Jump to content

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 00:04, 29 August 2010 (→‎NPOV dispute: hacker or whistleblower: - talking at cross purposes?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation

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


RfC: Rename article?

It is proposed that the "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" be renamed "Climategate". Is this proposed rename supported or contradicted by Wikipedia policies and guidelines? What are the risks and benefits of such a rename? mark nutley (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC has been moved to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/RFC Climategate rename policy query. It is still ongoing, so please join the discussion there. --TS 00:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC) TS oh bother please tell us all what it is like in the future year 2020? Much Thanks, from BlondeIgnoreBlondeignore (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independent review

What sort of independent review was actually initiated? I was contacted on my user talk page, where it was suggested that I take it upon myself to undo a link to Independent review, an article which I started. (There's a consensus that it should be merged to Peer review, which I agree with, but I don't agree with simply reducing it to a redirect without or before a merge.)

I gathered that the general purpose of independent review is to act as a check against bias such as that which comes about as a result of financial pressure or ideological bias. We all know about the tobacco industry's "research" purportedly proving that there was no link between tobacco smoking and cancer. It is now an article of faith that money can influence scientific findings. A paper in the British Medical Journal confirms this.

If the purpose of the UK independent reviews was different, then we can either remove the link or - better yet - add to the Independent review article an explanation of the sort of independent review that is relevant to the CRU incident. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight for retired professor's opinions

Our "Media reception" section presently concludes with 6+ lines of retired professor Rodney Tiffen's opinions. Tiffen is a retired political scientist of no particular renown; his wikibio consists of 3 lines. This seems grossly WP:UNDUE. Propose striking his remarks, which don't seem to add anything substantial to the article. The bit about the political impact of Climategate in Oz should be retained, but is out of place here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pruned Tiffen's remarks, and moved the Australian political impact to a separate subsection. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeb apology

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/johnhumphrys William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about "deleted raw data?"

This allegation was mentioned in the intro, but never followed up on in the article... 74.64.88.203 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climatologists

@WMC--I don't follow your logic. If we don't "need the bit" identifying Pat Michaels as a climatologist working at the Cato Institute, why do we need the bits about Hansen being a climatologist, and about Curry being one at GIT? I'm suggesting, for consistency's sake, they all have their "bit," or none be identified, letting the reader click on the hyperlinked name to find out more. My instinct is to revert your deletion. --Yopienso (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michaels' position at Cato is not as a climatologist; he conducts no scientific work there. It is inappropriate to lump him together with practicing scientists. If you want to say "a scholar at Cato who formerly was involved in climatological research" or similar that would be fine. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He`s a climatologist. To remove that fact is just the usual POV pointy behaviour from the usual suspects. I`ll put it back tomorrow mark nutley (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of starting a series of reversions back and forth, can you all please come to an agreement on the talk page first? NW (Talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Y: the section is titled "climatologists". Everyone there is a climatologist by default. You are correct re Hansen (and Curry, who you missed): we don't need it for him either. I've removed it. In general, we should use the minimum of description and rely on people following the link if we care exactly who these people are and how qualified. Puffing people up with descriptions risks peacockery. @Boris: agree re Cato, but Cato wasn't his only affiliation. @MN: usual knee-jerk stuff. Pause to think first. @NW: good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with WMC. I removed the descriptor from Reay and von Storch also (apparently missed by all). The fact that they are in the section identifies them as climatologists. GregJackP Boomer! 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Wikipedia wins again! Thanks to each for the collegial atmosphere here and the intelligent edits. Ciao! --Yopienso (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Source

The first of what I predict will be a series of books on this topic since the first investigations have closed has been published- The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming by Fred Pearce was published on July 27. The book appears to expand on the 12-article series he wrote for The Guardian. I've read most of the articles in that series, and it seemed to me that Pearce took a relatively neutral view on the topic. If anyone wants to use this book to expand the information in this article, it appears to be a reliable source. I may get a copy myself because it appears to have information that would be helpful for expanding several different articles. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Experience shows one should be wary of anything with "truth" in the title, but I might take a look at it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title is obviously somewhat sensationalized. I thought his series of articles was well-written. I hope the book does expand on them with all the additional information I'm sure he gathered but was unable to print in the newspaper due to space limitations. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just ordered it (along with Kraftwerk's new complete box set). Hopefully I'll be reading the book while listening to the tunes soon. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kraftwerk? Ah, good, there may be hope for you yet... you should check out Faust (band) if you like Kraftwerk Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the source calls the controversy Climategate....

When the source calls the controversy Climategate, we should ordinarily follow suit, I believe. I raise the point because editor ChrisO recently replaced "Climategate" with "the affair" diff in our "Media reception" bit re a NY Times editorial that opens "Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us..." [6], and did the same thing diff to an Atlantic essay entitled "Climategate and the Big Green Lie." [7]

I don't see any valid reasons for these edits, and propose to return to the term that the source actually used. I don't think this would be controversial, were the "C-word" not involved. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. That is what the source said, and that is what we should use. GregJackP Boomer! 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Pete Tillman - Are you refering to a specific section of the article? Could you call out what sentences you are focusing on?
As a general rule, I'd note that if some event/contraversy is given several names by various reliable sources, it seems a little silly to jump back and forth between the different names within the WP article about that event/contraversy. On the other hand, I do always think one should stick as closely to the RS as possible. NickCT (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It's our Media reception section 4.4. The NYT leads this section with
A New York Times editorial, after the July 2010 reports, called the affair a "manufactured controversy," ...
Para. 3 of same section opens,
Senior editor Clive Crook at The Atlantic wrote that, judging by the various inquiries carried out into the affair, ...
In both cases, the original sources refer to "the affair" as Climategate, see links above. Diffs. I thought of your concern, looked before my first posting, and the original flows better, imo. Less confusing, too, as "the affair" has, um, other connotations ;-} Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the source calls it Climategate, then it's probably ok to use the word "Climategate" in the text describing what the source said. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

In light of the tags restriction [8]: why is there still a POV tag on this article? It appears that the (articulated, as opposed to WP:IDONTLIKEIT) concerns have been addressed.

I propose removing the tag. It makes the encyclopedia appear foolish and causes one to doubt the content of what appears to be a fair article written in accord with WP's content policies (especially WP:DUE). Bkalafut (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The restriction refers to the addition or removal of such a tag, so it looks like we're stuck with it for now. I don't think that it should be there either, as there appears to be no realistic possibility of achieving a version of this article that somebody doesn't think is POV, which is not the purpose of such a tag, to quote part of Template:POV, "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. " Mikenorton (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the restriction only requires consensus. So I'm fishing for an articulable explanation for not removing the tag.128.196.189.36 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if consensus can be gathered to remove it, feel free to do so. NW (Talk) 23:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These were the concerns:
      1. Title should be "Climategate" because that is the term most often used in the media- This may be true, but the majority opinions in the most recent RfCs on the issue (above) rejected that title. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
      2. Insufficient use of the word "Climategate".
      3. Insufficient use of the word "scandal". [Please see list and comment immediately below. POV Concern: Insufficient use of "Climategate" and "scandal" --Yopienso (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)] [Update: see Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 36#POV Concern: Insufficient use of "Climategate" and "scandal"--Nigelj (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)][reply]
      4. Undue weight being given to the University of East Anglia's position.
      5. Insufficient coverage of the initial allegations and undue weight on the scientists being cleared.
      6. Insufficient coverage of allegations that the investigations weren't truly independent.
      7. Over-use of POV terms like "deniers" and "sceptics." I'm striking "deniers" because neither it nor "denier" is used at all, according to my page search tool. --Yopienso (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
      8. Over-use of primary sources.
      9. Insufficient weight given to the opinion that the emails may have been stolen by an insider, not hacked from the outside.
      10. The lede falsely portays all critics as climate change sceptics. In reality, Judith Curry, George Monbiot and many others were critical.
      11. Cherry-picking excerpts from sources (especially primary sources) to present an unbalanced view of the sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      12. Undue weight to death threats in the lede. (This was fixed before, but it looks like someone added it back in.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#1 is not a content dispute. The title is not content. The POV tag reflects on the article, not its "handle" on the site. #2 is not a content dispute. We could decide to call the incident "Shirley" with the instruction that to readers who call what happened "Climategate" "Shirley"="Climategate" and to readers who call it an "email controversy" or "manufactured pseudoscandal" "Shirley"="Email controversy". The information contained in the article remains the same. But more seriously, a mention that the term "Climategate" has become common but not universal slang for the incident should be enough. #9 was perhaps a valid concern last December but has since been made obsolete. Bkalafut (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not all the concerns have been addressed. I'm just not a big fan of tags. I'm probably not the best one to weigh in on this one. Minor4th 04:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor4th: Aside from our own internal use to improve the articles, POV tags serve as important warnings to our readers that this is a difficult article for us, and that they should take everything they read with a piece of salt. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I just took care of #10, and I don't think there is anything to do for #1. So why don't we start addressing points 2-9 and 11 one by one and trying to resolve them? Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, if the POV tag going has to wait for #1, it can wait for ever. But neither is it acceptable to stuff in lots of "cliamtegate"s just to make "skeptics" happy William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC, please see the discussion When the source calls the controversy Climategate...., above, and comment there. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gosh. POV tags are a poor substitute for dealing with content disputes. If we allow everyone who disagrees with things to place POV tags, then all articles on difficult subject will be indefinitely tagged. Personally, I think "climategate" is a fine term and I wouldn't be afraid of it whichever side I am on... but that discussion was had a long time ago. Actually, all of these are old discussions. Ideally there would be a different tag to note, as AQFN says, that this is a difficult article, not that a particular editor has a problem with the content. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#8 is going to be the one that "sticks" but only because this is recent history and secondary sources are few. It should be possible to move forward (and remove the Badge of Shame) before it's possible to fully switch to secondary sources--and whether or not a "history" article is POV shouldn't depend on the recency of its subject. We seem to be left with 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and maybe 11. I came to this as a "dis-interested" editor but would be willing to have a go at 6. Bkalafut (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it :) Cla68 (talk)

Hacking, cracking, or inside job

Who has called the incident a "breach" or referred to the data as "stolen"? The Norfolk police referred to an "alleged breach", and a Washington Post writer called the data stolen: "Hackers broke into the electronic files."

But is this a case of a reporter giving her own opinion - out of thin air? Or was she summarizing information she got from someone else? (If it's the latter, I'd like to see that source.)

All I've seen from the University of East Anglia is, "This information has been obtained and published without our permission ..."

Now I'm not calling it an inside job. In fact I doubt it, personally, but WP:OR says my opinion doesn't matter; I'm just a contributor, not a source. But I'm wondering who our source is.

Is our source a Washington Post writer? Or does she have a source we can quote directly? That's all. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute: hacker or whistleblower

There are only two ways to write this article, in regards to the question of hacker or whistleblower:

  1. Ignore the issue, on various grounds
  2. State that there is a public dispute about whether the data was "hacked" or "leaked by a whistleblower"

I'm not going to read the entire archive, but here's a typical (and erroneous) comment:

  • Reliable sources say "stolen", "theft" and "hack". None say "allegedly". Case closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the sanctity of WP:NPOV, there is indeed a reliable source that says "allegedly" - or "alleged breack" to be precise. It is the Norfolk police, and the news report containing this information is already ref'd in the article.

Here is my reasoning: if someone can credibly say that none say "allegedly" even when a reliable source already used in the article says "allegedly", then there is a serious violation of NPOV.

What is wrong with saying that sources disagree on whether there was a "breach" or that the information was "leaked" from inside? Specifically, how could it possibly hurt the neutrality of the article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why two sections to say the same thing? And why oh why oh why quote Monckton in the article? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They never figured out who did it or why, right? So any characterization in this regard is just speculation. All we know is that it's an unauthorized release of computer documents, and that it probably involved unauthorized access to the computer. We also know that there was some kind of investigation and a lot of people involved in the incident said a lot of things, all of which isn't terribly conclusive. So whoever did it is a... wait for it .... unauthorized releaser of documents! Beyond that, the facts of what happened aren't in question, the question is what to call it. So that's a POV issue, and best to be neutral in description even if the act itself was not a neutral act. I hope that makes sense. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is overstated. What we know for certain is that the university has stated that the material was stolen from one of its servers by a hacker. And guess what, we report this in the article: "According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server hacking." We're not endorsing that statement, we're reporting it. There is no dispute that the material was stolen (whatever method was used, it was stolen); the only dispute is whether it was stolen by a hacker (which the vast majority of sources have reported) or by a whistleblower (which a few opinion writers have speculated, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the present status of the article on this issue seems appropriate, Chris's argument is fatuous, at best. No one (other than the person or persons who actually leaked the data) has indicated that he/she/they have any evidence to make informed speculation as to whether it was a hack or leak. As for "stolen", to the extent that material should have been released under FOIA requests, it wasn't stolen. It's not clear (at least from what was stated in the article) whether the material the ICO found should have been released is related to the material that was leaked.
If the university concludes that it was hacked, that's fair to say. A whistle-blower implies, among other things, that the person doing so was an insider who was permitted to access the information, and released it against the organization's wishes to inform the public of a misdeed they felt the organization was not going to disclose. Several of those elements are speculative. "Stolen" is a loaded term that doesn't apply too well to data, and controversial to apply it to unauthorized disclosures. It adds a judgment about what happened without actually saying anything about what happened. Again, what happened was an unauthorized disclosure of data that was apparently hacked (or less likely, leaked). - Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The university is the owner of the data. It has said unequivocally that the data was stolen. As the owner of the data, it is the party whose property rights have been violated. The dispute, such as it is, is over the method of the theft, not whether the theft took place in the first instance. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum before - see FAQ #5 above. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Alleged" is fine. But that does not allow us to fill in the blank with anything. We cannot say "it is possible that the angel Moroni presented the e-mails on gold tablets to Morano" and we cannot anymore make claims about whistleblowers. There are zero "informed" sources alleging that there was a whistleblower. That is something that someone made up without making a case. Whimsy. I want to point to WP:NOR but WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE are what applies. A conjecture that someone puts out at best wildly and with no evidence and at worst libelously is not a RS. That it became a popular meme among a peculiar subculture doesn't make it an RS. Perhaps there is a way to mention the meme in the article but it would have to be done carefully so as not to run afoul of WP:DUE. And I dare say that those who want to treat something without RS as coequal to the narrative currently being given by law enforcement are not here to build an encyclopedia but instead want to abuse this website to spread disinformation. Bkalafut (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When this incident first happened, I added a source in which a cyber security expert opined that in incidents like these, the data is almost always stolen by an insider. My addition was quickly removed. There are both opinions out there on what may have happened. You can say something in the lede and the first section like, "The University states that the documents and emails were hacked by an outsider, but there has also been speculation that it was done without authorization by an insider. Police are currently investigating the breach." That statement right there would resolve the concern because it doesn't take sides or favor one view over the other. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does, however, have the problem of false equivalence: the owner of the data (and the aggrieved party) being put on the same level as some obscure security expert with absolutely zero knowledge of the particulars of the incident. Plus there is the not insignificant fact that the security expert in question was, as I recall, a climate change denialist himself, passing on claims made on other denialist blogs. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 has the right approach if one wants to have a NPOV. To assume that the University is correct is to take a POV position. GregJackP Boomer! 00:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still assuming the truth of the University's claim. How do you know they didn't leak the info themselves, just like politicians do?

Since none of us Wikipedians knows what happened, it would be better to say quote whoever says it was stolen, hacked, leaked or "allegedly" breached.

Gosh, we might even try reviewing WP:NPOV and choose not to state as fact anything which disputed but rather "describe all viewpoints fairly".

And I'm still waiting for a reply to my question about the Norfolk Police as a source. Are they reliable enough for "alleged breach" or not? If not, why not? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I think you are arguing at cross purposes here. The article simply reports what the various parties have said, without giving undue weight to speculation by uninvolved parties. The Norfolk Police statement you mention, by the way, was a fairly old one if I remember rightly - more recent ones were unequivocal (dropping the word "alleged"). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need a cite - Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme

We need a cite for the last two sentences of the "Content of the documents" section. Obviously, I should put a {fact} tag for those two sentences, but the last time I pointed out that we had unsourced content in this article, I got viciously attacked for days, so I'll just post a message here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put a {cn} there. I get attacked on a regular basis, so I'll take the hit for the team... GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the confusion. The source is here. It was formerly cited in the article but for some reason it seems to have got lost along the way. I've restored it to clarify this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the same source covers everything in the paragraph after "According to an analysis by The Guardian..." - it is this analysis that is being cited. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a fuller, sourced version here, as well. --Nigelj (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I've no idea why someone removed that material, since it's obviously relevant. I've put it back in. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{EC} ChrisO: Are you sure it supports everything that precedes it? Maybe I missed it but I don't see any mention of the "hockey stick graph". BTW, please make sure you haven't violated the 1RR restriction on this article. It appears as if you might have already violated this restriction.[9][10] Perhaps you should self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
Actually, looking at it again, it doesn't seem to mention Mann at all. It mentions Briffa, not Mann, as one of the four. I'll take that bit out. Thanks for pointing that out. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was the edit by Heyitspeter where the citation disappeared. --Nigelj (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why he did that, since it's not in the previous section. I think he might have got mixed up with Schmidt's previous statement on the hack of RealClimate. This statement by Schmidt concerns the hack of the CRU (he was the one who alerted them to it). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the edit history for 30 March, it was one of a whole series of edits he made that day. Maybe when somebody makes a string of 20-30 edits on a single day on a 1RR article, with some controversial ones buried in the series, it might be better to revert the lot and work forwards again, to avoid 1RR problems. Actually I don't know if that would work, as re-inserting their stuff after double-checking it might count as reverts too. Maybe 1-revert articles need 1-contribution limits too? --Nigelj (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A string of uninterrupted edits or even reversions counts as a single edit for #RR purposes. NW (Talk) 01:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&oldid=381592552"