers were pushing that line before Ebell got to work on it. Some of them were evidently concerned at the implications of one of their own being responsible for a criminal act. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The speculation that I've read is that it may have been someone working for the CRU or the university who was dismayed by the alleged gamesmanship going on about how to avoid responding to FOIA requests from the Climate Audit crew. Again, this is just speculation. ChrisO links to a blog post about the emails. I think this illustrates the current problem we have with this subject, and that's that many key details have still not been published in reliable sources. Much of it is still taking place in the blogosphere. In fact, in my opinion the heart of the controversial emails is the ongoing battle between Mann and RealClimate vs McIntyre and Climate Audit. Until we have reliable sources (books) that explore this long-running conflict between these two guys and their associates as it relates to this incident, we don't have the complete story in this article. Cla68 (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a fair point. All the evidence points towards McIntyre's conflict with the CRU being the cause of this affair, and specifically to one of McIntyre's readers being responsible for the hack, but the lack of reliable sourcing so far makes it difficult to go into much detail in this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, one result of all of this I expect is that we'll sooon have a separate article on Climate Audit since that blog and its participants have had such an impact on the global warming debate. Cla68 (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that CA was a one-man band, in which case I doubt it would be seen as independently notable from its proprietor. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as this article is concerned, from what I've read, McIntyre was not the only CA regular who was having trouble obtaining FOIA data from the CRU. Again, we need reliable sources for it. I've already checked NewsStand and Infotrac and found what I felt were plenty of reliable sources for Climate Audit. I just haven't gotten around to starting the article yet. Cla68 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What does it mean when Anthony Watts says he was in Europe during the CRU incident? I understand that he travels a lot speaking to climate skeptic groups. Does anyone know where in Europe he was visiting at the time? Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Since today is D-Day

Actually, I just happened to be doing some work on this subject when I discovered that today is an important day, and I have updated myself (somewhat) on the two preceding reports. First, I would suggest that the Select Committee's report ought to have an article of its own. Perhaps the Muir Russell report being published will accentuate this need. Also, as I read the Guardian article which currently references 6 items in our article, I understood that the Select Committee's report came with a considerable caveat lector being that "MPs admitted that their enquiry into the emails was limited in its scope as only a single evidence session was held and the committee's deliberations had to be rushed through ahead of the general election." Skeptics have also latched onto this weakness. Should our article not mention the cursory manner in which the parliamentary committee conducted its investigation? I cannot see any allusion to this at present. __meco (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's out now - [39]. Nothing too unexpected, pretty much in line with the other reviews. StuartH (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update [40]. Looks fair eough so far. After this has settled I'd say the whole article ought to be up for whatever re-org is needed to move this from a current controversy to a past-tense kerfuffle William M. Connolley (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's being treated by the American media as a full vindication[41]. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism by skeptics

This article is totally lacking in any kind of neutrality. Reporting one side of an ongoing debate is not NPOV. I suggest asking at ClimateAudit for some help, if you genuinely can't see that there are serious problems with these reports. The Commons Select Committee member largely responsible for structuring the inquiries has complained about the 'sleight of hand' involved in the way they've been carried out - see the BBC iPlayer for Today. Whether or not there has been a whitewash, there is certainly a debate over it. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Dave

I've just taken out the recently-added "whitewash" stuff. If we need to cover that it should be in a properly balanced way William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The criticism needs to be mentioned, but not as a separate section with "whitewash" in the header. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And definitely not as a straight copyvio from the Times article, which the original addition was.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

After nearly half a dozen serious investigations by competent bodies have unanimously found that the allegations of dishonesty and manipulation are unsustainable, we'd need an exceptionally competent body, indeed one that was beyond reproach, to be used as a source for any claim to the contrary. The usual contrarians may grumble, but those chaps are very far from the mainstream. They've had their fun, and now the facts have been established by some of the most reliable sources we could ask for.

Criticism by the likes of Lindzen, Storch, Zorita, even Judith Curry, should however be taken seriously where it is based in climate science or scientific ethics. What I'm arguing against is simply application of undue weight to the understandably disappointed parties who raised or promoted the allegations of dishonesty. Most of those claims were obviously unlikely to prevail from the start, though it's always a good idea to investigate the facts in such cases, as was done here by five distinct bodies. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the unfortunate thing about conspiracy theorists. There's no such thing as vindication, only a wider conspiracy. StuartH (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please Tony and Stuart, no editorializing, just make suggestions on how to summarize the new report into the article. Cla68 (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoever did the summary paragraph forgot to mention the negative findings that the panel made, which I added. I think it now completely summarizes the report. Cla68 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The complaint made in the petition that initially asked for these inquiries was that the researchers acted in a partisan way. As far as I remember there was no allegation of lies or manipulation of data, only that researchers who were known to be partisan could allow this partisanship to affect their judgement when deciding the best way to handle data. The best that can be said is that the report cleared them of accusations that were not being generally made and failed to investigate or clear them of the accusations that were being made. This is just like the WMD inquiries ... Blair was always "proved" innocent by each and every inquiry, but the vast majority of the public still held the view that Blair like Jones had not been cleared. 85.211.162.77 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey all. I didn't realize this till halfway into my attempt to edit the NY times article info into the main page, but it's already included in the last section on the page, including the negative findings. Best,--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Weighting Independent Climate Change Email Review

I note with dismay that the Independent Climate Change Email Review appears to include editors from both sides choosing what parts are notable. Reviewing the reliable secondary sources on the matter, we have [42]. I have reweighted this section to match the weight provided by the NYT. Hipocrite (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, this is what you've done. While we look it over it'd be great if you could retract your accusation of WP:OR, which displayed confusion over the content of that policy and violated WP:AGF.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You take everything so personally. You'll note that I removed cherry picked quotes from both sides. Hipocrite (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It felt personal. You reverted an edit I had just made per WP:OR(?), where the edit was explicitly cited by the NY times article you link to in this section.

I think it's best practice to admit that one has made an edit due to the belief that the edit was an improvement, rather than hide behind policy that probably doesn't have something to say about it. The latter can throw people off.

In any case, while I don't see your edits as improving weight (it's still about half "they think the CRU are awesome" and half "they think the CRU fucked up" and mostly paraphrased the previous), I think they're alright. I vote keep unless anyone else has any objections.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I do think "commissioned by the University of East Anglia" should replace "announced in December 2009," but let's see if other editors have an opinion on that.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd note that my reversion of your edit was due only to an edit conflict. But, please, take it personally. Hipocrite (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(ps) I was about to revert back in your edit but couldn't find in the NYT article where it mentions it was comissioned by the UEA. Could you point that out? Found it.Hipocrite (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh cool! Thanks for adding that! :)--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Hipocrite's most recent edit is a step in the right direction. The OR claims are without merit, and vindicating findings of the review have been excised for little to no reason. As time progresses, we should be including third-party sources, but picking one third-party source and claiming it's the benchmark for due weight isn't the right way to go, particularly if inconvenient findings in the article are removed anyway.

(ec)If the removal was accidental due to an edit conflict, the material should be added back in. StuartH (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there another source I'm missing? If there is another weighting we can use to evaluate, as opposed to editors digging into the primary sourced report to find quotes they like, let's use that. Hipocrite (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The "rigour and honesty" quote was in the NYT article, and there are refs which are already used which address the other concerns (e.g. both the peer review and available data statements are found in [43]). I understand that we should be using third-party sources rather than the report itself, and that there's no rush to include things as if wikipedia were a news outlet, but both the report itself and most news sources lean much more heavily towards vindication and we should reflect that. StuartH (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

After reading the report, I seriously doubt that too many secondary sources will use words like "vindication" to describe its findings. Phrases like, "mostly cleared" are more likely. Cla68 (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The just-published Independent leading article for today: "Climate change science is vindicated" [44]. I hope you didn't put money on that prediction! -- ChrisO (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it says "Climate change science is vindicated". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, you may not remember this now but Lord Oxburgh has already declared them "squeaky clean", so it's not as if we needed an extra reason to describe this comprehensive vindication by five separate investigative panels for what it is. Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Today's report did not find them "sqeaky clean." As far as this article is concerned, we just report what the report says and then report any further fallout from this incident, which I believe there will be for some time to come. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"which I believe there will be" Boys and girls, can you say WP:CRYSTAL? I knew you could.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there will be plenty more fallout, just not fallout the "skeptics" will be comfortable with. But back to the article... StuartH (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Stuart, you appear to be taking this a little personally. Remember, Wikipedia doesn't take sides. Here's some aftermath I think we should watch:

• Whether Penn State takes any further action on the remaining ethics concern on Mann which the first inquiry tabled.
• The results (if any) from the police investigation into the theft of the emails and documents.
• What organizational and procedural changes East Anglia makes, if any, in addition to changing Jones' job duties. I imagine they will add additional oversight and auditing procedures to their FOIA response process, but that's just speculation on my part.
• Future reports on if the Climate Audit crew or anyone else has any further problems with their requests to the CRU or Mann for the data from their research so their results can be replicated.
• What effect this has, if any, on the peer review and drafting process for the IPCC's next four-year report.
• Whether the CRU follows the Royal Statistical organization's advice and uses some of their grant money to hire a full-time statistician for their research team.

That's all I can think of right now. Cla68 (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A few days ago, Penn State released a second report which said that "... there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann ..." [45] This is already in the article. Cardamon (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Check that one off. Cla68 (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, you can also cross off the question of whether the Climate Audit people will have problems replicating the CRU data. The recently released report found that any competent person should have no problem producing such a replication--they themselves commissioned such a replication and it was done entirely from public sources within two days with no help from the CRU. See Section 6.4. Whatever the Climate Audit people were doing, it wasn't an honest attempt by competent individuals to replicate the temperature data. Whatever problems they may have in replication has absolutely nothing to do with the CRU.

You can also write off any direct effect on the drafting process (though obviously the IPCC has continued to make incremental improvements and the AR5 process will be better than the AR4 process, which was better than TAR, and so on). The Muir Russell report found that the CRU did not adversely influence the content of AR4 (not at all surprising).

But I would like to add the following:

• Whether the ICO will give guidance, as recommended in Paragraph 34, Section 6.10, on how to handle the repetition of orchestrated campaigns of FOIA requests that have the capacity to overwhelm the resources of small research departments.

In my opinion this would be as important as the anticipated move by UAE to respond to the stinging criticism of its compliance with the relevant legislation (FOIA and other acts). --TS 22:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

--TS 22:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones

The current version of the article incorrectly states that Phil Jones has resumed his former post. As I understand it Jones has been appointed to a newly created post of Director of Research, leaving him free to run the scientific work while allowing the University to fulfil its administrative responsibilities without overburdening the academics. Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How's this [46]? Comments/objections? StuartH (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to speculate that the university would probaby make some organizational changes in order to be able to show the UK and US government agencies who control the grant money that they had taken steps to resolve the issues highlighted in today's report. It looks like this may be one of them. Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the US government controls a significant amount of the UEA's grant money... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I've read. I read that it was the US Department of Energy which funded CRU's development of the code used for its research. Isn't that one of the reasons why so many of the Climategate emails cc scientists working for the DOE? Cla68 (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't sound likely. Perhaps you ought to find out before adding any more speculation? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The FOIA file contains an excel file of grants Phil Jones had received between 1990 and 2006. Total £2730742 of which £937032 (34%) was from the US Department of Energy.91.153.115.15 (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The UAE has a staff of about 3000 people. Assuming a conservative UKP 100000 per employee per year, their yearly budget should be somewhere around UKP 300 million. 30% soft money gives 100 million per year, give or take an order of magnitude. So we talk about less than 0.1% of the grant money. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The CRU (Climatic Research Unit) is a part of the UEA (University of East Anglia). Phil Jones is a person working for the CRU. 34% of grants to him (a person) is a lot. But as you correctly point out this is nothing compared to the UEA total budget.91.153.115.15 (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2010(UTC)

CORRECTION: I missed a few grants. It's 43% of all his grants (£1 168 587)91.153.115.15 (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's some sketchy documentation:

• From a US Senate committee (Yes, Inhofe, but I must assume it's reliable, being under the aegis of the US govt.--I'm hoping that no-one there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25 years.Phil Jones, CRU)
• From the CRU itself: Since its inception in 1972 until 1994, the only scientist who had a guaranteed salary from ENV/UEA funding was the Director. Every other research scientist relied on 'soft money' - grants and contracts - to continue his or her work. Since 1994, the situation has improved and now three of the senior staff are fully funded by ENV/UEA and two others have part of their salaries paid. The fact that CRU has and has had a number of long-standing research staff is testimony to the quality and relevance of our work. Such longevity in a research centre, dependent principally on soft money, in the UK university system is probably unprecedented. The number of CRU research staff as of the end of July 2007 is 15 (including those fully funded by ENV/UEA). At the bottom of the page is a long, alphabetized list of donors, including BP and Shell, the Sultanate of Oman, the United States Department of Energy, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
• Also from the CRU is this list of recent grants, which includes £99,785 from the US DOE. It's impossible to ascertain from this list what other US funds may have been indirectly given by means of donations or grants to a larger fund. (I don't see, for example, anything from the EPA, although the CRU acknowledges their funding.)
• The previous page from the CRU claimed 15 staff members in 2007. This apparently more recent page claims 30. It's misleading to count the 3000 UAE staff, since we are dealing only with the CRU. The Unit undertakes both pure and applied research, sponsored almost entirely by external contracts and grant from academic funding councils, government departments, intergovernmental agencies, charitable foundations, non-governmental organisations, commerce and industry.
• It would be helpful if the IP editor would provide a link to a reliable source. --Yopienso (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The file is: "FOIA/documents/pdj_grant_since1990" in the leaked FOIA.zip ... and yes this is original research but I just wanted to deflect obvious bullshit.91.153.115.15 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

{Outdent}This link may be easier to access. I'm reading it slightly differently. I see 8 grants from the US Dept. of Energy totaling over a million pounds received by Jones and/or Wigley from 1995-2001 and in 2004. As I said above, I don't see the grants given by the US EPA or by many others on the list of acknowledged donors. Please don't construe this as criticism of Jones or the CRU; this is how projects are funded. I do object to denial of the facts, though.--Yopienso (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks IP and Yopienso, I think you've settled the argument here. The CRU receives significant funding from the US government. Cla68 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Significant compared to what? £1m over seven years is a pretty small amount - only about £140k per year. What percentage is that of CRU's total funding? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jones has received £13.7 million in grant money since 1990 (according to that spreadsheet), so it's about 8-10%. NW (Talk) 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And like I said before, a good number of the emails contain correspondence between DOE scientists and the CRU-associated personnel. In my opinion, East Anglia is probably assuring the DOE, as well as the others they receive funding from, that they have taken steps to rectify the FOIA issues. If any of this is ever mentioned in a RS, which I believe it will be once more books start coming out about it in a few months time, we can put it in the article. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Has this stuff been discussed in reliable secondary sources? If not, what do we know about its significance? This worries me a bit because it seems to follow directly from a statement in which Cla68 openly stated that he was engaging in speculation. --TS 22:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

BY the way, Cla68, I hope you're not referring above, when you refer to "books", to books by cranks and whatnot. We've had enough of that nonsense on other articles. --TS 22:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Information Commissioner decision

This was done again - here Rumping interprets a primary source. This is not how article are written - we don't select which parts of a primary source should be included - instead, we rely on secondary sources to evaluate primary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This was deleted from the article[47]. I think it is a continuation of events described in the previous paragraph. If it is an inaccurate summary of what was said, perhaps someone else might look at rewriting it. --Rumping (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In a decision published on 7 July 2010 on various requests from David Holland to UEA about CRU correspondence with the IPCC, the Information Commissioner ruled that UEA had in some cases failed to respond within the prescribed timetable set out by the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), in breach of regulation 14(2), and in other cases had failed to respond at all, in breach of regulation 5(2). He was also concerned that the requests in this case were not considered under the EIR despite the clear provisions of regulation 2(1), and that although the emails on the internet indicated prime facie evidence of an offence under regulation 19 of the EIR, the Commissioner was unable to investigate because six months had passed since the potential offence had been committed. It was of considerable concern to the Commissioner that the emails suggested that some requests for information were considered an imposition, that attempts to circumvent the legislation were considered and that the ethos of openness and transparency the legislation seeks to promote were not universally accepted. Information Commissioner's decision on one of the climate data FoI requests, FER0238017, republished by the Guardian

Is there a reliable secondary source that discusses this primary source? Hipocrite (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that British newspapers are not a secondary source? The Guardian reported and quoted a primary source with the comment "The retired engineer and climate sceptic David Holland had made repeated freedom of information requests for climate data of the University of East Anglia and its Climatic Research Unit. He complained to the Information Commissioner's Office about the way the requests were handled – here is the ICO's response". Should we remove all UEA quotations from this article? --Rumping (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that there's no discussion of this primary source in reliable secondary sources. We include the UEA responses because they are central to the issue - this is not. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what's wrong with the passage in question. It may be a bit verbose, but apart from that, what's the problem? The Guardian is an RS. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian didn't write that text - the guardian merely linking to "Scribd" which is not a reliable source. Even if the Guardian hosted the document, it would not be the Guardian's document, it would be a primary source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Then a secondary source, which is preferable, should be substituted. With all the media coverage, I can't see how that can be a problem. In the Times story today it says "Echoing the findings of an earlier report by a parliamentary committee in London, the reviewers criticized the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit for consistently 'failing to display the proper degree of openness' in responding to demands for backup data and other information under Britain’s public-record laws." Isn't that what we're basically talking about here? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. We're discussing the ICO here. If a secondary source adresses this issue, it should be included - I agree. My concern is only about editors evaluating primary sources on their own, as opposed to relying on secondary sources. Please find a secondary source that adresses this information - like I asked the first time I removed it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. I agree with you in general on secondary sources being preferable. But until one is found, I'm not clear that there is a major problem here, or that it should be removed in toto. My concern about the passage is that it might be too long, considering that it appears to be collateral with all the other references to FOI violations. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying this may not be the ICO decision? The Guardian, as a secondary source, says it is and embeds it in their page. Where is the evaluation in the paragraph in italics? It is intended to be a summary. --Rumping (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a misunderstanding on my part. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a summary by you - it is your personal interpretation of a primary source. This is not how we write articles. Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to consider any alternative summary you may wish to suggest which conveys what the Information Commissioner decided.--Rumping (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section to match exactly what the summary paragraph stated. I still feel that we should have waited for a reliable secondary source before writing anything. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

and Rumping has immediately reinserted his personal research that "together with attempts to circumvent the legislation and prime facie evidence of an offence of deleting information" is relevent. I suggest that your insertion of parts of the report that you think are interesting is problematic - stick to the summary. Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Paragraphs 46, 50 and 51 are all clearly relevant to the controversy. I think 49 is too, but I won't press the point at this stage. --Rumping (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be your original research. Please stick to the summary as provided. Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite has a good point, that in summarising this document we shouldn't go beyond the summary provided by the ICO. In view of the BLP issues with the untested allegations, I've rewritten the clause accordingly. While it's noticeable that the case is about requests by Holland for correspondence, that's not in the summary so I've replaced it with a closer paraphrase. Given the campaigning and misrepresentation by the press of earlier ICO statements, care should be taken to find a balanced and reliable third party source to go beyond this summary. . dave souza, talk 17:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reworked it further. I think it's worth reminding people of the rules for using primary sources (at WP:PRIMARY). Primary sources have to be reliably published. This criterion is met; although it's hosted on Scribd, it was uploaded by Adam Vaughan, the deputy editor of the Guardian's environmental section, and presented on the Guardian's official website. He has also provided a short summary.[48]

Second, and this is for Rumping, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge ... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." Rumping's addition of personal interpretation is clearly not allowed. I've added a quotation directly from the source and made the text match exactly what the UEA was found to have done wrong. There will no doubt be further secondary sources commenting on this in due course. Until then, we should refrain from adding anything that seeks to interpret the ICO's decision, as opposed to simply citing what is in there. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Stylistically, I thought it better to quote the acronym used by the IC within the quotes, putting the explanatory expansion outside the quote marks. If anyone takes issue with this, you're welcome to undo my change without that specific undo counting in terms of 1RR. . dave souza, talk 18:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is definitely better. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I give up. My secondary source reference has become a primary source reference. The acronym has gone wrong. I am no longer convinced everyone has actually read the ICO document. Since people keep accusing me of putting my personal interpretation on this rather that being decriptive, though without saying where the interpretation is, I will simply show what the ICO actually said at the end of its document here and let other editors consider the issue, comparing what follows with the paragraph at the top of this thread.--Rumping (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

46. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not deal with some of the requests in accordance with the requirements of the EIR in the following respects: it failed to provide a refusal within 20 working days in respect of the request of 31 March 2008 and therefore breached regulation 14(2); and it failed to provide responses in respect of the requests of 27 June and 31 July 2008 and therefore breached regulation 5(2).

47. As the complainant has indicated that he is content not to proceed with his complaint in relation the public authority’s failure to provide him with the information he had requested on 27 June and 31 July 2008, the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken with regard to these requests.

48. Although they do not form part of this Decision Notice the Commissioner wishes to highlight the following matters of concern:

49. The Commissioner notes the delays in compliance on this particular case. It is also of concern that the requests in this case were not considered under the EIR when the subject matter quite clearer falls within the definition contained in regulation 2(1).

50 The wider circumstances of this case, in particular the placement of a substantial number of emails allegedly from CRU onto the internet, has attracted considerable attention (November 2009). The emails suggested that some requests for information were considered an imposition, that attempts to circumvent the legislation were considered and that the ethos of openness and transparency the legislation seeks to promote were not universally accepted. This is of considerable concern to the Commissioner and in keeping with his duty to promote observance of the legislation he will now consider whether further action is appropriate to secure future compliance.

51. The complainant made an allegation that an offence under regulation 19 of the EIR had been committed. Although the emails referred to above indicated prime facie evidence of an offence, the Commissioner was unable to investigate because six months had passed since the potential offence was committed, a constraint placed on the legislation by the Magistrates Court Act 1980.