Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

Editing blitz of 18 August

Is everyone happy with the changes made mostly by one user from 17-19 August? My cursory examination didn't find anything that needs to be fixed, but these pages take so long to load on my computer I easily may have missed something. Did anyone else find an edit that damaged rather than improved the article? Proposed changes could be discussed here before revisions are made. The fact that basically everything is still standing indicates to me no one wants to fiddle with it. Yopienso (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a lot to trawl through. I think the Roger Harrabin quote should go back in (BBC correspondent is weighty enough, and it seems like a fair reflection - skeptics not happy, but there is no smoking gun). Also, that the police are no longer considering that the emails were leaked instead of stolen seems quite important.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you possibly supply diffs for those changes? Searching on the history page doesn't turn up "roger" or "harrabin" or "police." Yopienso (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I was working from a comparison of versions at the beginning and end of Gise's work, so I don't have diffs. Here are the texts with the refs shown:
The UEA has confirmed that all of the leaked material was in an archive on a single backup CRU server, available to be copied.(ref name="Climate emails") According to Nature, however, the police are no longer considering the possibility that the data was leaked, rather than stolen. Jones and others fear that the hackers may be sitting on other stolen emails.Adam, David (15 November 2010). "Climate: the Hottest Year". Nature. 468 (7322): 362–364. Bibcode:2010Natur.468..362A. doi:10.1038/468362a. Retrieved 19 November 2010. 
and the Roger Harrabin quote was part of a larger amount of text excised, which on the face of it seems pertinent too:
Senior editor Clive Crook at The Atlantic wrote that, judging by the various inquiries carried out into Climategate, "the climate-science establishment ... seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause." "Climategate and the Big Green Lie by Clive Crook, The Atlantic, July 14, 2010". Theatlantic.com. 14 July 2010. Retrieved 27 July 2010.  Roger Harrabin of the BBC said that the reviews examined behaviour but not science, thus not satisfying sceptics that their findings were definitive. He identified what he described as inconsistencies and said, "Critics suspect a whitewash to hide flaws in climate science, but my own lengthy investigations into the background to the inquiries have found no smoking gun.""Harrabin's Notes: Getting to the bottom of Climategate". BBC News. 5 July 2010. 
What do you think? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would edit the way Harrabin's view are represented a little (the "and said" is misleading) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. OK, to tell you the truth, I should take a break from this article. I do care about it, but I've just found this at Popular Mechanics, of all places, that is so clear and unbiased it makes me hopeless that a motley crew here can do half as well. Of course he was editorializing, not reporting.
Anyway, here are a few thoughts. I'm pretty sure I was the one who added Harribin, so I don't mind saying I think that in order to keep the article to a reasonable length, we don't need that detail at present. This:
Senior editor Clive Crook at The Atlantic wrote that, judging by the various inquiries carried out into Climategate, "the climate-science establishment ... seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause." Roger Harrabin of the BBC said that the reviews examined behaviour but not science, thus not satisfying sceptics that their findings were definitive. He identified what he described as inconsistencies and said, "Critics suspect a whitewash to hide flaws in climate science, but my own lengthy investigations into the background to the inquiries have found no smoking gun."
is not a proper introduction to the Inquiries and reports section, but this is:
Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. [82] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[83] However, the reports criticised climate scientists for their disorganised methods, bunker mentality and lack of transparency. Climate scientists and organisations pledged to restore public confidence in the research process by improving data management and opening up access to data.
We don't really have to quote more than a representative few. You'll see I added that in a year ago while the story was still developing. (The PopMech editorial is from Dec. '09.) In real life I'm a terrible pack rat, and at WP I don't like to leave things out, but the article should not treat the subject exhaustively. But I'm not strong on this--just offering my thoughts to take or leave.
I do agree the note about the police is important; the point has been contentious among some editors, and here we have verification that that was Nature's opinion a year after the event. Even though the same article notes Jones was afraid the hackers might be "sitting on more e-mails," that seems not to have been the case, and is no longer relevant, so no reason to restore that bit. Yopienso (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I would revert the article back to the state before blocked account Gise showed up, and then restore by hand any edits not by gise. Any conflicts should go to the latest edit. If we do not do this, we are letting a vandal get away with it.--Cerejota (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless it is established that he is someone's sockpuppet - and while it very obvious that he has no relationship to Yopienso it remains possible that he is someone else - his edits would have been made in good faith, Cerejota. I have been reviewing his contributions to this page and for the most part I feel they are a net improvement. If I find anything obviously wrong I'll fix it. How does that sound? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
My concern is that to undo any change done essentially means violating 1RR, because the changes were complex and of large volume.


And yes, Yopienso, my apologies, it appears you were not the sock - I was incorrect.--Cerejota (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I accept your apologies, Cerejota. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The CRU EMails are no longer considered a Controversy

After 6 investigations, most independent assessed found no wrong doing and the media too is no longer pretending otherwise, the so called controversy is resolved. Therefor the wikipedia entry should be renamed to Climate Research Unit Emails. Gise-354x (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No. There is attested public perception of a controversy, and the way the emails were obtained and distributed (including the timing) is also a controversy. In any case, mainstream criticisms were made of the way data was managed and data requests were handled, so it's not as if an entirely clean bill of health was given to CRU.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No, the spin was from the start that this might be the nail in the coffin for climate change theory. The handling of data came much later from investigative work. You might read the article again to get your facts straight. Gise-354x (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the controversy is resolved, but our article deals with the controversy, not just the e-mails. Muir Russell called it the "Climate Change E-mails," but he was reviewing the messages, not the flap (row, for the Brits). However, it was because of the flap that he was reviewing the messages. The potential criminal aspect of the case is not yet resolved. (What's up with the Norfolk police?) For these reasons, and because we have fairly recently been through a title review, I think we should leave the title alone.
Gise, whoever you are--apparently a vet--thanks for all your work. Yopienso (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, man :) Gise-354x (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Back in the real world, the climate change issue dead politically. Even the Greens have moved on to other issues. So this kind of chest-thumping sounds a bit hallow, to say the least. Even though the forests are burning up and the lowlands are flooding, no one gives a rat's behind? High time to celebrate the victory of the scientific consensus! Kauffner (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The "real world"? Hey Kauffner, I got two words for you: methane clathrate. Celebrate your sweet victory. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough, still i find the wording not optimum. Kaufner, it also has to do with perception of the issue and where you live. People might be suspicious but once you start explaining, they understand. Gise-354x (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Back in the real world, the Oz government is poised to pass a carbon tax, the Chinese have announced a cap to energy usage in a national low-carbon plan,[1] and the gov of Texas, in the running to be a presidential candidate, says that global warming is "all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight" but hasn't had his prayers for rain answered.[2] Hot news, and interesting times. . dave souza, talk 08:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Gise, there are all sorts of things that were controversial once that seem less controversial once all the facts come in. You might like to compare this situation of "Climategate" with our article Utegate. (As an aside and as an Australian I'll have to say I had never heard that affair called anything other than the "OzCar affair" until now but there you go - it's called Utegate in Wikipedia and apparently in some Australian tabloids.) But the fact of both controversies are now indelible facts of history. That the outcome may have been largely favourable to the scientists (or the Australian prime minister) doesn't erase from history the fact of the controversy. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense. History shows that this topic is one of many manufactured controversies that have used the deny and delay tactic to smear climate scientists and mislead the public. Those are the facts. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
A manufactured controversy is still a controversy. This is not an article about climate science, this is an article essentially about a political, media and academic event. The actual content of the emails is only a part of the topic. I would also ask people to mind their POV outbursts, as it doesn't help consensual editing. All that said, as per Yopienso's language (and the term is also BritE, so it passes ENGVAR), I would definitely support a move to Climatic Research Unit email flap. That would be splendid.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You're kidding about actually renaming the article "email flap" right? Alex Harvey (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Unfortunately, he's not kidding, but he's welcome to his opinion, however incredibly wrong it may be (and I think it is very wrong). This manufactured controversy isn't a controversy, as the "controversy" was fake and the media spouted nothing but fake outrage from fake experts making fake pronouncements about fake climate denialism. This manufactured controversy is just one of many fake controversies perpetrated by climate deniers. This is not a POV. This is a historical fact supported by a massive amount of sources. Further, this was a hacking and a theft, not a "flap". Facts are funny things. Deal with it. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Er... credulity check, people, I was kidding. Viriditas, I do like your idea of "fake climate denialism" - is that when someone puts up a big public show of shilling, but in actual fact they're acting on principle? If such people are involved here, it would contradict pretty much of the rest of what you wrote ;-) (See, I did a winking smiley there to show you I wasn't being serious - I hope this helps you.)

Anyway, I don't think there is anything wrong with the descriptive title we have now that uses the word "controversy". Some people here are confusing "controversy" with "scandal". See, for example Thiomersal controversy for a controversy which also has science on one side and media hype on the other. That's not an argument about othercrapexisting, it's an example where, once you step back from the keyboard and take a couple of calming breaths, you can see that the use of the word "controversy" refers to the media flap, not to the scientific truth. It's just that here, some people are getting far too jumpy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fake climate denialism isn't my idea. It is a real phenomenon. If you knew anything about the subject (sounds like you've read one book by Naomi Oreskes and that's about it) you would know that "Climategate" brought pundits and politicians out in spades to cater to their base regardless of their position on the matter. People like Newt Gingrich, who had previously supported action on climate change, took the opportunity to smear climate scientists to win political points. This is fake denialism, where public figures who are educated on the issue and have expressed concern and support for climate remediation, suddenly change their position when it is politically convenient. Pure posturing, fake denialism. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No, that would be genuine climate denialism. Perhaps you mean "fake climate skepticism"? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No, you obviously know nothing about American politics (you're not missing anything). Genuine climate denialism can be found in figures such as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Newt Gingrich is not a climate denier.[3][4] Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No, no - he means fake fake climate skepticism. Denialism = fake climate skepticism. You really are out of the loop aren't you. ;-o Alex Harvey (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Back on topic: what is controversial about this subject? Why is it a "controversy" and not a "hacking"? Where is the controversy? Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Well did you follow my link to Utegate above. If not, I encourage you to do so because I suspect that when you read about 'Utegate' that none of the blood is going to rush to your head and that might help to think about it clearly. Have a read of the lede of that article. Now imagine that I come along and say "MIGOD! Can't everyone see that was a MANUFACTURED CONTROVERSY!??" (and in this case it definitely was a manufactured controversy), would you support me to rename the article the Grech Email Forgery or would it better left as 'The OzCar Affair / Utegate'? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Alex, have you noticed that you have never answered a direct question? What is controversial about this topic? A 50 word response will do. Please do not point me to another article. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Viriditas, the "topic" is not the content of the emails, it is the event of the emails being stolen, distributed and then being discussed in public and its impact on public perceptions both of climate science and the movement to discredit AGW. It created a controversy at the time - or are you just shutting your ears and eyes to all the noise generated by the affair? The validity of the accusations in that sense isn't important. They would be more important if the article were called "climategate" or "....scandal", but controversy doesn't imply that something is, from an SPOV, in doubt. It implies that people argued. And they did. (Just as there was an MMR vaccine controversy that had no basis whatsoever in scientific research) Even that well known "fake climate denier" George Monbiot at one point called for Phil Jones to consider his position. By the way, thanks for insulting my knowledge of American politics.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Close, very close, but sadly, no cigar for you! Your comparison with the MMR vaccine controversy is brilliant, but you've completely missed out on where the center of the controversy is located, both there and here. It isn't the science as you claim above. For both topics, the controversy is focused solely on the media. Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever, just for a single moment, wondered why you have such difficulty getting anyone to agree with you on wikipedia? Just above, I stated that the controversy has nothing to do with genuine doubts from an SPOV - that is, it's nothing to do with the state of the science. You then claim I stated the precise opposite. Unless English isn't your first language (in which case being as combative as you are is pretty risky), what's going on here? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with you, but don't take it personally. That there was a media controversy is not in dispute. The "controversy" has never been about the theft, and frankly, it has never been treated as controversial. The MMR vaccine controversy was controversial because The Lancet erroneously published a controversial paper that was subsequently given uncritical media coverage, with journalists rightly claiming that it wasn't their job to do peer review. In this case, we have a similar situation, with the media repeating unfounded claims from climate skeptics. The difference is that in this instance, the media abrogated their responsibilities by failing to investigate claims that were not peer reviewed, and in this situation, the media had a responsibility to investigate the story. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
And so these six inquiries - they investigated a "media controversy" - is that right? Does it concern you that it was Phil Jones and the UEA vice chancellor who were dragged before parliament and not Rupert Murdoch? So how about we make this article about what should have happened; about the media inquiry that never happened. We could probably ask some pretty hard questions from this platform that it seems like no one else is asking. Is that pretty much what you believe this article should be about? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, you never answer a question, nor have you ever posed a legitimate, non-leading question. Let's try again: what is controversial about this subject? Why is it a "controversy" and not a "hacking"? Where is the controversy? You said above that the controversy led to the investigations. What do the current sources say about this controversy? Why was it controversial? Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The argument that the media made up a fake controversy is no longer valid, same goes for the accusations from the sceptic groups. So it is no longer a controversy However it has been a controversy. But for a new reader the headline implies it still is, so the impression is misleading. To better describe it i suggest we change the headline to Climatic Research Unit hacked Emails.Gise-354x (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Again with the fantasy chest thumping. You will proclaim victory until the earth is scorched and flooded? As far as the title goes, it should describe the actual content of the article, not provide an opinion concerning the underlying issues. Kauffner (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

@Viriditas, haha, okay. Well Vsevolod just answered your question and I seconded his answer. By seconding his answer, I gave you my answer. You then told Vsevolod, perhaps believing he is your pupil, "Close, very close, but sadly, no cigar for you!" Now you demand I answer the same question again - along with another rhetorical question - and for what purpose it's hard to tell. I stated a while ago that this article could do well to be more like the recent Mother Jones article. The "smear campaign" stuff in the blurb isn't supported by any evidence and shows the bias of Mother Jones, but if you ignore that, the article itself is okay. Fred Pearce's book is definitive. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear what your "answer" is. Please describe the controversy in your own words. It sounds like you are saying that this controversy is about global warming. In which case, I have now added the merge tag to global warming controversy. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas, you need some time out. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I fail to see how that is an answer to my question. Even though you've never been able to answer a direct question, I will still hold out hope. How would you characterize this "controversy" in your own words? Please be brief in your reply. I'm not interested in what other editors think or what other articles say. Just talk about your opinion, based on good sources about this topic. While you're doing that, I'll take a time out and when I return, I'll read your response. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The American Revolutionary War is no longer a war. If you think it would be silly to change the name of that historic event, why are we talking about this? Let the text set the record straight. Besides, people who have already formed an opinion won't care and won't be affected, and other readers who have not formed an opinion will arrive here wondering what the controversy is/was all about. Why not entice them in by keeping the current title, which matches the question on their mind? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, could you summarize the "controversy" for me in 50-100 words? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


I can:



99 words. Gimme a barnstar please.--Cerejota (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that summary of the controversy matches what I've written in the lead. Is it safe to say we have consensus on these points at this time? There has been ample opportunity for other editors to raise objections. Are there any objections to what Cerejota has written? Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Whoo - Whoo! Good job. Above, one of the commenters argued that a manufactured controversy is still a controversy. I disagree. Before I consider the thing a "controversy", I need to see that some sort of formal proceedings took place, or that the issue is sufficiently current that some sort of formal proceedings still might take place. With the investigations into CRU, those events (and this article's title) deserve the word. As I have been debating with Viriditas on his talk page, mud that was slung 16 years ago over 1995 AR2 Chapter 8 without producing any quasi-formal proceedings, was merely a failed attempt to create a "controversy", and was not a controversy in and of itself. That's a great summary of the CRU issue Cerejota. Good job NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
We've had formal proceedings, including at least six investigations. You have not been "debating" with me about anything. You've been assuming bad faith and misinterpreting my comments. The Chapter 8 controversy is classified as a controversy by every reliable source on the subject. We go with the sources, not with your personal interpretation of what is or isn't a controversy. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
PS I would add to Cerejota's summary: "Lacking any substantially admissible evidence as defined by law, opponents have no good faith reason to believe their allegation that each of the investigating bodies was involved in a conspiracy as defined by law, yet they keep repeating the allegation intending to damage those agencies' reputation. Therefore, these allegations come dangerously close to actionable libel and slander." Not sure how many words I added.  :) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Joking or not, the problem is, none of that is supported by the sources. Cerejota's summary of the controversy is fully supported in our article. In point of fact, this has far less to do with legal definitions of a conspiracy, and more to do with the function and formulation of the global warming conspiracy. This is a matter of ideology, not evidence. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I get your point, but unlike a classroom, in an NPOV encyclopedia we should teach the controversy, so to speak. The controversy is a historical fact, even after it is ever resolved. However, this article places too much emphasis on the origins of the controversy and is windfall in the news, rather than an encyclopedic view - in which issues unrelated to the [global warming conspiracy]] issues, such as snowcloning of "climategate", issues of scientific transparency (we do not have a see also, for example, to , and the ethics of political discourse that many reliable sources - in particular in peer-reviewed journals - raise, from the perspective of this controversy in particular. --Cerejota (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the article is a work in progress, and if you have sources pointing to those things that you think we should add, by all means, offer them. This discussion isn't over what is a historical fact, but rather how to define the controversy. If you look at this talk page and the archives, you'll see a vocal set of editors who have different views on the subject. It is important to develop a consensus on what the controversy is and what it is not in order to take the article to the next step. If you want to expand the FAQ at the top with your summary, that would be helpful. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Ben Santer Controversy link

The user Alex http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexh19740110 removed for a 2nd time a link today i added to the wikipedia. He says, quote "remove 'Ben Santer controversy' per BLP - never heard of this". That is clearly not an reason to remove a link to the Ben Santer Controvery, a researcher at CRU. This is again an attack on CRU, which has reliable sources. So i ask the user on his talk page to re add this link, because he did not provide a valid reason for removal. Gise-354x (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Gise, here's an editing tip. Instead of pasting in bare URLs, you can highlight one or two words, click on the link icon in the toolbar, and paste in the URL in a dialog box that comes up. Example: . . .Alex removed for a 2nd time a link today . . . Yopienso (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you i will consider this tip from you. Gise-354x (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gise:
  • Removing two links doesn't violate 1RR because I removed them from separate articles.
  • Perhaps my edit summary could have been improved. The issue is not whether I have heard of the "Ben Santer controversy" but that outside of Wikipedia there is no such thing as the "Ben Santer Controversy". Try a google search with this phrase in quotes.
  • I note you added the same link to Frederick Seitz's article as well and my apologies but I've had to remove that one for the same reason.
  • The phrase "Ben Santer controversy" creates an impression that Santer has done something "controversial". That makes Santer look bad - is that what you want?
  • It may not be your fault but the "Controversy" section itself in Santer's biography probably shouldn't be there either per WP:STRUCTURE. I will look at cleaning this up myself.
  • Finally a question for Viriditas. I see that a URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Santer_controversy has been created and is a redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Santer_controversy#Controversy. On the surface it would look like someone's attempt at Search Engine Optimisation. Revision history however says that you created this just yesterday [5]. Why ... ?
Thanks in advance for listening, Alex Harvey (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Take your concerns somewhere else. This page is for discussing the CRU controversy page. I've created 1,346 articles and redirects,[6] so if that concerns you, I wholeheartedly encourage you to file an ANI report. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If I understand the canvassing rule, its ok to call attention to likely interested editors. Ok so here goes... I have requested speedy deletion of Ben_Santer_controversy. Whether you support or oppose, if interested please comment on that articles' talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Mann vindicated...again

Here we go again:

--TS 11:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tony. I'm sure you're aware it's not so black and white, but because the bare bones you posted give that impression, I'll add some excerpts from your sources that show the gray areas. This is my effort to present a well-rounded picture and to avoid partisanship. It is not an attack on the beleaguered scientists!
The report unequivocally clears Mann and closes the case while noting,
. . .emails, many of which contained language that reasonably caused individuals, not party to the communications, to suspect some impropriety on the part of the authors.
Much of the current debate focuses on the viability of the statistical procedures he employed, the statistics used to confirm the accuracy of the results, and the degree to which one specific set of data impacts the statistical results. These concerns are all appropriate for scientific debate and to assist the research community in directing future research efforts to improve understanding in this field of research. Such scientific debate is ongoing but does not, in itself, constitute evidence of research misconduct.
Hank Campbell in Science 2.0 hedges on the hockey stick:
They're right, it isn't misconduct. Given a do-over, the 'statistical analysis techniques' they didn't like - the hockey stick cobbling together temperature data and then tree rings to visually demonstrate a continued upward curve in temperature - did a lot more harm than good so I am sure he would not do it again either but science moves on, and now so can Mann.
Earlier this year (before the NSF rpt.), in the same magazine, he wrote:
Well, yes and no on being cleared. While they made every effort to Frankenstein together data (tree rings when it showed temperatures rising and then ignoring them when it did not and instead using temperature readings to make that hockey stick look more hockey-ish) that was not unethical or even unreasonable - unless journalists misrepresent it and you don't correct them, which happened for 9 years and no one except skeptics talked about it. So there was misconduct, namely that they refused to answer any question that might give skeptics ammunition and set out to suppress papers disputing man-made global warming, but they didn't invent data so it was not scientific misconduct.
The nature of humans is the subject of the review and this review says the scientists acted unethically, they just didn't act unethically with regard to the data. Here's hoping that the ClimateGate experience encourages all climate researchers to renew their interest in data and not the use of aggressive framing to get their point across.
The Sydney paper reiterated, "There has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness," the panel said in July 2010.
We need to be careful as we edit not to take sides in the issue and to avoid giving undue weight to any point. The overwhelming fact is that the research and methods are accepted by the scientific community, but it would be poor editing to deny any problems existed in the nitty-gritty areas. I've recently corresponded with Peter Kelemen, praising his balanced article in Popular Mechanics, of all places, at the outset of the controversy. He pointed me to another old article and this recent broadcast. (His spoken words aren't an exact match of the transcript. I think most editors here will enjoy his brief reaction to "Asteroidgate". {smile})
My hope is that we will write and edit, not combatively or defensively, but reasonably, admitting that human beings make errors that affect perceptions even when their premises are correct. Yopienso (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The criticism of openness and transparency is already in the lead and needs to be expanded in the body. However, it also needs to be qualified with material that shows that these scientists had been under attack for many years with frivolous requests, threats, and harassment. Anyone in that situation starts to circle the wagons, not invite strangers to dinner. And yes, we have sources supporting that statement. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Golly gee, vindicated again. If only he be vindicated one more time, the planet will be saved and the oceans will finally recede. Kauffner (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Initially I collapsed this thread since it made no article improvement suggestions. I was going to ask ask TS for permissions to move his comment down here and take away the tags, but on his talk page I saw his "get on with it" and I'm going on a limb here by getting on with it. Hope I didn't overstep TS. Thanks for explaining what you had in mind, I figured it was something like that.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm sorry, I should have made it plain that I think this should be covered under "Inquiries and reports". Perhaps a subsection could be called "National Science Foundation." It would refer to the report and perhaps cite one of the references below. I emphatically do not want to engage in or see any debate over the merits of this event. --TS 21:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Restoring pertinent post buried in hatted part.OK, I somewhat boldly added a paragraph on the report under "Inquiries and reports." I'm not 100% satisfied with it and am sure my fellow editors won't be, either. :) But it's a start. Sourcing is difficult; the report itself is a primary source that is undated and deliberately avoids naming Mann or Penn State. Media coverage is slim, and almost all on the side of the scientists. Yopienso (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Yopienso (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Your summary looks reasonable to me. As an additional source, Fox News has an outstandingly fair and balanced account. Ok, it's credited to AP so others may also have published this. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I also liked it, though I changed two instances of ambiguous word "debate" to "scientific debate" which is the phrase used in the source. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Fox News scores a point! ;) Guess I was impatient on the media response; today there's lots. My favorite newspaper for this topic is always the Guardian. Guy, the first "scientific" you inserted is an improvement; thanks. The second, imho, is overkill; "this" assumes we're referring to the scientific debate. What do you think? Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think "we" are referring to what the primary source was referring to, and THEY were referring to an appropriate scientific debate, not to be confused with ongoing "stuff" in the blogosphere. In this context, I view the primary source's use of "scientific debate" as an [compound word with a space in it].NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Off topic and contrary to the general sanctions.

NewsAndEventsGuy, please don't collapse threads without asking other editors unless there was a closed or disruptive thread that needed to be closed. I recommend that this thread be changed to "Expanding inquiries and reports" in order to pursue this expansion and to keep the discussion open and active. As I've been saying for quite some time now, that entire section needs to be rewritten to include all of the material to date, which it does not. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't and didn't. The collapsed thread omitted article improvement suggestions, and was therefore a forum debate, and therefore disruptive. TS politely supplied that info and I cleand up the collapse since I'm the guy who added it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You accused Tony, a long-time contributor to this article of "no article improvement suggestions, Not a forum". This is like the twentieth time in the last 48 hours you've made erroneous assumptions about other editors. Please ratchet back your shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude and take it slow. Tony's suggestions were implicitly designed to help us expand the section, and that's why he added the links. Please stop assuming bad faith about other editors. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Following me to keep threatening? As I repeatedly request, please take me to ArbCom or leave me alone.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I somewhat boldly added a paragraph on the report under "Inquiries and reports." I'm not 100% satisfied with it and am sure my fellow editors won't be, either. :) But it's a start. Sourcing is difficult; the report itself is a primary source that is undated and deliberately avoids naming Mann or Penn State. Media coverage is slim, and almost all on the side of the scientists. Yopienso (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No harm done, no offence caused, and thanks to NewsAndEventsGuy for taking the standing suggestion on my user talk page to "get on with it" seriously. Good call. --TS 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC: "global warming conspiracy theory"

We have another long running dispute with the climate change editors that seems intractable at this point, so input from non climate change editors would be appreciated.

Our lede says:

Climate sceptics said that the documents showed evidence that global warming was [[Global warming conspiracy theory|a scientific conspiracy]].[7]

A number of us (myself, Pete Tillman & Arthur Rubin) have protested and argued that in the interests of both accuracy and neutrality, reliable sources referring to simply to a "conspiracy" or a "scientific conspiracy" - even a "global warming conspiracy" - should not be hyperlinked to our article on the "global warming conspiracy theory" for two reasons:

1) If the source doesn't explicitly say "conspiracy theory" anywhere, then that source doesn't support adding a link to an article on a "conspiracy theory"; it may simply refer to a "conspiracy" in the normal, neutral sense.

2) Calling people "conspiracy theorists" is usually pejorative, cf. conspiracy theory whereas NPOV requires us to "Prefer non-judgemental language". Thus, we should prefer to steer our readers away from a non neutral term unless there is an overwhelming consensus in reliable sources that uses this precise wording.

So far, plenty of sources have been provided that refer to a "conspiracy" or a "scientific conspiracy" and some even to a "global warming conspiracy" but only one source (the Telegraph) has been provided so far that refers in passing to "climate change conspiracy theorists". I believe I saw a second source a long time ago.

For the record, my own opinion is that global warming conspiracy theory is a terrible piece of original research that shouldn't even exist, and editors should also review that article to make up their own mind, but obviously as it has survived several AfDs there are others who would disagree.

In order to justify a hyperlink to "global warming conspiracy theory", do we need sources that refer word for word to "global warming conspiracy theory", or are sources that just refer to "conspiracy" okay?

Alex Harvey (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Involved editor responses

  • I have attempted to reword the bolded question after Viriditas said it was a leading question. I am not sure if I have succeeded. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove the links to the so called conspiracy wikipedia entries, because 6 independent investigations have cleared the CRU people from wrong doing or data which would support any so called conspiracy. Those links are deliberate affords from the orchestrated fossil funded campaign to damage the image of climate science. Gise-354x (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong with the link to the conspiracy theory article. The conspiracy is clearly nuts, but the conspiracy theory is notable, which is why the article on it recently survived an AfD. The illegal publication of emails which is the subject of this article is closely related to this conspiracy theory: If it was done in good faith by someone thinking of themselves as a whistleblower (a theory pushed by Alex Harvey, actually [7]), then that was clearly motivated by belief in the conspiracy theory. And it's pretty obvious that the publication has fueled the conspiracy theory. Hans Adler 12:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I haven't stuck my oar in this particular climate issue, but I'll put my comments under "involved" due to my other recent edits
(A) Agree with Hans that the theory is nuts but since so many people believe it coverage is merited.
(B) Suggest moving "conspiracy" to follow statement about the results of all the investigations. Conspiracy believers say that fact they could not prove fraud in the investigations is evidence of the conspiracy.
(C) I think there is way to much text in the lede before we get around to saying the important thing, which is that there have been all these investigations and all have cleared everybody of serious wrong. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor responses

  • I think the sentence just has to be more clear about who these critics are accusing of engaging in a conspiracy theory: just those involved in these documents, anyone who should have known better and accepted/promoted their views, or who? If the critics mean a certain subclass, naming them makes the article accurate. If they mean everyone who thinks there's any kind of human made global warming, they will look questionable. In any case, wikipedia is being accurate and that's all that matters. This helps solve the WP:OR problem on use of "conspiracy theory," though obviously refs that use the phrase are preferred. CarolMooreDC (talk)
  • Leave alone - The sentence that the readers see is "... that global warming was a scientific conspiracy". That sentence accurately reflects what the sources say, true? (If it does not reflect the sources, then it should be changed, of course). So the real issue of this RfC is the blue hyperlink on the phrase "a scientific conspiracy" which is linked to the article Global warming conspiracy theory. The question is whether that link is misleading or erroneous. On the face of it, the link is valid. The linked-to article does indeed discuss the alleged conspiracy. It is tempting to change the wording of this article's sentence to match the linked article name: "... that global warming was a scientific conspiracy theory" but that makes no sense. The guideline WP:LINKS says links should be used for "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully", and I don't see any violation of that principle here. The RfC originator raises questions about the linked-to article Global warming conspiracy theory ... but any issues about that article should be raised at that article's Talk page, not here. Finally, there is the question "do we need sources that refer word for word to "global warming conspiracy theory", or are sources that just refer to "conspiracy" okay?"" - my opinion is that exact word-for-word match is not required. It is the intention of the source that matters. Requiring word-for-word matches would mean half the encyclopedia would disappear overnight :-) --Noleander (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Presumably it is true that climate change skeptics claim this as evidence of a scientific conspiracy. I have heard this reported in the news and while it may not be true, that is certainly what is being claimed by the skeptics and so can and should be reported in Wikipedia. If the skeptics opinion is not notable enough to be linked then it is not notable enough to be mentioned at all, but if it is in the article I am baffled by the argument against linking. In the interest of balance the following sentence might mention that sources independant of the CRU have opined against conspiracy - a piece in Nature is mentioned in the body of the article. SpinningSpark 11:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Requiring an exact four word match is too high a burden. We're not talking about multiple words that form a single, searchable unit like the title to a book or article, or a section of song lyrics. If the source says "global warming" and "conspiracy" somewhere in it, then as long as the material isn't taken out of context to twist meaning in some non-neutral way, that should be enough. I think we should err on the side of inclusion. If the reader sees the information, he can decide whether to skim over it or follow it up. If the information isn't there, we made the decision for him. Obviously, information overload is bad, but I don't think we're in danger of that here. Just saying "global warming" and "conspiracy" is fine, I think. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Vote for renaming topic to Climatic Research Unit hacked Emails

Use above section for discussion. Since 6 investigations found no evidence what so ever of any wrong doing and since the mainstream media no longer trumps the alleged Climategate scandal, the headline is misleading. The controversy is explained in several parts of the article but to better describe the event now, we can refer to it as the hacked CRU emails. "Climatic Research Unit hacked Emails"

Approve

  • Approve, because it's no longer a controversy, the headline should reflect that. The article offers enough information to conclude that there have been a lot of controversy, which later got resolved. Gise-354x (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Please note this editor has been blocked for a week, and expressed that it was its intention to leave wikipedia for ever. --Cerejota (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Disapprove

  • We still call controversies in the past "controversies"; there is no chance that someone will presume it must be ongoing just because it is called "controversy". Furthermore, such a request only days after a previous request to move was turned down seems more than pointless. How about not having these discussions for a bit?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Per VsevolodKrolikov - this is not a descriptive name - this is patently about the notable controversy. Now, I do support Climatic Research Unit email hacks controversy as a patently descriptive name, but are cognizant some feel "hacks" is controversial so I do not know if there is a consensus view on it.--Cerejota (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This is still highly controversial; consider that we just had the article locked for a week. As said by VK, even when the controversy is resolved--or, more likely, fades into oblivion without resolution--it will still have been a controversy. (See my user page for my take on historical revisionism. I'm strongly opposed.) It 's so controversial we don't even agree on what the controversy is! I'll digress in small print to a brief summary.
1. Was it a hack or theft or leak, or was there a whistleblower? Unresolved, even if some of us are convinced in our own minds it was a hack.
2. Were the scientists guilty of perpetrating a fraudulent scenario of climate change? Resolved--they weren't.
3. Were the scientists open enough? Resolved--they weren't.
4. What rights do researchers and the general public have wrt FOI requests? What burden does the sponsoring institution bear? Mostly resolved--scientists must comply with the law.
5. Did climate skeptics create a furor over nothing? Empirically unresolved; resolved in sharply differing opinions by partisans.
6. Did the MSM react properly to the skeptics? Were they fair to the scientists? Did they hide the truth from the public? Was their journalism professional? Unresolved.
7. Were the investigations whitewashes? Unresolved.
8. Was a crime committed? Unresolved.
Still, I don't really care what the title is so long as there is a redirect from "Climategate" and an aka. Fake politically-driven Climate Research Unit e-mail hacking event flap (also known as "Elephant-in-the-room") would certainly not be my first choice! (That's an attempt at levity, as the title is not a world-stoppingly grave matter, imho.) Yopienso (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • For all the obvious reasons. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It describes a historic event, plus the only readers who will care and might be effected are those who arrive here wondering what the controversy is/was about. So the current title draws them in, and the text can set the record straight.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • After witnessing the debate about naming this article in the first place, I am sure that no further amount of debate can improve on it.Jarhed (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Yopienso. Perhaps someday this article will have a proper name title that reflects common usage. Moogwrench (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't like the current title, but the proposal is even worse. Maghnus (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding Name/Title

Should the article currently known as Climatic Research Unit email controversy be changed to the common proper noun name Climategate or should it retain its descriptive title? Moogwrench (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As this discussion started less than three days ago had more than doubled the size of this discussion page. I have moved it to a page of its own.

Please now proceed to the discussion at /RFC 2011-09-20. --TS 00:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks: very different approach

I was just over at the Wikileaks article, and I noticed there's a link, right at the top, to the online archive of leaked/hacked/stolen documents and cables. Why is the approach here to the climate emails archive so different? Greenbough (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a link to wikileaks.org, which is the website of the organisation the article is about, not directly to the archive itself, so it's really not the same thing. Perhaps there could be an external link to an online archive. However, I don't know what policy is on linking to material which was probably stolen.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
(slaps self) The answer (of course) is in the FAQ at the top of this page - linking to the mails means taking part in a copyright violation.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Resources ...

From Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Resource July/August 2011 Environment magazine "Understanding Public Opinion on Climate Change: A Call for Research", excerpt from page 40 ...

The campaign received a boost in late 2009 and 2010 with the widely publicized release of hacked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, dubbed "Climategate," and with pbulicity about relatively minor errors in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Given that research on environmental risk perceptions has highlighted the importance of trusted sources [52], part of the recent decline in public acceptance of climate change likely stems from the success of coordinated efforts to question the trustwothiness, credibility, and integrity of climate scientists.[53]

  • [52]
    • P.Slovic, 1999, "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis 19: 689-701.
    • M.Siegrist, T.Earle, and H.Gutshcer, 2007, Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Skepticism in the Public Mind (London: Earthscan).
    • M.Siegrist, G. Cvetkovich, and C.Roth, 2000, "Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception," Risk Analysis, 20: 353-62.
  • [53] A.A.Leiserowitz, E.W.Maibach, C.Roser-Renouf, N.Smith, and E.Dawson, 2011, "Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust," American Behavioral Scientist, forthcoming.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Slovic is P.Slovic I'd assume. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I just think this is a very biased article. It is time to start over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.88.53 (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Inquiries And Reports

The Berkeley Earth Project has released a report that has bearing on this section, links: [8] [9] Vietminh (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your links had some extra characters appended. I fixed both - they now Work For Me (tm). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
They work and are solid reputable links.MilkStraw532 (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Objectivity of the article

This article completely lacks critique on the inquiries. Since such critique has been published and it is highly relevant to this article, I tried to add it but my edit (451135617) was promptly reverted on grounds which I cannot accept. We cannot have double standards on what sources to accept. The sources I used are far more than adequate as they are primary sources that far exceed the usual standards of Wikipedia. If no valid reasons for keeping this information out are presented, I will re-add it tomorrow. Help would be appreciated in improving the text though. Tronic2 (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how the self-published sources "far exceed" each of these specific standardsNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You should very well know that the usual standard for sources on Wikipedia ranges from nothing to random websites and online news. Having a primary source is exceptional. Montford's review is not self-published as he was hired to conduct a review by a political think-tank that then published the findings. The work itself has been reviewed in what is also a reliable source by Wikipedia standards [10]. McKitrick is an expert on the field and his work has also been republished by a number of organizations, e.g. (found by googling) [11]. Therefore, both of these documents clearly pass the reliable source requirements. Tronic2 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We could go on forever adding critiques of the various inquiries by various sources, but the impact of those critiques is very weak. Our article lists six prominent official inquiries, not one of which found any reason to give credence to the claims of McKitrick and Montford. Moreover McKitrick is a researcher in Environmental Economics and Montford is a retired chartered accountant with a BSc in chemistry who writes a blog. For every critique we added by the likes of that we'd have to add a great thundering waterfall of comments by independent experts in the field to balance them. Enough is enough. We are supposed to include significant dissenting views, not stuff like that. --TS 02:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a good point about not including all independent experts' dissenting views but this critique fulfills the reliable source requirements and appears to be quite notable. I might agree with you if the article wasn't specifically about the Climategate controversy but in this context mentioning only the official inquiries adds a large bias to the article due to the image of a full consensus it gives. However, the lack of independency and the incompleteness of those are main points in the critique and this should definitely be displayed on an article that is about the controversy, for completeness. Tronic2 (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
McKitrick - his ref is self published from his blog. Ordinary that would violate WP:VERIFY. You appear to defend his self published blog article on the exception in the policy which states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." In this case "the field" would be scientific integrity (not to be confused with having the correct and accurate scientific results), within the various laws, rules, and regulations from government, institutions, and whatever codes of professional conduct apply. From where I sit, its not clear why being a researcher in Environmental Economics makes one an expert in assessing legal or professional misconduct. So its unclear that he's an established expert in that particular field. Even if he is qualified on that level, to invoke this exception in wiki's verification policy you point to 3rd party publication of his work by the Heartland Institute. The only problem there is you are implying that Heartland is a reliable 3rd party source. Yeah sure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
You are pushing double standards again. I am not going deeper into this but McKitrick clearly does have expertise on climate research and scientific procedures and so is qualified, in fact more so that some of the official reviewers. You keep claiming that this is a self-published source source even though it has been republished like I have shown. A peer review or a source you personally "trust" are not requirements of the process. Therefore I am reverting the revert (that was done against the one revert rule anyway). Tronic2 (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, yours is the one now in violation of the 1RR probation. You may wish to consider reversing your edit there to avoid a block. Tarc (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The two sources cited are in the recently reverted mainspace edits are in one case self published and in the other published on a clearly non-neutral website. If this standard of source were adopted these articles would be a mess of contradiction.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Including these sources violates rs and NPOV. TFD (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have justified before, neither of the sources is solely self-published (even though one of them is linked directly from the researcher's website rather than from a third party) and both of them are clearly RS - even if it is your opinion that the sources are non-neutral. NPOV is not a feature of a source but of encyclopedic text itself, and I don't see a problem with that here. Tronic2 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Heartland Institute is a think-tank and lobbyist group with a demonstrably poor record for fact checking. They don't have an editorial board except to the extent what they say serves their clients and political interests. You can't take a POV self-published blog and put it up on what amounts to a group blog by a partisan group and then magically say its NPOV or RS. As WP:NOTRS states

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't aware of the background of Heartland Institute. Did you remove the Guardian reference intentionally or by accident? (our edits collided rather badly) Tronic2 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no Guardian reference in either version I reverted.... [this one ] or [that one] was there? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Must have been lost in the merge, my mistake - sorry. Tronic2 (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The Fred Pearce column on the Guardian appears to be a blog on a newspaper site, where the content is disowned by the editorial board. "Note about community content: The views expressed in community areas of this site do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of GNM, its staff or contributors." ([source]). If you look at the link, part of the url is for the [cif-green section] of the paper's website. Pursuant to WP:NEWSBLOG this isn't a reliable source either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I commend you for your [revert of the Pearce column]. But now I have a question:
Bob (a white guy) and Sal (a black guy) each write blogs saying white(or black) people are lying, murdering, stinking slobs of low IQ. These blogs would not be considered an RS under WP:BLOG. So far so good.
Now suppose the Ku Klux Klan hires Bob, and the Nuwaubians hire Sal, to "investigate" these respective claims. They each get paid to write the same stuff they wrote in the prior paragraph, only this time it appears as the paid report from the independent outsider after an "investigation". Are their writings now considered RS? Why (or why not)?
Finally, is your answer any different, when you consider Andrew Montford's investigation and report on the email controversy at CRU.... considering the fact that it was commissioned by the skeptic's Global Warming Policy Foundation? Why or why not?
I apologize for the racist example, but I wanted to establish a clearly reprehensible baseline from which to test respondents' logic in applying wiki principles. Thanks for your comments. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed a "Critique of inquiries* section sourced solely to a blogger published by the grandiose fringe group which calls itself the Global Warming Policy Foundation: this gave undue weight to fringe propaganda, needs verification of significance from a third party reliable secondary source, and needs context showing how Montford's claims have been received by majority view sources. . . dave souza, talk 07:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Dave, since there was so much noise about how thorough the inquiries were or weren't and whether or not they were a whitewash, it seems at the very least we need to acknowledge that not everyone accepted the inquiries as definitive. Here are a few sources to consider.
Including the due weight here--no less and no more--does not judge the inquiries but records the fact that the MSM carried stories critiquing them (negatively). (We might remember many of the "critiques," that is, reactions, were positive.) Yopienso (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Y, you have to sort your list based on NEWS vs BLOG-OUTSIDE-EDITORIAL-CONTROL. So only some of your sources above are RS-s. Taking them in order:
News article
WP:NEWSBLOG (Already discussed above)
News article, but it isn't from Reuters
News article
WP:NEWSBLOG [Source's Terms See section 3.1 ]
WP:NEWSBLOG [Source's Terms See section 3.1 ]
In this list it is the WP:NEWSBLOGS that are directly critiquing them negatively. The news articles are all reporting that the GWPF critiqued them negatively. This is a big difference for NPOV presentation of the facts.
For example, consider my racist example above. Assume the Klan and the Nuwaubians both get a news article about their commissioned investigation reports published in the New York Times. If the reports released directly from the Klan and the Nuwaubians would not be RS, could we report news articles about the reports from the NYT? Why (or why not)? Could we report the conclusions as facts, or just as opinions of those groups? Is your answer different for news coverage of GWPF's bought-and-paid for Montford report? Why (or why not)? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
N&EGuy--if only one was a RS, that would be sufficient. They all are, though. None are newsblogs. I'm curious as to why you call the first Guardian article I list news and the second a newsblog. Don't know how I got Reuters in there, have fixed. The Forbes opinion columns are deeply researched and written by a scholar; they are not Forbes' own, but they did publish them. Your links "Source's Terms" go to error pages. Yes, certainly we can report any news articles in the NYT about self-published material; that's the whole point of secondary sources. Yopienso (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
If no other wiki policies are in the way of course one RS is sufficient and I intended to help identify the best of the lot. Item #2 is a newsblog, from the CIF (reader opinion) section of the papers' website, and I have previously given the url for the policy page that says its not the views of the paper. In other words a WP:NEWSBLOG. The Forbes hits are from Larry Bell, an op-ed "contributor" under the "regulations" section of their op-ed pages. Forbe's terms and conditions page (I fixed the link in my prior post) also denies editorial responsibility for such views. But the others do seem to be news articles and would appear to be RSs... there's still the question whether the material passes WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE muster, etc. I am bowing out of that particular battle, at least for now.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Now I'm truly puzzled. The second Guardian article is from the "Environment; Hacked climate science emails" section of the online paper. The article history (You have to click on the link by Pearce's photo.) says, Montford lands some solid blows in review of 'climategate' inquiries | Fred Pearce This article was published on guardian.co.uk at 11.39 EDT on Tuesday 14 September 2010. It was last modified at 12.37 EDT on Tuesday 14 September 2010. I don't see how you get this to be a reader opinion. I don't know what "CIF" stands for and can't find it on the page except in the reader comment section below the article.
Yes, again, the Forbes columns are opinion. News stories, however, are not the only RSs. Broadcasts, books, magazines, scholarly articles, opinions of scholars printed in reliable newspapers, are all RSs. Bell's opinions are not self-published, but copyrighted and published by Forbes without editorial control.
Thanks for clarifying you were trying to pick out the best of the lot. It seemed to me, and on re-reading, still seems you were trying to shoot down as many as possible. I assume in good faith this is my misinterpretation of "So only some of your sources above are RS-s." Had you said, "Great sources! The three best are, etc." your desire to "help identify the best of the lot" would have been clearer.
Waiting to hear from Dave. Yopienso (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
@N&EGuy--Oh, yes, now I see what you mean by cif; it's in the url. Very puzzling. The article seems to be a straight up-and-up Pearce article. Does the "cif" merely indicate reader comments are included at the bottom? No, because the first Guardian article I listed has reader comments at the bottom. I'm truly curious about this. What does "cif" stand for/mean? Can you offer any elucidation? Yopienso (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Keeping with my philosophy of "clean up your messes", I just spent a fair bit of time working on the Fred Pearce article, and.... well, the short story is I take it back, it's a new article. He's a "contributor" and I was looking at the wrong set of terms and conditions before. I think the more applicable set is [here], which provides for payment for contributions, syndication, distribution, and editorial control of content. So I apologize for the confusion over that one. Also, its too bad I couldn't just be brief with my list without anyone reading anything more into the information than what I wrote. The Forbes hits are definitely blogs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
cif = "Comment is free". The articles are opinion pieces that AFAIK also appear in the print edition. They are, as NAEG says, not blogs, although they're certainly not the opinion of the newspaper as a whole. CiF simply indicates that readers can have an online debate in a comments thread beneath the web version of the article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks, both. What's odd, VK, is that both those Guardian articles are the same format and in the same "Environment; Hacked climate science emails" section of the online paper and both have readers' comments below. Do we all agree both of them are RSs for this WP article? Why or why not?
I can't by any definition make the selections from Forbes be blogs. Our definition is A blog (a blend of the term web log) is a type of website or part of a website. Blogs are usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order. Blog can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.
Most blogs are interactive, allowing visitors to leave comments and even message each other via widgets on the blogs and it is this interactivity that distinguishes them from other static websites.
What Bell wrote are well-researched editorial essays. They are published by a mainstream online news source. Do we agree they are RSs for this WP article? Why or why not?
Most importantly, do we agree this WP article should mention there was negative criticism about the inquiries? Why or why not? Yopienso (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course there should be mention of negative criticism, although preferred style would be "Responses" rather than "Criticism", to include those who saw the inquiries as vindication. The problem with the section on Montford's report that was removed was that it was unduly detailed and written as if Montford was essentially correct. It also (alas) omitted the more due opinion of national newspaper journalist Pearce that Montford's own report was guilty of "brazen hypocrisy".

Due weight is the key issue here. As I wrote below regarding the proposed move, this particular topic is the subject of a ideological and industry-funded media campaign to give the impression of wide dissent in the scientific community (and as a result makes things tricky for wikipedia's processes, especially where editors unfamiliar with the terrain are concerned). For example, the Forbes article by Larry Bell makes statements about climate science and what the emails meant that do not reflect the general view of climate scientists (on "hide the decline", for example, there is no genuine scientific concern); we should not imply that he has any scientific expertise. He's an architect at a very minor university, and essentially very fringe for climate science. The only notable thing is that Forbes carried it, which does count for something, but I'm really not sure how much. (A RealClimate posting here takes apart some of Bell's work to show that he's not a reliable witness to the scientific literature. I'm not saying include RealClimate as it's a blog (albeit verging on RS), but you can see the POV problem with giving any prominence to Bell's writings on the science.

The Guardian, Telegraph (as it's Louise Gray and not someone like Delingpole or Booker whose words need to be treated more carefully as RS if not simply primary sources) and THES look OK to use. These are regular correspondents in national newspapers, and their analysis counts for something. In effect we have to use this kind of RS to pick out the significant criticisms of the inquiries, rather than gather criticisms as if an even balance is NPOV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Y, about the Guardian, yes they are both RSs. Originally I read the terms and conditions for reader's online comments and erroneously applied those terms to the Fred Pearce article and I was misled because that articles url has "CIF" in it and the other url does not. Beats me why the urls work that way, but as I said before, both Guardian links are articles and not NewsBlogs.
Y, about Forbes and Larry Bell, its true they don't make it very clear. Note his profile pic calls him a "contributor". Compare to the byline profile of [this article], which IDs the write as Forbes Staff. With that in mind, turn to the [terms and conditions], section 3.1 which provides in relevant part "The Website is a distributor of content supplied by other information content providers such as non-staff bloggers, commenters, the Associated Press, PR Newswire, etc. The Website is not responsible for the statements and opinions expressed by those content providers. Responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of such content lies solely with those content providers and is not guaranteed by Forbes. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C.§ 230, Forbes is not the publisher of such information..." I can't find any FAQ or policy about "contributors" except if you want to have an "ongoing site" at Forbes as a contributor you [go here ]. Since the (A) terms say Forbes is not the publisher of "non-staff blogs", (B) byline profiles clearly identify who is staff, and (C) contributors apparently have "ongoing sites", that sure sounds to me like contributors are non staff who have ongoing sites, errrr... I mean blogs at Forbes.
All, that gets me to weight and the question should we report criticism at all. Are the disgruntled opinions of whoever loses other semi-legal proceedings considered weighty enough to cover? If there's fire under the smoke, then no doubt someone would have started the next round of proceedings - quite possibly in a criminal legal proceeding - but instead, all that has happened is the puffing of a lot more smoke by those whose arguments lacked moxie to lop off any heads. That doesn't pass WP:WEIGHT. That policy begins "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." To me, that means something other than the major media's report on the Ku Klux Klan's commissioned research into the (specious and racist allegations about) the inferiority of blacks. The GWPF's bought and paid for Montford report is simply the sour grapes whining of the side whose arguments didn't have moxie to make anything serious stick in the forums that took place, and didn't have moxie to get their foot in any other forums. The fact that they left those proceedings disgruntled and crying sour grapes is not a "significant view", no matter what media reports the obvious fact that losers of such things are usually disgruntled.
Now if they've got the goods, well then! We should definitely report when the next proceeding gets underway. Puffing smoke doesn't count. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, if I find the time, I'll add some of the negative criticism to present a fuller picture of the facts. (Better scenario--someone will beat me to it!) Our job here isn't to decide who's right and who's wrong but to report who's saying what (in accordance with our due weight policy, of course). Failing to note the criticisms of the inquiries in RSs makes for a POV article.
To be blunt, N&EG, you are mistaken in calling Larry Bell's essays blogs. He is among the non-staff bloggers, commenters, the Associated Press, PR Newswire, etc. He may be wrong about climate, but he is sufficiently notable to cite, not as an authority but as a popular writer. We must remember that popular writers are what the people read; to ignore them is to arouse suspicion among "the people," and Wikipedia is written to inform--not to alienate--the public. Wikipedia upholds rational science, not for scientists, but for the reading public; in so doing it must address those issues of which the public is already aware. Otherwise it marginalizes itself as a lounge for elitists. Not to soapbox! That's my rationale for inclusion of non-mainstream science with due weight. Yopienso (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't here to mislead the public by giving undue credence to a business magazine's ill-informed criticism of scientists, the Forbes two-part piece has clear distortions and misinterpretations. As such it is at best a primary source for attacks from the scientific fringe. The other news articles from a specific time cover criticisms of three of the inquiries (in one case two of the inquiries) and it should be made clear that issues they raise have been covered by subsequent inquiries. If we're covering criticisms, we should also give due weight to the welcome and praise given to the inquiries by scientific bodies or the scientific press, without letting the size of this get disproportionate. The idea that mainstream science is elitist is very odd, misinformation in the press may be populist but that doesn't make it worthwhile covering. . dave souza, talk 18:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Dave. I agree 100% with everything but your last sentence. I wasn't saying MS science is elitest; I was saying WP shouldn't be elitist. However, the idea that MS science is elitist is not the slightest bit odd--that's the whole lesson of Climategate. But that's not my point here. I think populist info should be covered as such. We cover raunchy movies, for example, and vile nonsense like Santorum. Why should we deny by our silence that people are saying things? Address it! Moogwrench has adjusted my perspective on this, you'll be pleased to know; see below. Yopienso (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Our WP:NEWSBLOG policy states in relevant part "Newspaper and magazine blogs: Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". It doesn't matter whether the paper gives these things a label (or not) or whether that label is "blog" (or not). Its the substance that matters. Since we agree that Mr Bell falls under Section 3.1 of Forbes' terms and conditions, which explicitly states that Forbes is not the publisher of the remarks and disclaims the notion that they represent Forbe's views, it is hard to call Mr. Bell's two-part personal opinion columns anything other than a "NewsBlog", regardless what label Forbes does or does not hang on those opinions (that they don't publish and aren't theirs).NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I would definitely agree with dave souza that due weight should also be given to positive reception the publishing inquiries' findings. Also, I don't care if we feel that the Forbes pieces have or do not have distortions in them (that is not our place), as essays they are merely WP:RSOPINION (I wouldn't call them a blog), not subject to editorial control, and I would not include either one of them, except perhaps in a footnote as cf or see also. I don't think Bell is enough of an expert to accept his essays under WP:SELFPUBLISH. Yopienso, with all due respect, we shouldn't worry about whether Wikipedia alienates people or not, merely that it reflects reliable sources. The (negative) criticism, I believe warrants a small mention, nothing more, perhaps on the order of 1 or 2 sentences. It can be explained that some ciriticism of the reports exists, and in the footnote more info and see also can also be provided for those wanting to know more. That way we can avoid unbalancing the article with too much detail from the criticisms. Moogwrench (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, too, and mentioned that in my original post on this issue. (We might remember many of the "critiques," that is, reactions, were positive.) 08:08, 21 Sept 2011 I take your point on alienating readers while reiterating we have to report the facts. It's POV to defend the scientists and leave out what "the madding crowd" is abuzz with. This article isn't a science article but an article about the CRU hack and the public controversy it generated. Therefore, what the public is reading and discussing is entirely apropos. But I certainly agree the criticism of the inquiries, while necessary to include, should only be given a sentence or two with citations. Yopienso (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Whoops--I don't mean just the public, but the skeptics, the fringe, the opponents of the scientists. A controversy means more than one side. So, let me add that we must say what the critics are saying, even if they are wrong. Otherwise, there would be no controversy. Yopienso (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Do you have a sample/idea of what you would like to include/how you would like to word it? Moogwrench (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. Without a specific proposed addition, people are going to be jumpy, given the history of conflict on wikipedia over coverage of climate change.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Please pardon my delay in responding. I have been very busy, but I have also been reviewing the stance of this article, resulting in a change of my mind. When I first began to participate in this thread, my hope was to find something like this included under section 4, 5, or 6. (Inquiries and reports, Media coverage, Public opinion and political fallout.)
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded in January of 2011 that the Oxburgh and Muir inquiries had been flawed. Their report further stated that "it is time to make the changes and improvements recommended, and with greater openness and transparency move on." (Citing to the BBC and the report itself.)
I may still do this. However, serious consideration makes me believe our article is fundamentally biased toward defending the scientists rather than objectively reporting the controversy. Because I know editors long associated with this article do not accept that view, for now I don't have time or inclination to make that fact clear. (In simple, non-kosher terms: "It's not worth the fight.") Best wishes to all. Yopienso (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
If you do, be sure to go to the primary source instead of some characterization of the primary source, where you will not find a statement that the inquiries were "flawed" but rather it will say the committee had "some reservations". The one implies the results are meaningless, but the committee did not say that. After describing their "reservations" they went out of the their way to highlight one of their witnesses' remarks, about the basic science being pretty much "unequivocal". For both, see paragraph 14 on printed page 36(pdf page 38)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Primary sources are to be used only with care. WP:PSTS The BBC is 100% reliable for this comment. I may have inadvertently overstated by calling the inquiries flawed instead of repeating exactly what the BBC said, "Inquiries. . .did have flaws." I didn't mean to imply the inquiries were totally flawed, but can see my wording has a flaw. :-) Yopienso (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that policy link, which was new to me. Seems like "secondary source" could describe the committees report too. In any case, its moot until you decide to edit the article. Cheers, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Like Yopienso and other editors, I'm taken aback that this article has been cleansed of almost any hint that the various inquiries into the controversy were flawed, or that any substantial criticisms of the behavior of the CRU scientists were ever published. About the only hint of criticism that remains is that CRU should have had better PR! Like Yopienso, I've concluded that "our article is fundamentally biased toward defending [CRU] rather than objectively reporting the controversy." I may sometime resurrect some of the many RS reports of problems with the inquiries, and add new ones from a running file that I still keep. But I'm very, very tired of fooling with this, and very sad that an article that was making some progress towards objectivity is back to being, from my point of view, deeply biased. I believe that the editors who have shaped the article into what it is now mean well, but the results speak for themselves. Perhaps someday, energetic new editors will take up the fight, to make this an objective and accurate article that we can be proud of. It's a pretty sad thing now, I'm afraid. With best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a battleground for your "fight", Tillman. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
V., mi amigo, in my view you're part of the problem with this article. I do Assume Good Faith, but feel you've gone overboard at times in your edits here.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Liberal pro-global warming theory (which has been discredited) bias of the article is really bad. Someone should throw the whole thing out and start from scratch. Firstly why isn't the title called "Climategate" or "Hide The Decline"? No one refers to this as "Climatic Research Unit email controversy". I gave up quickly. This article is not fair and ballanced. Its totally one sided leftist propanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.88.53 (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Climategate 2

BBC reporting a second release of 5000 e-mails here with another 220,000 hidden behind passwords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.79.38 (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Business insider CLIMATEGATE 2.0:[12]

Kartasto (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, obviously timed again to coincide with the international global warming talks, this time in Durban. This story is developing but I expect there to be even less actual story this time than there was the first time around. --TS 17:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
UEA press statement. --TS 17:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
One procedural note, various reports indicate that this is just different emails from the same batch purloined two years ago. As such it seems like any fallout from this second release would fall under the scope of this article and not merit a second article. However, it's really early so we will have to wait and see what develops before we start to add references to it. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

New Scientist reports. --TS 18:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Lack of reporting" and "lack of fallout" has less to due with accuracy and more to do with Liberal/media bias. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC) . . . "Wait and see" is fine.

Well, no doubt the neoliberal media such as Fox News will be biased as usual. Perhaps it's all a ploy to divert us from the Liberal revelations about Peisergate...... Deleting emails! Refusing FOIA requests!! What is he trying to hide? More relevant, the dear old Liberal Graun has given this more coverage than some. . . dave souza, talk 23:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
BBC News - Climate emails: Storm or yawn? [caution: may include Delingpolisms] . . . dave souza, talk 00:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
We need reliable sources, not blogs or editorials. Bringing up an opinion column, as you have done above, further polarizes the discussion, and invites responses that are also links to opinion columns. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Article in The Guardian. I support waiting a bit (a week, maybe?) before incorporating this into the article or possibly a new article. Given the controversial nature of this topic it is best for both sides to make sure that everything is cited and that important sources are not missed. Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a precedent? Are there other situations where all editors agreed to wait a week before starting an article on a subject, or adding to an existing article on the subject?--SPhilbrickT 02:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Well I figured since the guradian independent and abc have mentioned it perhaps we don't have to sit here like dummies. Anyway the old 'it isn't called climategate' piffle seems to have been thoroughly debunked. Greglocock (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Eh, Greglocock, the source you cited uses "scare quotes" for that name, and points out that it's being promoted by a dodgy blog.[13] WMC beat me to it, and has changed it to a more sensible title. WP:NOTNEWS but I don't object to a brief note that the email release has occurred. The description wasn't very accurate, so I've clarified that a bit and cited the Graun using a cite template. . . dave souza, talk 11:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

NB, I added a redirect at Climategate 2.0 to the new section, as this seems to be the longstanding consensus for how we deal with POV-laden titles and this article's title in particular. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems sensible. On the merits of the subject matter, I've glanced at a few items, and if one believes the bloggers are going to push the "juiciest" stuff first, there's not much there. I'm not seeing what the fuss is about. --SPhilbrickT 14:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The coverage I've seen so far is underwhelming. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
We're missing the influx of the wild-eyed that occurred last time, too William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Be patient. It's Thanksgiving eve in the US, so many are traveling or otherwise occupied. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed! I meant to go there too; I'm 'unwatching' here, and 'watching' Climategate II. Will there be a III ? . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we shorten the UEA quote per [14]. Repeating the "we were vindicated" just invites the "oh no you weren't" stuff, and that has all been said before in the article (it is different in the press release, where they have to remind people). So maybe we should just have the new words about this batch William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and so shortened. Mikenorton (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Discussion of the cherry-picked extracts and their context at the Graun and as explained by Phil Jones. Also, the Norfolk Police give the Graun responses about how their investigation is going. . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the above discussion about the underwhelming impact, I've removed an attempt to add in the "appearances" promoted by the hacker based on cherry picking an early news report without the detailed analysis in these more recent sources. A short mention is appropriate, but more detail would end up by needing the sort of analysis of catch phrases that derailed the coverage of the first leak. . dave souza, talk 07:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of CBS News article

Hi, Dave souza! I had some questions about your removal of the CBS News content posted recently, which you explained only briefly in your edit summary. You mention the is a "rehash of denier talking points", but the source appears to be not "deniers" but the Associated Press, recognized as a reliable source. You also say the article has been "contradicted by later analysis," but it appears it was only was published on November 22. Can you cite your sources for the contradiction? I'm aware UEA has stated their position, as noted in the article, but that would only appear to justify inclusion of their viewpoint, not removal of a reliable source. --DGaw (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

HI, DGaw! My reasons for removing this partial extract from an early news item about the issue were given in the #Climategate 2 section above, continuing on from the previously discussed agreement to provide minimal coverage of this release of more old emails, unless and until it becomes more of a notable story with good quality sources giving suitable analysis. . dave souza, talk 18:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Please lets not have this "a "RS" has stated something, therefore it must be in the article" stuff again. There are lots of RS's that have said many things; they don't all belong. It certainly isn't clear why this CBS news should be preferred above all others. Or even why you should pick that particular extract. The beeb is probably better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15846886 William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Something that's also missing from the edit is that the article points out that those excerpts were pulled out by climate skeptic websites, not by CBS. The edit, as written, seems to suggest that the excerpts were pulled by CBS. It's misleading. Ravensfire (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point; I agree that should be clear. --DGaw (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

CBS News isn't actually the source. CBS is simply republishing a wire story by the Associated Press. The AP is the largest news-gathering organization in the world, and is used as a source by thousands of other news organizations--including the BBC. That would seem a pretty good reason to favor them.

I agree with you that not all reliable sources must be in the article--but it's also true that pending consensus, it's preferable that good-faith additions remain. I see you have reverted the addition a second time; would you mind restoring it while we discuss?

As for this particular source, I imagine it was added because it serves as counterpoint to the UEA position that the new release is not significant--itself clearly not a neutral perspective. Do you have another source in mind from which you would prefer such a counterpoint originate? Or is it the presence of the contrary viewpoint that is being objected to?

And as for the BBC being better, I'm not sure what you mean. Better for what? Lack of bias? On the contrary, it appears the BBC has become part of the story:

The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade. They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output. BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage." The Daily Mail, November 27

The Daily Mail, like the BBC, takes a particular viewpoint in its coverage—but what we have with the Beeb goes beyond that: a conflict of interest alleged by sources within the BBC itself. Such an association would call into question the use of the BBC as a neutral source on climate change matters, though clearly it could still be used as an editorial source. --DGaw (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The AP news story was published on the day of the leak, without time for any consideration or analysis of the hacker's cherry picked extracts, and repeated them without comment. It also gave the initial responses from scientists, and as discussed above if we cover that, we show the responses giving due weight to science rather than to the fringe claims made by the hacker. However, WP:NOTNEWS and we should be looking at a more considered analysis of the issues rather than the first response.
The Daily Mail, unlike the BBC, takes a notoriously anti-science viewpoint in its coverage, and seems to be shocked that the BBC would draw on the expertise of reputable scientists when covering a science story. The BBC has lately had an independent report on it going too far in giving undue weight to fringe views when covering science stories, by presenting tiny minority views as though they had equal credence with well founded science, and has promised to do better, though to what extent they've done so is in question. Since all the emails predate that promise, the evidence is that the BBC was giving too much airtime to interviewing "sceptics". So, the Daily Mail isn't a reliable source as it has a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy. If we're going to go into more detail on this not very notable attempt to revive the "controversy", we need to give due weight to better quality sources, some of which were listed above. . dave souza, talk 18:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
We should not make the mistake of believing the Daily Mail; it isn't an RS William M. Connolley (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and re it's preferable that good-faith additions remain - please don't do that; if people object, it is better to have the new stuff discussed on talk first William M. Connolley (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Also note that Wikipedia:Content removal#Consensus on removal is an essay, not a guideline let alone a policy, and it states "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus unless:...The neutrality of the material may be in question" which it certainly is as discussed above, and as pointed out to the editor who added it in the first place. . dave souza, talk 19:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Dave, I think your edit note at your first reversion, calling the AP piece a "rehash of denier talking points, " pretty clearly reveals your POV on the topic. Perhaps you would recuse yourself from editing this particular quote? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Pete, your POV appears to be showing, and it seems that a clinical psychologist would disagree with you. My pov is clearly that these cherry-picked quotes taken out of context were picked up by the fringe proponents who tried the same tactic last time round, and is well supported by good sources. . dave souza, talk 20:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I imagine it was added because it serves as counterpoint to the UEA position that the new release is not significant - this is a good point. But don't think it is correct to add a quote just to be a counterpoint to another quote. Indeed, the UEA position that the new release isn't significant appears to be correct, judged by the lack of reaction in the MSM, or indeed here - compare to the original William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

People cannot expect that the 'NPOV' of this article will ever be that we give equal coverage or equal credence to the two possibilities that the scientists who wrote these e-mails may, or may not be, lying criminals engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to rule the world by pretending that global warming exists. If we can get that clear, we may be able to get on with discussing the real NPOV. --Nigelj (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The fact that RS haven't covered the new release shouldn't be taken to mean that the release isn't significant. The fact that there has been little effort to modify this page is correlated with the lack of RS coverage and the fact that the more fool-hardy sceptic editors have been banned. I don't doubt that this page will be a battlefield again, sadly.Slowjoe17 (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, 'the fact that RSs haven't covered the new release' means that it fails 'it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts' as it says in WP:NPOV and elsewhere in our policies. What we currently have in the article is a classic example of cherry picking. There are numerous other quotes we could take from the CBS article that give a more balanced view of the new release - regarding the timing assumed to be related to Durban, Prof Mann describing 'the latest leak as "a truly pathetic episode," blaming agents of the fossil fuel industry for "smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails,"' Bob Ward: "The selective presentation of old email messages is clearly designed to mislead the public and politicians about the strength of the evidence for man-made climate change," etc. What CBS are saying here is that they had not had time to access the actual e-mails yet, but have read the hackers' highly selective excerpts on 'skeptic' websites and are reporting the tone of these. Some RSs have had a chance to read the sources now.[15] Why not report what they say if we need to say more? It won't be a 'counterpoint' to anything, though. That would be a false balance, as 'Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.' (WP:NPOV again). --Nigelj (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed it again as it's very clear that there is no consensus for this. Mikenorton (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
For the record, this is an Associated Press wire article carried by CBS News. I will need to check the original wire report to see if CBS published it in whole or in part, and whether they added the conspiracy bit or published it as is. I don't know what is going on over at AP/CBS, but this is the second wire report in the last week from AP/CBS that contained unsubstantiated opinions couched as factual news. On November 20, an AP wire news report published by CBS carried misinformation about the Occupy UC Davis protest.[16] In that report, the AP/CBS source (Charles J. Kelly) claimed that pepper spraying protesters was "fairly standard police procedure" and is regularly used as a "compliance tool". In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Since that initial report, virtually every police officer and organization interviewed by subsequent press sources (for only one of many examples, The San Jose Mercury News) has flat out denied that this is standard practice, and police officers have come forward in news report after news report saying that there isn't a police organization in the country that would allow this, let alone the fact that the officer (Pike) who sprayed the students wasn't using the device according to regulations. So what we have here are two notable instances of AP/CBS distributing false and biased information in just the last week. Due to this continuing disinformation, I will now suggest that AP/CBS news sources can no longer be considered automatically reliable and must be closely vetted in the future. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Update: I can find no evidence that AP's source "Charles J. Kelly" even exists in RL. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No quotes?

I looked through this lengthy article and I couldn't find the "hide the decline" quote anywhere in the text. This is one of the most central quotes of the entire topic and it should be front and center. I only managed to find one quote from the original e-mails that the article is supposed to be about. Instead the article appears to contain an abundance of quotes pertaining to the discussion after the release of climategate. Why not add more quotes from the contents of the original documents. What is going on here ? 74.50.238.122 (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's there in the second section 'Contents of the documents'. Mikenorton (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

no it's not there, it just has in quotes "mike's nature trick" and then refers to explanations of how it doesn't mean what some people think it does, without actually showing the context of the full quote (hide the decline). why not put this quote and other quotes from the e-mails in the article and let the reader decide on their own what they think of it? this article is hardly NPOV 184.66.3.1 (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. It's located in the "Content of the documents" section just as Mike Norton told you. We don't put out of context quotes from the e-mails in the article and "let the reader decide" because that would be an example of editorial misrepresentation of a primary source, and we don't do that here. Based on your comments, you may be more interested in Conservapedia. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It probably should be in the main article, too. As to why it's not -- well, read some of the talk page stuff, such as this upthread. Very contentious article, with (imo) serious bias problems. Not Wikipedia at its best, I'm afraid. --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
There's actually nothing contentious here at all, nor is there any bias. Unfortunately, we have contentious editors coming here and pushing their bias about climate change. You may know a few of them. Wikipedia is doing just fine, thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks whoever for adding at least part of one of the quotes. 184.66.6.202 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Began with the hacking of a server?

Surely what make this incident notable is the content of the material released. Yet you would never know this from the opening paragraph. "Began with the hacking of a server" implies that the release of the e-mail was illegal, which certainly hasn't been established. Would a hacker prepare material to comply with FOIA? Companies get hacked all the time. So even if CRU really was hacked, this opening focuses on an aspect of the incident that isn't terribly notable. Kauffner (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As we've already seen from the sources, what's notable about this incident isn't the material released, it's the manufactured controversy that was created to distract and disinform the public from thinking about climate change mitigation. Think tank said this and think tank said that; meanwhile, the multiple investigations showed that the content of the material was mundane and non-notable. Loves me some Kauffner in the afternoon! Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
If there's one thing clear about this entire affair, it's that the controversy surrounding this e-mails is not manufacturered. It is very real, as one can readily confirm by looking at this very page. Perhaps by "manufactured" you mean you don't believe it should have been controversial? Unfortunately, that's how controversy works: other people disagree. As for the investigations, you frame those as if they are somehow representative of a neutral third ground apart from the controversy; they are not. They are statements of the viewpoints of the organizations they represent, and those on either side of the controversy may (and do) either agree or disagree with their findings. --DGaw (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
With Obama touring the nation in his 6-mile-a-gallon stretch limo, we are all deniers now. Kauffner (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
You keep that ole' fossil fuel mantra going, Kauffner. They couldn't do it without you (and Tillman). Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Fossil fuels...I'm nuclear power kind of guy. Bring on the thorium molten salt reactor. Kauffner (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Which nation? I haven't seen him. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone really think the Secret Service would allow the President to tour in a Prius? Just for pure safety reasons, that idea is ludicrous. Ravensfire (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Safety reasons? Surely a beast like that would only be needed in places so uncivilised that assassins would take pot-shots at elected leaders! . . dave souza, talk 15:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Two years down the line WP editors are still trying to infer crimal activity that no one , most notably specialist units of the British police have been unable to establish. If any editors here have such information they should forward it to the police. Until that time please stop adding unsubstatiated claims into WP articles.

That some authors have used the term "hack" is irrelevant unless they have provided evidence of that.

In general WP rules suggest directly accessible sources are preferable to books or other hard copy that is not directly available. The Guardian is hardly a right wing "deniers" movement. Despite using the term , it clearly states there is not clear evidence. It also covers both sides.

Neutrality of the Further Releases, 2011 section.

I have reviewed the policies pointed out to me by dave souza. I believe that the current Further Release, 2011 section violates the WP:NPOV. Presenting only a single point of view from a single source with so obvious a conflict of interest and associated bias cannot possibly be considered neutral. In addition providing a statement which claims things are taken out of context without even a summary description of that is purportedly being taken out of context is just bad editing.

The description I provided was written by the AP and endorsed by CBS News by virtue their having published it. CBS News does not run every AP story to come across the wire so they must have explcitly selected this story to be run. Neither of these organizations have a known bias in their reporting on this subject. They are unbiaed neutral observers and I would argue that their description is likewise neutral for the purpose of summarizing the content of the emails which are purportedly being taken out of context.

I see that adding this summary is controversial. If consensus for adding this or some other suitable description of the email content cannot be reached then the statement currently included from the University should be removed for being both a pointless statement and a violation of WP:NPOV. The article should not be presenting only a single POV on this issue. --News Historian (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What you're doing here is trying to get a viewpoint inserted without considering whether the viewpoint itself has due weight. That's not how to be a good editor on Wikipedia. This site is not a court of law where you go in trying to see what evidence will fly in defence of your case. We have policies about immediate news source reactions, which is generally to stay away from them as best we can. It's been a few days since this second release, and the CBS/AP material is as valid as 9/11 reporting an hour after the event. Of interest to a media student whose meat and drink (quite rightly) is facts at one remove, but not to those trying to understand the subject itself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is about the political controversy of the e-mail release (as reflected in the title). As with any controversy, there must by definition be two sides, which must both be fairly reflected. In this case, those sides appear to be 1) those who are generally sympathetic toward the UEA as regards the e-mails (including the latest release) and 2) those who are generally critical of the UEA during the release. The first of these viewpoints appears to be well-represented in this section to the satisfaction of those who agree with it. The second does not, which suggests that it is under-weighted in the article. As near as I can tell those arguing to the contrary appear to be primarily those who agree with the first viewpoint, who don't appear to believe the opposing perspective deserves equal weight with their own views. I beg to differ, and suggest the fair thing to do is for both sides to accurately describe their side of the controversy as supported by sources that reliably describe it, and for us to collaborate on balancing the two. To do otherwise invites the appearance of ownership, which I know we all want to avoid.
As for the timeliness of the CBS/AP article, nothing it says appears out of date, and subsequent sources can be used to describe subsequent developments, like the UEA press conference. --DGaw (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Political controversy? Nothing to do with science?? That looks like a lame excuse for a POV fork, divorced from what's shown in all the sources. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the reason it looks like that to you and not to me because we each sympathize with a different side of the controversy in question. That's an excellent reason for both sides of the controversy to be described, not just the one we agree with. It therefore falls to us all to work together to ensure the controversy as a whole is accurately described.
And yes, political controversy, as revealed by the title of the article actually containing the word "controversy." I agree that the creation of a POV fork is a concern, but it would be the absence of both sides that would create one, not their inclusion. --DGaw (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be an argument in favor of removing the currently pointless UAE statement until such time that a properly balanced NPOV entry can be debated here on talk. --News Historian (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be arguing that CBS journalists on duty at a particular time have the same relevance to this topic as UAE. That's a little bit of an odd position.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. I am arguing that presenting only a single POV out of many obviously violates NPOV. Policy requires the text to conform to NPOV. It currently does not. If we wish to block the introduction of additional points of view then the current point of view should be removed to bring the article into conformance with the stated policy. --News Historian (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
We show multiple povs, including pseudoscience, giving due weight to the majority expert view in the field and showing misinformation in mainstream context. Your assertions that it "currently does not" are hollow, and at best show a misunderstanding of policy. . dave souza, talk 18:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
This is an article about a political controversy, not climate science. Except to the extent that science topics are introduced, there is no "majority expert view." Unless I'm mistaken, the CBS/AP article neither made nor discussed scientific claims. --DGaw (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Political controversy, not climate science?? Once again, that looks like a lame excuse for a POV fork, divorced from what's shown in all the sources. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
And yet it isn't; see above. --DGaw (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
My comments are in regards to the section under discussion. That section does not present multiple points of view related to the newly released emails. --News Historian (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
"A single POV out of many" suggests that there are many POVs out there covered by many reliable sources. If you have these sources, bring them to the table. Wikipedia doesn't deal in artificial balance for the sake of it. You might not know this, having never edited wikipedia before (although your use of terms like NPOV suggest you're a previous (probably banned) user using a new name) but we don't have it as an aim to pander to whatever any media organisation throws up in the moment.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
dave souza pointed me to WP:NPOV which I subsequently read. The current text of this section does not even reflect the balance of the single source already cited. It fails weight and balance on that basis alone. All articles from reputable sources discuss both the issues raised by release of the email as well as the reactions of those being discussed. The section fails to match that balance of coverage which is what WP:NPOV states it should do. --News Historian (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The articles discussing the recent illegal publication must properly contextualise it so that readers who forgot about it all, or at least forgot the details, know why it all matters. We are not in the same situation here. In our article, we can assume that readers are not just reading the one section, but have read what comes before it. So there is no need to warm up the same old accusations here that have already been discussed above. Hans Adler 21:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that would make sense if the rest of the article was also discussing the newly released emails but it isn't. This is new material with its own unique context as far as I can tell. Even if I accept your argument is that not also an argument that repeating the UEA statement is redundant and should be removed? Why are we giving extra weight to the UEA point of view when they have an obvious conflict of interest and therefore a bias in this matter? Better to incorporate analysis and summary material from neutral observers. --News Historian (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not a question of if you can tell, it's a question of reliable sources discussing the context of the emails and showing the majority expert view of these emails. So, be specific about the sources you're proposing, per WP:TALK. . dave souza, talk 22:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to WP:TALK. I'll give that a read. When you say "showing the majority expert view of these emails" who are you referring to? Who do you consider to be the experts on these emails and their content? --News Historian (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
How about the various committees that released formal reports on them? Presumably at least some of them were supplied the full correspondence, not just the part that was illegally published, although I haven't verified this. But in any case there is so far nothing to suggest that the new stuff, which was originally not selected for publication by the criminals, has any more substance to it than the old stuff. Hans Adler 23:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Some of the investigations into the original release investigated the entire correspondence, the EPA and NSF for example. For reliable sources showing the context of the most trailed of the recent bunch see The leaked climate science emails – and what they mean | Environment | guardian.co.uk and Cherry-picked phrases explained - University of East Anglia (UEA), no doubt more will be forthcoming. . . dave souza, talk 23:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there could be overlap between the newly released emails and the materials reviewed by the committees as you observe. I don't believe that this overlap adequately addresses the issue. This section is discussing a specific set of emails and the news organizations are discussing the implications of that specific set. The section/article needs to reflect the full content of the news articles discussing this specific event and it currently does not. Arguments that "the substance of the first release is a lot like the substance of the second release" doesn't change this reality. Specifics matter. --News Historian (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
the news organizations are discussing the implications - well, no they aren't, that is the point. They have forgotten it already. Which is an enormous difference to last time. The weight given this section should indeed be very slight, to reflect that difference William M. Connolley (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
That the newest release of e-mails was quickly dismissed both by the UEA and most traditional news organizations, while ongoing discussion continues among skeptics and political conservatives seems like fair comment; you should add it to the article. As for due weight, given the length of the article, it seems quite unlikely that a description of the latest controversy that both sides of the debate consider fair will in any way threaten it. --DGaw (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Sources? Remember, third party and not OR by looking over "skeptic" blogs. . dave souza, talk 18:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't be absurd. There are hundreds of news articles already written about this release in just one week. All of them provide some description of what the newly released content includes, what those who released the new emails claim they demonstrate, and then some form of analysis of those claims. None of that is being properly reflected in the article as it stands. Only a single point of view is reflected and that has an obvious conflict of interest. This is not the proper way for the encyclopedia to cover this material. It fails NPOV. --News Historian (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to be rude, you can talk to yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Stating the obvious truth is not rude. To make progress we need to discuss things openly, honestly, and from a perspective grounded in reality. --News Historian (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ars Technica has an article which seems to cover this new release in a neutral manner, but as a standalone article it is forced to recapitulate prior events (not necessary here). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Nov 24 Guardian piece to which that Ars article links also seems to do a creditable job of offering rebuttals from the quoted scientists to the implications of the published excerpts. --DGaw (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yup, linked to the Guardian piece above. Ars also notes RealClimate: Two-year old turkey which is informative, but the meat is in the comments so not a rs. Ars's John Timmer also concludes that "So far, the event hasn't received much attention in the wider media, probably because of the sense that we've all been here before." and that's in a piece published just 17 hours ago. Only 132 comments so far, which is pretty slow for Ars in my recollection. . dave souza, talk 18:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
All a view that should definitely be represented, as it appears to fairly consistently describe the views of those on one side of the controversy. Which is great—we're half way there! Now all we have to do is as effectively describe the contrasting view held by the other side, and we're home free. --DGaw (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Since the "controversy" is about science, the "two sides" don't have equal validity. We don't need to have every claim and explanation, Wikipedia isn't an index to creationist claims or contrarian claims.dave souza, talk 22:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
We can all believe that only our own opinions are scientific and legitimate, you know. Kauffner (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
But it isn't about the science, as previously pointed out to you. Yours is a flawed framing of the subject matter. The substance of the controversy is about the conduct of the scientists highlighted in the emails. Seeking to circumvent laws and avoid disclosures under FOIA is not about the science, but about the credibility, actions, and behaviours of those creating the scientific narrative. Regardless, any well written section should describe the substance of the issues involved with this release. It currently does not. --News Historian (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
In other words, it's about smearing scientists in an attempt to discredit their science. My, that is a surprise. . dave souza, talk 23:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, Dave. Wikipedia's goal in matters of controversy is to accurately and describe both sides of it, without taking a side. Properly written, it can't "smear" scientists, because all statements of opinion will be clearly marked with proper attribution. --DGaw (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
To support what News Historian is saying, Dave, please review the edit referencing the CBS news article [17] that prompted the current discussion. You will see there are no scientific matters mentioned. --DGaw (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not our job to assess the motivations of those who have created this controversy. It is our job to accurately describe the substance of the controversy in a NPOV way. At least I think that's our job here. Am I wrong? So if the scientists have been vindicated by all means state so, but you can't say they have been vindicated without any discussion of what they have supposedly been vindicated of. We need to provide the background necessary to understand what has been said and what the nature of the controversy is. --News Historian (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict][outdent]. C'mon Dave -- let's not go there, please.

[reply to NH]. In a nutshell, that's the problem with this article -- it tells only one side of the story, that of CRU/UEA and associated people. It's been framed as "embattled scientists vs. nutters", as in the comment just above. That's a viewpoint well-supported by RS's -- but it's not the only viewpoint. NPOV, please. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

By "one side" you mean npov based on good quality reliable sources. The smearing of climate scientists in the AP/CBS piece is in repeating verbatim cherry-picked extracts of alleged emails without checking them for accuracy or context, made worse in the proposed addition to the article of these quote-mines without any of the responses. That clearly ontravenes WP:BLP. More information and analysis is emerging, but as Ars notes the news media seem to have lost interest so care is needed to avoid showing unsubstantiated allegations out of context. As discussed previously, at this stage it's best to show only the bare bones without going into individual claims: we should show an overview, not a detailed allegation and rebuttal for every misleading quotemine. . . dave souza, talk 08:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Framing NPOV

I see above that dave souza wishes to frame the concept of NPOV for these emails in terms of what he calls Science versus Fringe. This framing is flawed and inappropriate in this context. The issues being discussed are not scientific in nature so Science versus Fringe does not apply. The issues actually revolve around the process and the behaviour observed within the climate science community, not the merits of the scientific theories themselves.

WP:NPOV includes a discussion of weight and balance. The news articles discussing this topic seem to be giving roughly equal time to describing the claims of those who released the emails and the reactions being made by the email's authors. Weight and balance would suggest that the distribution in this article should mirror the distribution found in the source articles. --News Historian (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A good summary, thanks NH. As you know, there is (in the minds of many editors) a perceived bias in our article towards "defending" the actions of the CRU & Climategate correspondents.We're seeing this early this time, re the "Climategate 2.0" release.
I've looked closely at the CBS/AP news item [18]. It seems balanced and innocuous to me, and I'm taken aback at the vociferous opposition to its use we've seen. Must be those "denier catchphrases" another editor remarked on.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Pete, I think you need to look more closely and neutrally at all the sources. Including the early one you link, which even at that date noted the mainstream response to these non-scientific claims. And of course we must look for the best sources, not parrot questionable or ill-informed sources. As you'll see if you look more closely at WP:WEIGHT. . dave souza, talk 17:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Dave: both the the Guardian article we currently cite [19] and the CBS-AP piece are dated Nov. 22, so " the early one" isn't. And the only quote we run is from a UEA press release. Guardian reporter Leo Hickman's "green" bias is well-documented. One could question whether NPOV is being met here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
As noted previously, the issues being discussed are not scientific. Your framing is flawed. --News Historian (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh really? Got a source for that? . . dave souza, talk 18:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the title of the article itself may help clarify the point News Historian is making. It's "Climatic Research Unit email controversy." The subject of the article is the controversy, a controversy about the communications of those investigating climate science, not the science itself. --DGaw (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't need a source since I am not adding it to the article. We are discussing the interpretation of policy. Discussions of whether or not, for example, climate scientists have sought to circumvent FOIA requests are obviously not discussions about the merits of the science. Science versus Fringe does not apply. --News Historian (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Not related to improvement of the article. UserTalk exists for a reason. Arkon (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Discussing the interpretation of policy on 18:42, 28 after only creating your account on 03:38, 27 November 2011?[20] You can stop pretending you are a new user now. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:News_Historian&diff=462920221&oldid=462700609 --News Historian (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it accurate to describe you as a confirmed sock puppet whose only contributions have been to create multiple accounts mimicking established users and to disrupt this topic? Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

PT: your own biases are fairly obvious. Could you drop the "you're all biased but I'm not" stuff? It really doesn't help produce a friendly editing atmosphere William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps PT would like to take a moment to disclose any potential COI? Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I am sectioning this line of discussion off based on the WP:TALK guidelines dave souza pointed me to above because it is off topic and distracting from the discussion in the original section. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable and consider moving this discussion to your user talk pages as recommended under the subject "Refactoring for relevance". Thanks. --News Historian (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
While you are at it, please consider revealing the name of your previous account(s) so I can determine if it is currently indefinitely blocked due to misuse and if you are engaging in block evasion. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Pete - the article itself notes that it reviewed extracts taken from climate skeptic websites without context. In other words, material designed to push a strong POV. Ravensfire (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you quote that bit? The only such that I saw was the bit beginning "Those hostile to mainstream climate science claimed the exchanges proved that the threat of global warming was being hyped...", which clearly refers to CG-1. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
From the article (relevant parts bolded):
"The content of the new batch of emails couldn't be immediately verified - The Associated Press has not yet been able to secure a copy - but climate skeptic websites carried what they said were excerpts.
"Although their context couldn't be determined, the excerpts appeared to show climate scientists talking in conspiratorial tones about ways to promote their agenda and freeze out those they disagree with. There are several mentions of "the cause" and discussions of ways to shield emails from freedom of information requests." Ravensfire (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. We should wait for something more definitive, then. Probably won't be long: [21]. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Source code?

I'm not a neutral party in this, but I do want to make sure I'm presented with all the information so that I, as a biased individual, am not led astray. That said, I'd only just this morning heard from a conservative (and just as polarized in bias) coworker about the 'source code' for the 'hockey stick' model. Looking it up, I saw tons of references, not a one of them including the entire source code, nor from anything much a heavily biased right-leaning blog. Further, I don't even see mention of it on this article.

I guess I'm just inquiring into the nature of these claims, and what believable sources there are on the topic?

75.148.21.9 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See Climatic Research Unit documents#Code and documentation, which will probably provide you what you're looking for. Mikenorton (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi IP and Mike, the CRU code had nothing to do with the hockey stick, or indeed with the CRUTEM product: that was covered in some of the inquiries, we'll need to update our article. Tedious as that is. Think you'll find Hockey stick controversy#Congressional investigations more useful.
The source code for the hockey stick graph, MBH99, was made available to the public in 2005. On 15 July 2005, Mann wrote that the full data and necessary methods information was already publicly available in full accordance with National Science Foundation (NSF) requirements, so that other scientists had been able to reproduce their work. NSF policy was that computer codes "are considered the intellectual property of researchers and are not subject to disclosure", but notwithstanding these property rights, the program used to generate the original MBH98 temperature reconstructions had been made available at the Mann et al. public ftp site.
There's a link for the code at RealClimate, along with links to code for more recent reconstructions and links to data.
The CRU dataset is of course available online, and by the time this email controversy started they had reached agreement with Met offices holding the raw data to release 95% of that raw data, which they did. As shown at our Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit, they have since reached further agreements, and following discussions with the ICO have released all the raw data, overriding a refusal by Trinidad and Tobago, save the data from Poland which was not covered by a FOIA request.
This of course doesn't affect the raw data available from US organisations, which did not get data from these Met offices or did not agree to the same terms. The different datasets all show very similar results, though the HadCRUT product doesn't extrapolate to polar regions and shows less warming than other datasets (GISS for one). Hope that helps, trust you and your friends enjoy trying out the source code. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Dave, I had assumed that the OP was referring to the 'Harry Read Me' file and its related teacup storm. Mikenorton (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies (and apologies for forgetting to log in.) My gut instinct regarding this whole talking point was that it was all fury and little or no fire, but when I'd done a generic search, the first several pages of results were nothing but 'damning' evidence this and that. I was looking for a more objective review. So shall I be reading this morning, it seems. Jeturcotte (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fred Pearce on "Secrecy in science – an argument for open access"

"Secrecy in science – an argument for open access", 29 Nov 2011 at Index on Censorship.

This will be a corrective to some of the shilly-shallying and dodge-and-weaving in our (bad) article, I think. Read it & see what you think. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah dear, Fred still clutching his crown jewels. You'd think he'd know better. Nature [22] gave the background to this, which he seems to have missed. We cover these issues in Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit. "Is it a scandal that McIntyre cannot get to see the data to review CRU’s work and do his own science?" Well, he was only interested in doing that if someone paid him. He's had all the raw data (which didn't belong to CRU) since 27 July, any sign of publication of his analysis? Or is he holding out until Poland gives up its data? Pearce is also a bit out of date about McIntyre's retired status, unless McI is retired at the same time as being chairman of the board of directors of a mining company. . . dave souza, talk 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's a reliable source for anything we need in the article. It looks like there's been very little or no editorial control or fact checking. It begins "A fresh round of climate science emails were hacked and released to the public last week", and we know they were hacked 2 years ago. We could use it as a source of examples of the kinds of mistakes people make, I suppose. --Nigelj (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Nigel, why do you think the Index on Censorship's magazine has no editorial control? And if Pearce writes what appears to be a minor mistake ("hacked" now instead of earlier), this doesn't appear to be a substantial error. IMS, both you and Dave have defended use of Pearce's stuff on other occasions? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Your source doesn't look good. But I can see why you'd want to use it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Take this to RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
@ Itsmejudith, the publication itself is a RS in my view, but Pearce is displaying a lack of fact-checking and accuracy in this instance. Disappointing, as he's been a prolific author on the general topic. His Climate Files series and book had some problems, but at least it was subject to some review and comment.
@ Pete, your memory seems to be deficient. "Pearce is a journalist rather than a historian, he's tended to give credence to McIntyre and is on friendly terms with those opposing mainstream views, but generally shows the mainstream position. So, fairly even handed but should be taken with care."[23] His Index on Censorship article makes claims that are clearly out of context or false, he seems to be letting his enthusiasm for FOIA override accuracy. . . dave souza, talk 10:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
A source cannot be simultaneously reliable and "displaying a lack of fact checking." We rely on that fact checking and if it is absent then the source is, in that instance, unreliable (no, we don't say "X is always a reliable source" else we'd still be saying there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because Judith Miller of the New York Times said so). --TS 01:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Hi Viriditas. I notice you removed the neutrality tag from the "new release" section. While I'm glad to know you are happy with it, I agree with the other editors here who feel this section may require some additional work to establish neutrality. As noted in the tag itself, it shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved, not just to your satisfaction, but to the satisfaction of the group. As a number of proposed edits have been reverted, and there is not yet consensus on a suitable compromise, it's safe to say the dispute is ongoing, and the tag should remain in place. I'm guessing you just hadn't noticed the discussion was still underway, so I'll go ahead and restore it for you. --DGaw (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked sock puppets who are creating multiple accounts to mimic established users and confuse the discussion don't qualify as "other editors" and don't count towards a consensus. Wikipedia requires intellectual honesty, and while that might not be something you value or think is important, without it we can't write an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I'm not sure how helpful it is to cast aspersions regarding the intellectual honesty of other editors. If you think a user is violating policy, there are channels for reporting it, no? --DGaw (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm confused. Which part of this paragraph is alleged to be non-neutral?

Another set of 5,000 emails, apparently copied at the same time as those previously released, was put on a Russian server, together with a message giving some selective quotations highlighting many of the issues raised previously, and links to this were posted on skeptic blogs on 22 November 2011. A small sample examined by the university "appears to be genuine." "As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context," UEA stated.

In addition to being fully supported by reliable sources, it supports the facts and does not include fringe views. There's nothing inaccurate or misleading. Would someone please point out what specifically they are objecting to? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody has seen fit to respond, I guess we don't need that NPOV tag? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we do. However, I'm sorry you are dissatisfied with the pace at which other editors are contributing to the project. Perhaps you should give them time to respond? --DGaw (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess I was a bit hasty (you will note I didn't remove the tag, however); nevertheless, I'm still waiting to hear what is so wrong with the paragraph as it stands. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
DGaw, I've removed your most recent Conservapedia-style contribution to this article. A fringe editorial opinion by The Washington Times is not needed, and those old claims have already been addressed by multiple investigations. DGaw, your conception of NPOV and your claim to "fix" and remedy what you see as a POV problem appear to be a ruse to insert fringe positions that have already been debunked by multiple investigations. Please try to do some research and use only the most current and highest quality sources for this article in the future. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The "POV" part is to take the statement from UEA without either details of any allegations, or counterpoint from anyone else. What we have is an article about a controversy, without any details of one side of the controversy. The fact is that there do not currently appear to be reliable sources that can be used to provide details of the allegations, so the article cannot be updated to remove the POV. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't a POV problem to be fixed later.Slowjoe17 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not following you. Please be more specific. What exactly is it that we don't have? Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Issues with DGaw's contribution
  • The Guardian ran an article posting rebuttals to the excerpts from scientists.
    • While not entirely an egregious breach, we generally avoid making any statement without a secondary source making that observation. If Juliette Jowit's article was important, there should be another source noting it.
Very well; I don't have a problem with dropping that sentence, if you wish. --DGaw (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
In future threads and comments, please don't interrupt my comments with replies. My concern is not just dropping the sentence here, but making sure that everything we write is supported. I realize that you were just trying to segue and provide an overview, but this must be done very carefully, otherwise it can be easily abused. The way you've written it is highly ambiguous. That the Guardian ran rebuttals to the excerpts from scientists is unclear and could be read as rebuttals to the scientists. The entire passage you added has this kind of ambiguity throughout, so this is symptomatic of a larger problem, which I discuss below. Our writing needs to be precise, clear, and unambiguous. Usually, when we say a publication ran a story, we expect that the source is secondary and makes this observation for us. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Mainstream news outlets quickly agreed the second release was less significant than the first, with Nature calling it "a poor sequel".
    • A Google search result is not a reference. What source supports the statement? Again, it sounds like Wikipedia editors making observations. We avoid that. In any case the wording is highly problematic. "Mainstream news outlets quickly agreed" is highly POV and not reflected by the sources. In fact, the Nature editorial you are attempting to cite does not support this statement, and further research shows that the sources say it wasn't the mainstream news outlets that responded quickly, it was the climate sceptics.[24] The way this is written makes it seem like a conspiracy by the mainstream media to silence the climate skeptics. This is Conservapedia style propaganda and doesn't belong here.
I'm not clear on what you are asserting is biased about the phrase "mainstream news outlets quickly agreed". Are you saying that mainstream news outlets did not agree? That agreeing within three days of the event is not quickly? Or that saying they agreed quickly somehow reflects badly on them? I though a key criticism of the press following the initial release is they didn't condlude it was unimportant quickly enough. --DGaw (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Which source supports the statement " "mainstream news outlets quickly agreed"? None, correct? As I said, this is sneaky way of pushing a POV, namely the Conservapedia-style "mainstream, liberal media bias" POV. By claiming without sources that the "mainstream news outlets quickly agreed", you are winking at the reader. The subtext to this unsourced statement is, "Look! The liberal mainstream media quickly agreed in a backdoor meeting to ignore the poor, downtrodden climate skeptics!" This is not acceptable. The sources I saw did not support this statement. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Telegraph's Geoffrey Lean opining on November 25 that "public response seems to have been nothing more than a yawn." News coverage trailed off quickly.
    • This needs to be improved to take into account the public response to the allegations in the context of the climate change conspiracy theories being promoted by climate deniers, which the source mentions.
By all means, feel free to improve. What do you propose? --DGaw (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
You describe the public response outside the context of what they are responding to, which is the allegations by the climate skeptics as the Lean article shows. There are instances where it is important to quote and others where paraphrasing and summarizing are ideal. This is one of them. There is really no reason to quote here. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Within the editorial sphere, debate continued, as advocates for and critics of the involved correspondents argued over the the significance of the new release.
    • There is an assertion of importance here, and of some significance to a "debate" but no source supporting it. This is a common touchstone of climate denial—the assertion that a debate exists or is ongoing about climate science when in fact there is none. The sources are clear on this point: the new release was insignificant and there is no significant debate, as that ended quite some time ago.
  • A November 29th Washington Times editorial asserted that, "the emails provide evidence of various crimes against the scientific method, such as concealed or destroyed source data, selective measurement, predetermined conclusions, hidden funding sources and bowing to government influence," a theme echoed by various conservative publications.
    • A transparent attempt to reignite and rekindle the fringe climate change conspiracy theories that six committees investigated and debunked. An editorial in the Washington Times is hardly a reliable source nor is it relevant.
I'm afraid you appear to be misinformed regarding what constitutes a reliable source. Newspaper op-eds as "a prime example" of a source which may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, so long as they are attributed (as was the case here) and clearly identified as an opinion. (See WP:RS#Reliability in specific contexts). As for it not being relevant, I, and I believe others here, respectfully disagree—hence our opportunity to find a suitable compromise and improve the article. I would prefer we focus on that rather than our perception of what our fellow contributors are attempting, wouldn't you? --DGaw (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The Washington Times is a rather odd newspaper kept afloat by the Moonies. You may be confusing it with the Washington Post.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Climate scientists and their supporters objected strongly, with Michael Mann telling New York Times reporters that the e-mails demonstrate "the opposite" of a conspiracy."
    • Again, this is the biased climate denial framing. We're supposed to believe that it's the big bad climate scientists and their emboldened supporters in this corner, and the defenseless climate skeptics and the weakened fossil fuel lobby and their moral upstanding think tank partners in business in this corner. By having them "object strongly", the wording implies that the allegations of climate change conspiracy have some kind legitimacy.
It isn't meant that way at all. On the contrary, it is meant to be a statement in defense of Mann and his colleagues to balance the allegation made by their critics. I would ask that you assume good faith in my intentions, as I am doing with yours. If you can provide alternative wording you believe better rebutts the charges of those saying the release is significant, I welcome that; what do you think would work better? As for "legitimacy" it isn't for you or I to opine on whether the arguments on either side are legitimate, but to ensure the article fairly describes both sides of the controversy, and takes no side. --DGaw (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
You are operating under the impression that NPOV means we must represent all sides equally. That is not the case here. The climate change conspiracy theory has been completely debunked by six investigations. We're not here to defend Mann or equally represent his critics on equal footing. We've been down that path, and the evidence has been examined. The claims by his critics represent a fringe group of deniers, many of them working for or supporting fossil fuel interests. The "charges" of those saying the release is significant is an echo chamber of fossil-fuel funded think tanks and conservative politicians representing fossil fuel interests. Their claims were analyzed and closely examined and were found to be lacking in substance. We don't need to keep going over the same ground. This is a closed issue. There is nothing to "balance" here. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Liberal media watchdog Media Matters for America published a list of examples it said showed conservative media taking the e-mails out of context.
    • We don't need to cite Media Matters to know that the "conservative media" (another propaganda term as this implies the media is liberal) has taken the e-mails out of context. Note the obvious propaganda here yet again. By implying that a "liberal" media watchdog group has said that the e-mails were taken out of context, the underlying message communicated to the reader is that it was a liberal opinion and essentially a liberal bias which reached that conclusion. In fact, that conclusion was reached by multiple independent investigations and is representative of the scientific and academic community, not a liberal media watchdog group. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Several thoughts on this one:
  1. I included the descriptions "liberal" and "conservative" at the recommendation of the essay WP:Controversial_articles, which notes that opinions should be accurately labeled in neutral terms. "For example, 'The conservative American churchgroup...', 'The liberal anti-war group...'" etc. (See WP:Controversial_articles#Attribute assertions)
  2. My description of Media Matters is based on their Wikipedia page, where they are described, apparently without dispute, as a "politically progressive media watchdog group." I used "liberal" as the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are widely used together to describe opposite ends of a political spectrum, but I don't have a strong preference either way. Do you prefer "progressive" to "liberal"?
  3. The term "Conservative media" is Media Matters' preferred term, used throughout their article, including in the headline. Your theory that its use is part of a conservative conspiracy to label the media as liberal is therefore weak. In any case, referring to "conservative media" does not logically imply that other media is liberal, only that it is not conservative. That would encompass both liberal and neutral media.
  4. The subject of the Media Matters source was conservative coverage of the second e-mail release. The "multiple independent investigations" you reference were all completed prior to the latest release, and therefore could have nothing to say on the matter.
  5. You again appear to be casting aspersion as to my motives. Please stop. --DGaw (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
We have no reason to cite Media Matters, and the only reason you added it was because you are operating under the false assumption that fringe claims from conservatives require equal time and balance with opposing views from liberals. That is not true, and it's a false dilemma. In fact, we have good reliable sources from across the political, public policy, journalistic, scientific, and academic spectrum all agreeing that the e-mails were taken out of context. We have no need to setup a false left-right dichotomy to state this fact. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I will reply to your specific observations as I re-edit the passage. Before I do, though, let me ask instead how you believe the controversy over the e-mails should be more fairly characterized? --DGaw (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Please read the sources you used. There was no controversy. It was virtually ignored by the media and the public. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Vrinditas, I see you have again removed the neutrality tag from the Further Release section without first seeking consensus. The second time you were definitely aware that discussion was ongoing, because you were participating in it, yet you removed the tag anyway. Can you explain, please? --DGaw (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to make this request at Viriditas' talk page. In the meantime, it would be collegial if Viriditas could self-revert this change which was not backed by any clear concensus.Slowjoe17 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
A good idea. I've TBed him/her there as well. --DGaw (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not self-reverting anything. DGaw's edits aren't supported by the sources, and an editorial in The Washington Times is not a reliable source for this topic, and it repeats the same misinformation that's already been debunked by multiple investigations. If there is a secondary source that has highlighted the importance of this editorial, like The Telegraph highlighted the importance of Inhofe and CEI, then we can discuss it, otherwise it's non-negotiable. Editors don't get to pick and choose what is important, we rely on the sources to do that. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that's the point. We can discuss (and indeed are discussing) our differences of opinion regarding what the article should say. Slowjoe17 did not suggest that you restore disputed content. He/she did suggest you restore an NPOV tag added by another editor which you decided to unilaterally remove despite knowing that discussion over the section's neutrality is ongoing. The belief that one opinion is correct and fair other opinions are wrong and biased does not grant license to act without consensus. --DGaw (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Using sources correctly and appropriately is the point. You're saying there is a POV dispute. I don't see one. Please use the best sources you can find to prove it to me. What I see are multiple editors pushing their POV and using the battle cry of "POV dispute" to sneak fringe opinions under the radar. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this will help. Several authors here have indicated they believe the section in question represents a non-neutral POV. Do you agree with us? Or do you dispute it? --DGaw (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas, there is clearly not a consensus to remove the NPOV tag at this time. The course of action I would choose in your position would be to restore the tag, and wait for such a consensus to emerge. As it is, you've now removed the tag twice in the absence of consensus. I don't necessarily believe that such a consensus might not emerge (WMC, TS and Dave Sousa may well agree with you in the future, but they certainly haven't yet). Your judgement appears temporarily clouded due to suspicion that DGaw is a sock. I would urge you to reconsider.Slowjoe17 (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The tag was added by a sock. I'm opposed to the tag being used as a weapon. If you want to improve the section, do. If all you want to do is argue about the tag, don't William M. Connolley (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter. Completely agree the tag should not be used as a weapon. --DGaw (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Stolen

My edit to change the word "copied" to "stolen" has been reverted with the summary: "That has not been determined yet and is not supported by the ref."

That just isn't a supportable statement. If the emails were not stolen the alternative is that every single person involved in the emails released the material deliberately and has spent the past two years lying about it, both as a group and as individuals repeatedly claiming that they did not authorize the release and without any evidence to the contrary. No, the emails were stolen. --TS 01:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they were stolen or not. It matters what the ref says. Your reasoning above, which may be true, is WP:SYNTH--Taylornate (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Since part of the objection was on the basis of sourcing, I've changed the word to "hacked", which is what the source says.
I'll reserve my comments on the "synthesis" argument. --TS 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
That's what the headline says but it's pretty clearly not supported by the body of the article. Adding dubious tag.--Taylornate (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think that even if both "copied" and "stolen" are accurate, "copied" would be better, since I sense "stolen" is preferred because it expresses disapproval, which is not Wikipedia's job. HOWEVER... it's sort of a moot point, because the word "stolen" is used repeatedly earlier in the article. Also, while this particular source does not use the word "stolen" if you scroll to the bottom, you'll see a link to an article about the original release, which did say "stolen". I don't think either makes a huge difference to the quality of the article, so I'll leave it to greater minds to work out. --DGaw (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit curious as to what you think would get people arrested for "releasing" the emails - if they weren't hacked/stolen? (note that the article does talk about no arrests yet) Or why the police is involved. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
How is that even relevant if there have been no arrests?--Taylornate (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Taylornate, I've removed your addition of the dubious tag. There is nothing dubious about the sourced material you tagged. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Taylornate, classic logical fallacy. Using your logic, the "Jack the Ripper" killings weren't murders, because there was no arrest. We have reliable sources claiming that there was a hacking, and no reliable sources claiming "leaked" or "stolen".Slowjoe17 (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Slowjoe, did you even read what I was replying to? I didn't state any logic about arrests. Kim did, and I questioning her logic. About your second point, the section about the recent release is less well-sourced than you seem to think. There are only three refs and none of them make more than a passing mention of hacking.
Viriditas, if you add a ref that concludes (and does not just mention in passing) that the second release was the result of a hacking then this disagreement will be over. I think this is a reasonable request and until that ref is added the dubious tag is fair.--Taylornate (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
So, you're saying that the second release was not the result of a hacking? How were the e-mails obtained? We've been over this many times in the archives. The consensus is that they were stolen off the server, or "hacked". We aren't going to keep debating this. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to paste my original statement on this: It doesn't matter if they were stolen or not. It matters what the ref says. Please read what I linked to, it is a very important fundamental WP policy. If what you say about consensus is true, then the current wording should already be sufficiently sourced which it is not. Also, your statement We aren't going to keep debating this feels like WP:OWN.--Taylornate (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

new resources

  • Hackers attempt to revive ClimateGate with more stolen emails November 22, 2011 TckTckTck, excerpt ...

    In an apparent effort to discredit climate science, hackers again posted stolen emails from leading climate scientists online today, just days ahead of a United Nations climate meeting. According to the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, the emails released today are part of the same batch that was stolen from the university years ago. Only some of those emails were released in November 2009. Since then, multiple investigations exonerated scientists who had their emails stolen of misconduct.

  • "Hackers Release Batch of Stolen Emails from Scientists; Science Group Calls on British Authorities to Increase Efforts to Identify Hackers" November 22, 2011 Union of Concerned Scientists, excerpt ...

    UCS climate scientist Brenda Ekwurzel said the emails are a distraction from important scientific findings. “The stolen emails are an inconsequential sideshow compared to the main event: preparing ourselves for climate change and reducing emissions,” she said. “Stolen emails won’t cool us off during killer heat waves or prevent floodwaters from washing away our homes.” Just last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report linking climate change to certain types of dangerous extreme weather, including heat waves and shifts in rainfall that lead, in many areas, to prolonged drought punctuated by heavy flooding.

  • Climategate emails 'out of context' UK Press Association, excerpt ...

    UEA's vice chancellor Professor Edward Acton said that so far what had been highlighted in the emails, which come from the same period - 1995 to 2009 - as the batch released two years ago, contained "different phrases but as far as we can see, no new issues". He said the timing of the new release was significant, coming just before the climate talks in Durban (COP17), and said he hoped the emergence of a new set of emails could shed light on the perpetrator of the hacking, whom police have not been able to track down.

See Adaptation to global warming and mitigation of climate change

99.181.139.152 (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source in the bunch. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Since when is the Press Association not a WP:RS? That aside i find 99.*'s use of wikipedia as a news aggregator rather irritating. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. The other three, though.... As for 99.* (also including some 141.* and a fixed IP in the 97.*), any ideas as to what could be done? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If we're looking for resources, this one from the Daily Mail certainly catches the eye, and seems to serve a counterpoint to the links above. It quotes extensively from the e-mails in question to support its thesis:


— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGaw (talkcontribs) 00:41, 27 November 2011‎

LOL at epic fail, as usual. Amusing to see how they describe the notorious El Reg as "Andrew Orlwowski, UK science site The Register's science correspondent"!! The odd thing is that the Mail was so half-hearted about it....

It is not clear, though, whether they are new, or indeed whether they indicate any kind of conspiracy.....
It is still unclear what effect - or combination of effects - is causing the current warming of the atmosphere, which has risen around one temperature in the past 50 years.

The big question is, will it rise one temperature in the next 50 years?? . . dave souza, talk 01:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, though as you note, many others (e.g. Reuters, UPI, the SF Chronicle, The Guardian) reported the story with varying degrees of caution (particularly in the headline). A good reminder that "reliable" and "infallible" are different. --DGaw (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right, the devil is in the "varying degrees of caution". On the Daily Mail coverage above, Climategate RIP - Mail Online - Michael Hanlon's Science blog: From The Cutting Edge from "Britain’s sharpest and most well-read newspaper science journalist" who writes "science features and comment for the Daily Mail", but didn't write the piece quoted above: ..

I have deliberately waited a few days to blog about this because I wanted to see if I was right in thinking that this time the fuss would die down quickly. And it has. ...
The professor at the heart of the alleged scandal, Phil Jones, not only made himself available to the media he got on a train to London to address a press conference, at which he addressed every single awkward question the hacks threw at him. He came across as a bit fed up with the whole thing (as well he should be) but honest and very open. We all came away believing that there was no story here.

To be clear, I don't think this is a reliable source, but it confirms what more reliable publications have said. . . dave souza, talk 10:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Another new resource

Climategate: A symptom of driving science off a cliff --You just couldn't make it up, by the notorious Andrew Orlowski. Actually, this is one of his better columns, that I've seen anyway. H/t to Keith Kloor's "Collide-a-Scope". Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Amusing, but of course not a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 22:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Blanked addition of blog based accusations which contravene WP:BLP. Recent discussions at ANI indicate that we should be much more careful about such additions to talk pages. . dave souza, talk 00:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that a link to an essay, with my innocuous commentary, could reasonably infringe on BLP: diff Thought police?? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be doing a lot of echoing WUWT these days, Pete, reiterating accusations against living people goes over the line. Speaking of police.... . dave souza, talk 09:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Climategate 2: A consensus emerges, by Anthony Cox at ABC -- that's OzBC for USAians. The first decent analysis I've seen in the MSM. Not sure there's anything here for immediate use, but nice to see a MSM C2 op-ed that's not knee-jerk. Have a look, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Opinion piece, author Anthony Cox is a lawyer and secretary of The Climate Sceptics. Not a "decent analysis", a guide to "skeptic" talking points but lacks context shown in reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 09:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputes over NPOV in the lead and further releases section

Viriditas has removed the word "speculate" from both of these sections. This change fails WP:NPOV because the sources cannot possibly know the motivations and intentions of the person or persons who released the emails. Therefore any comments these sources make with respect to those motivations and intentions are speculations by definition. To meet NPOV the text needs to properly reflect the degree of uncertainty with respect to the source's actual knowledge of those motivations and intentions per WP:SAY. Alternatively any statements of fact regarding those motivations and intentions can be removed from the article. I have no preference regarding which remedy is employed. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You've got a backwards. We don't speculate as to what a source knows or doesn't know. We cite the sources as accurately as possible, and in this case, we have a direct quote. We have two separate instances of stolen e-mails being released prior to two different climate conferences in a two year period. We also have a preponderance of reliable sources saying it was an attempt to undermine the climate conferences. And, if we think through your illogical claim, and assume for the sake of your argument that we can't know the intentions of the people who stole the e-mails and released them, how could we possibly conclude that they weren't intended to undermine the conferences? Are you actually arguing that they could support the conferences? You're not making any sense here. What part of this statement do you dispute?

Juliette Jowit and Leo Hickman of The Guardian said the new release was "an apparent attempt to undermine public support for international action to tackle climate change" with the start of the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference scheduled in Durban, South Africa a week later.

If it wasn't an "apparent attempt to undermine public support" for climate mitigation, then what was it? We've got the most reliable sources and experts saying that it was, including Bill Royce of Burson-Marsteller. It really doesn't get any more solid than that. What sources do you have that say it wasn't? You have none. Stop trying to wikilawyer over policies by using them to shield your POV pushing. It's transparent and intellectually dishonest. And please, stick to one account. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
We do indeed cite sources as accurately as possible, which includes identifying statements, even direct quotes, that are opinions. Unless the reporters or "the most reliable sources and experts" have inside knowledge from whoever is posting the e-mails, their statements regarding the timing of the release must by necessity be opinions. (As it happens, I agree with them, and I suspect you: I think the e-mails probably were released with a view to disrupting Durban. But that doesn't free us from our obligation to properly attribute assertions. --DGaw (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The quote is properly attributed, so your response doesn't make much sense. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
But it does. Statements that are opinions must not only be attributed, but identified as an opinion. Unless the author of a source indicates they have confirmation from the hacker, statements regarding the motivation of the timing are opinion.--DGaw (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
You claim not to speculate on what the sources do or don't know and then write two lengthy paragraphs doing exactly that. Regardless, simply clarify for me which of your sources has actually contacted the purpetrators to ask them what their motivations and intentions actually were. If you can clear that up the problem may be resolved. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
We can't engage in original research. You obviously haven't put much thought into this. If you had, you would discover that your line of reasoning doesn't work. The preponderance of reliable sources connect the timing of the release and the undermining of the climate conferences. I've asked you this question twice now (once on your talk page and once here), so for the third time now, if the release wasn't intended to undermine the climate conferences, what alternative rationale can you offer? And can you find a source that supports it? You think it was speculation, and that's fine, you are welcome to that belief. But it was perfectly acceptable for Nigelj to change DGaw's wording from "speculation" to "said", which is proper attribution. In response to this change, you have claimed that we must use the word "speculate" to "convey the level of uncertainty of the sources". The only problem is that there is no uncertainty here. The majority of sources on this subject are in agreement. For the fourth time, if there was uncertainty, what could this uncertainty be about? Are you actually claiming that this was a coincidental release two years apart? And are you saying that it was not intended to undermine the climate conferences? As Bill Royce and dozens of other experts have observed, this was an organized effort to discredit climate science. There is no "uncertainty" here. And just because you personally think there was, you will need to find sources saying otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
No original research needed. NPOV requires us as editors to include content from your sources in an unbiased manner. The current text does not do that. I have not proposed an alternative rationale because unlike your sources I do not wish to speculate on why the purpetrators released the emails. Perhaps you are simply confused about the meaning of the word speculate:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=speculate
http://i.word.com/idictionary/speculate
Note that we are currently discussing the transitive form of the verb. You claim that the is no uncertainty with the sources. This is incorrect. There is no uncertainty in what your sources have said ... I am not questioning your transcription skills ... but there is most certainly uncertainty regarding what your sources actually know definitively about the motives of the purpetrators. The purpetrators remain unknown to this day so this calls into question whether your sources are in a position to known anything conclusively about the motives in question. As editors we must not include unqualified statements of fact, even if they are opinions, when those opinions are reasonably known to be mere speculation without noting the speculative nature of the statement. To do so introduces bias and violates NPOV.
So, as I asked before, simply clarify which of your sources are known to have formed their opinions based on conclusive evidence and this matter will be resolved. Lacking that I still dispute the neutrality of the current text. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
An alternative rationale: The intentions of the 2011 leakers could be to help the Durban conference to get an more accurate picture of climate science. The release of the e-mails being in time with Durban could also be just a coincidence, they could have got a hold of the e-mails just around the time of the Durban conference and released them because they wanted to show how good they are at cracking e-mail servers. --84.187.127.149 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
When you apply Occam's razor to that day old stubble of an alternative rationale, there's nothing left but smooth skin after the shave. Are there any sources that support these alternatives? I recall that there were one or two in less than reliable sources several years ago, but nobody takes them seriously. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You have your burden of evidence backwards. If a source does not claim to have inside knowledge from the hacker as to his or her motivations, opinions as to the motivation of the timing, however commonly agreed to, are just that: opinions, to be identified as such. To assert otherwise, via Occam's razor or otherwise, would be original research.
I am curious: why you arguing about this point so persistently, given that Wikipedia is pretty clear about the need to clearly identify opinions as opinions? --DGaw (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, I agree that naming the reporters the way you have is a reasonable approach for indicating they are expressing an opinion. I withdraw my objection on this point. --DGaw (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that the text states as of this posting: "Nature describe the further release as a "poor sequel",". Writing that as "Nature 'describes' the further release" may be the grammatically appropriate way to state that! Edit- I think Q science got to it as I was expressing my thoughts. Thanks kindly. 70.181.35.161 (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

UEA re authenticity of emails

I see this has been removed, why? To my knowledge, no RS has disputed the authenticity of any of the emails that have been made public. I'll add that bit back shortly. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably because its not an interesting issue. Meanwhile, who added the Weekly Std stuff? Oh, you did. It doesn't look like a good source. We're not quoting Greenpeace, why are we quoting the WS? Given that, I reverted your edit William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw your edit and came here expecting to see an explanation of who has disputed the authenticity of the emails, making it necessary to point out that they appear to be authentic. But it appears that this sentence is just as pointless as I thought at first. Hans Adler 19:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: I also agree about removing the WS bit. To my surprise (on first sight it looks like pure rubbish), an earlier opinion at WP:RSN was that it's technically reliable, though partisan. But surely we are not so desperate for opinions on this matter that we need to make do with a 'neoconservative' lossy Murdoch magazine? Hans Adler 20:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

UEA re authenticity of emails

I see this has been removed, why? To my knowledge, no RS has disputed the authenticity of any of the emails that have been made public. I'll add that bit back shortly. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably because its not an interesting issue. Meanwhile, who added the Weekly Std stuff? Oh, you did. It doesn't look like a good source. We're not quoting Greenpeace, why are we quoting the WS? Given that, I reverted your edit William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is about political controvery, and quoting Greenepeace would be entirely appropriate. If you think their opinion on the matter would enhance the article, add away. --DGaw (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw your edit and came here expecting to see an explanation of who has disputed the authenticity of the emails, making it necessary to point out that they appear to be authentic. But it appears that this sentence is just as pointless as I thought at first. Hans Adler 19:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
So you both feel no need to quote UEA saying the emails are authentic? In a 160-word paragraph? Odd. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
As we've said, because (AFAIK) no-one has suggested they aren't. Unless I missed it, something similar applies to round 1, too William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The statement reported here occurred very early when a lot of people will have asked themselves whether the emails were real. At the time it was worth mentioning, now it isn't and doing so in the main text would probably fall under WP:UNDUE. If there were any doubt about the authenticity, then we would mention it. As there isn't, we don't. That's how encyclopedias condense information to a readable size. Although Wikipedia is not always good at encyclopedic brevity, there is no reason to break it deliberately. Hans Adler 20:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in opinion quotes

Someone recently added an opinion quote from Nature, which is fine. I added a similar quote from the Weekly Standard. WMC promptly reverted, calling it a "junk source". Hans Adler thinks it's "rubbish."

I think we need both (or another critical quote) or none, for WP:NPOV. In any case, the Nature editorial quote seems overlong. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood, fundamentally. The aim of NPOV isn't to have every quote that you perceive as "side A" counterbalanced by a quote from what you think of as "side B". If you can find something with Nature's stature - Science, say, - then we can consider that. But don't just cherry-pick something from your local weekly because it happens to fit your POV and call it balance William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. You are confusing us with the American media. (Which is strange, as this article is related to the UK, not the US.) We don't automatically follow the pattern, "The Norwegian authorities are prosecuting Breivik for murder and terrorism, but according to sources in the Ku Klux Klan, this is unfair persecution of a dissident." As you must surely know this by now, I wonder what the real purpose of this section is. Hans Adler 20:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
So both of you feel we should include only opinion quotes which coincide with your personal views? Interesting. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious as to how you infer that "we should include only opinion quotes which coincide with your personal views" from what Hans and WMC said. Mayhaps a reread of WP:NPOV, specifically the section about WP:WEIGHT, is in order? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT is not at issue, as we are discussing the inclusion of a few sentences in an article of nearly 8,000 words that summarizes extensively the positions of those who agree with the UEA position on the controversy. Perhaps we could all benefit from a review of the section within WP:NPOV that relates to to accurately indicating the relative prominence of opposing views? --DGaw (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Your baiting works quite well. I already typed something that I felt I have to self-censor. If you feel that the Science article is misrepresented by what we are currently saying, would you prefer that we quote the entire paragraph starting with "There is also the sense that many in the media felt cheated by the original Climategate" to make sure we don't take anything out of context? If you think that the Science article is wrong where it speaks of "the relative indifference with which the new batch of e-mails [...] has been met by the wider world" and explains this with the climate sceptics' "hyperbole, accusations, claims and allegations" being the same "[d]espite their obvious lack of anything approaching credible evidence" – then prove it wrong with quality sources. Hans Adler 21:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • All these pious protestations are fine, but let's look at the results: we now have one long opinion quote from Nature, which, by coincidence, coincides with the personal views of the protestors. Will any of you dispute this? Do you see a balance problem here? This, sadly, is a microcosm of many of the Wiki CC articles. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
If you think that the article does not accurately represent the way that knowledgeable high-quality reliable sources write about the matter, then provide evidence. If you merely think that the article does not give enough weight to your own personal views to make you happy, do something else. Hans Adler 21:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've tried, Hans. But I get tired. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I dispute your errors: we can start with "we now have one long opinion quote", which is clearly wrong. The quote is "it is hard for anyone except the most committed conspiracy theorist to see much of interest in the content of the released e-mails, even taken out of context" and is not long, in absolute terms, or as measured by other quotes already in the article. The "balance" problem you have is your failure to see that Nature, and some backwoods newspaper, are not equivalent. By coincidence, no doubt, the NN paper you're trying to push just happens to coincide "with the personal views" of you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
What is the problem with the result? It reflects the opinion in reliable, notable sources. Theory of relativity also reflects my opinion - any problem with that? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that it disproportionately represents the opinions in reliable, notable sources of one side of the controversy, apparently under the premise that all sources supporting the other side are by definition not reliable or notable. It is, in short, poorly written, and in need of improvement and balance. Fortunately for those of us here, we have an opportunity to help do that.
Theory of relativity isn't a great analogy; it is primarily a science article, while this is primarily a current events, media, and political article, pertaining to science only to the extent that those are scientists. The types of information included in those two types of articles tends to be different. Occupy Wall Street would be a better example. --DGaw (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently on the table are a quotation from Nature (journal) and one from the Weekly Standard. Can you see a difference in terms of qualifications, overall quality and neutrality between, citing Wikipedia on the two, "the world's most cited interdisciplinary scientific journal" (peer reviewed of course) and "an American neoconservative opinion magazine", "many of whose articles are written by members of conservative think tanks located in Washington, D.C."? Are you seriously trying to claim they are playing in the same league? If not, what are you doing here discussing instead of looking for better sources? Hans Adler 22:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hans: they're both reactions to a (fundamentally) political controversy, that involves science and scientists. "Scientists Behaving Badly", in the opinion of some commentators. Nature is certainly more *prestigious* than the WS -- but does this make their political opinion weightier? Does this mean we should censor the opinions of commentators who happen to disagree with many editors here?
If you (and others) like, we could substitute the WSJ opinion piece mentioned below. But try reading the WS pirce first. For that matter, try reading a few of the emais. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure I can see a difference. Nature is actually a party to the matter. The editor was appointed to one of the inquiries into the 2009 hack, and then had to resign due to having made a statement pre-judging the matter. If one source of these two fine sources were to be invalid, in a sane world, it would be Nature.Slowjoe17 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Philip Campbell commented on 'Climategate' based on media reports before anyone expected there would be commissions to examine the scientists' behaviour, and that disqualifies not just him but the entire journal he edits. Whereas being a mouthpiece for right-wing thinktanks is just an ordinary sign of respectability and no reason for concern. Hans Adler 00:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Echoing and elaborating Hans and William: Some editors here - I assume with entirely good faith - are getting things very confused. If it is a political issue, then we need political commentators reviewing the reaction, not the reactions themselves, which become primary sources for such an approach. In other words, we need an overview of media reactions, not the reactions themselves. On the other hand, if it is an issue of what the emails actually show, then it is not a political issue, but a matter of reflecting the best-informed opinion - which involves people familiar with the research area and with scientific practice. It does not mean some odd 50-50 split of opinion no matter the real-world expert balance of opinion.

Where scientific opinion conflicts with ideological or commercial interests, it often falls prey to a certain kind of political campaigning that seeks to confuse the two issues by emphasising disagreement (often referred to as "teaching the controversy") while downplaying (or simply falsifying) the degree of general agreement. This is well-documented in several areas - health (notably tobacco), climate, evolution and so on. We mustn't fall into this trap. If we are to have a section on how this second release of emails plays to the gallery, then we need to use (possibly wait for) for that kind of commentary. As it stands, we should and must give much more weight to authoritative judgement rather than participants in the political debate, which the Weekly Standard, with its status as a conservative-subsidised journal politically opposed to action on climate change, and its stable of writers from fossil fuel industry-funded thinktanks, suggests rather strongly that it is. (For example, the American Enterprise Institute has offered large money prizes for scientists to criticise the IPCC).

Finally, to describe "Nature" as compromised for having stated an opinion that is in agreement with every major independent inquiry into the emails is just silly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote, I described Nature as a "fine source". I wasn't suggesting that it be removed. I think the article should actually represent both sides of the controversy accurately, with a brief summary of the allegations from an RS followed by roughly equal numbers of words defending the scientists. The Nature editorial probably does the second job well at this time.Slowjoe17 (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Delingpole Quote from the WSJ

James Delingpole published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204452104577059830626002226.html I think the following quote should be added to the section about second release of emails: "They show that major scientists who inform the IPCC can't be trusted to stick to the science and avoid political activism. This, in turn, has very worrying implications for the major international policy decisions adopted on the basis of their research." Delingpole is a significant commentator, having named the original affair, and the article is about a controversy. I also believe that the quote from the UEA is one-sided. However, in light of how heated discussion has been here, I'd like to hear arguments against the addition before adding it.Slowjoe17 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Delingpole may be a loud commentator, but that doesn't make him significant. In your edit you even misrepresented what is clearly marked as an opinion piece by this single person as the opinion of the Weekly Standard. Two years ago, this person wrote in the Telegraph blog: "The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed [...]". [25] This guy was later proved totally wrong by the various independent reports, so we would need some serious evidence that anyone actually takes him seriously after that or that he is representative of a widespread campaign in right-wing media. As the Nature editorial observes, "You cannot, as Abraham Lincoln said, fool all of the people all of the time. And it is getting harder to fool them some of the time too." Hans Adler 23:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hans, firstly I think that you are mistaken since the edit you link to is not mine. And in an encyclopedic article about a controversy, both sides need to be represented, even if they are entirely wrong. An article about "Controversy around Darwinism" would have to summarise the arguments against Darwinism. This is an article about the political controversy around the CRU email hack. It certainly isn't a scientific matter, as others having fallaciously argued.Slowjoe17 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I am sorry. Two things going on at the same time on this page, and somehow I managed to mix them up. The sentence I struck above belongs in the other thread.
As to the handling of controversies, I agree in general, but in this case the tobacco lobby climate action delay lobby simply hasn't had much success yet when compared to two years ago. Two years ago, when these people cried wolf extremely loudly for the first time, a lot of reasonable people became unsure who to believe. That's not the situation we have now. It's not a real controversy but a clear further example of the manipulations whose description has already made it into the peer reviewed literature. Maybe recycling the "Climategate" name was the biggest mistake they made, as it reminded the general public of all the false prophecies related to the first instance. You have a chance to convince me otherwise, but not with examples from such bandog editorial writers who are basically free to write whatever they want provided it's sufficiently inflammatory. Delingpole writes a lot of similar stuff on numerous other topics that we would never include in articles because it's obviously undue. Hans Adler 23:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
James Delingpole - the man who said “It’s not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers, because I simply do not have the time; I don’t have the expertise.”? The man who thinks London Zoo is run by eco-fascists for worrying about the impact of climate on coral? He appears (increasingly) to be a conspiracy theorist who believes that major national and international academic and political organisations and figures are leading us into the New World Order? In what sense is his opinion piece a contribution to the fair balance of considered opinion? We'd have to be very careful using this material if we're going to keep NPOV. NPOV is not a balance of population belief, or of editor belief, but of appropriate authoritative reliably sourced views. The best it has going for it is that it appeared in WSJ, but WSJ looks like an outlier on this, and shouldn't be presented as otherwise. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
He isn't being used for fair and balanced opinion. He's being used to provide a summary of the allegations on one side of a controversy as pubished in a major RS. The presentation I had in mind was the Delingpole quote to be followed by the Nature quote discussed above (or similar) as counterpoint.Slowjoe17 (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
As I previously explained several threads up, that's not how NPOV works. We don't balance unscientific fringe claims with reliable, mainstream claims. And we certainly don't create a counterpoint to do so. Delingpole and Nature are not on equal footing. One of the primary problems with the Internet, is that there is now an entire generation of people who believe that if your voice can be heard online, it must mean that this voice is somehow legitimate and should be taken seriously. It isn't and it shouldn't be. Delingpole isn't just fringe, he's not even serious. He's actually a funny comedian in a strange sort of way, similar to Rush Limbaugh in the states, but in a serious article, we need to focus on serious sources. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
First, I'll clearly not introduce the Delingpole quote unless the mood changes. But I think the arguments against inclusion are fallacious. This is not a science article: this is an article about a controversy - it's in the title - where only one side of the controversy is featured. Delingpole is a leading player in the controversy. We've quoted the press officer from UEA, without concern about notability, and we've taken an editorial from Nature, without waiting for an RS to report the editorial. Can you not see that reasonable people would think this discussion absurd?Slowjoe17 (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

With regard to how "fringe" Delingpole is, he's substantial enough that noted climate scientist Michael Mann has responded to the Delingpole editorial: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204449804577068211662483248.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLEThirdBucketSlowjoe17 (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Context is everything. I'm the one personally responsible for adding Delingpole to this article, and making it clear that he was given credit for coining the term. This is because multiple secondary sources made note of this fact. In other words, it wasn't in dispute. We're really not in the business of providing a soapbox for random editorials and responses. What we want to do is briefly discuss the most notable aspects of this topic using the best sources that we have at our disposal. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an article about a past controversy. We have balanced coverage of the main protagonists in the original set of disputed points, then we have coverage of all the enquiries that clearly show that one side of the controversy was making a lot of noise about very little (plus that some actions were needed, and now implemented, re FOI at UEA etc). Now we have a second document release with governments, scientists and the MSM taking very little notice. Trying to argue that 'Climategate 2' is the controversy referred to in the title is not in accord with the facts. If someone has a significant source about the original and actual controversy of 2009-10, then that would be interesting. I believe there are political and sociological papers still being published about it. --Nigelj (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Whether the controversy is past or not appears to be one of the points of discussion, no? --DGaw (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify Nigelj, are you suggesting we create a new article called Climategate 2.0, since this is an article about Climategate 1.0?192.41.81.68 (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I was responding to Slowjoe17's point above, "this is an article about a controversy - it's in the title - where only one side of the controversy is featured." Both sides of the 2009-10 controversy are covered. There is no real controversy about the 2011 files. If you disagree with this assertion, please supply the mainstream reliable secondary source that actually says there is a significant controversy going on at the moment about these new e-mails. --Nigelj (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Science article?

I see that my addition of the lay person skeptic point of view has been reverted using the justification that this is a "science article". Please clarify what it means to be a "science article". Is that term defined in a policy somewhere? What are the criteria used to identify such articles? From my perspective this topic is more about politics than science. We are not discussing any scientific topics but rather political ones. From a weight perspective there are far more lay person sceptics than there are climate scientists or even generic scientists so the lay person point of view needs to be added to this section to conform to WP:NPOV, and perhaps the larger article as a whole but I reserve judgement on this latter point until I can conduct a more thorough review. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course this is not just a science article. It is also an article on politics, an IT crime and a fake grassroots campaign. But see above, #NPOV in opinion quotes on a discussion of the quality of the Weekly Standard when compared to Nature, which we are already citing. Hans Adler 22:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's an article on science policy. Nature is an important source in science policy, so are some sociology journals. There is a substantial academic literature on climate change policy, in sociology and political science journals, some book length treatments, science sources too. It is a coherent literature in that articles have literature reviews and cite each other. Editorials in science journals cite the sociology and political science literature and vice versa. This article should be easy to write up from the large number of sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
But this isn’t really an article about science policy, is it? What’s the policy in dispute? I suppose you could argue Freedom of Information policy might qualify, but I don’t think that’s what you meant, is it?
The thing is, this article isn’t a policy article, but everybody treats it as if it is because the people involved are influential in policy circles. It’s become a proxy for the fight over climate change because the incident is viewed as either an attack on or an impeachment of the players. Climategate itself would be the same incident if the e-mails were of chartered accountants instead of climate scientists, but the argument might be very different. --DGaw (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of ideas, and a lot of controversy, about what opinions we should include in the CG 2.0 section. Maybe for now we should leave out the opinion pieces? Accordingly, I have boldly removed the Nature editorial for now. It's been less than 2 weeks since the CG 2.0 emails were made public, not a lot of time for well-reasoned reactions. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
You seriously consider Nature to be on the same level as the Weekly Standard when it comes to covering issues of science and science policy? Wow. That's...er...an interesting view. I don't see anyone except SlowJoe claiming that Nature is not appropriate. You yourself said "it's fine". Your removal looks more like a POINTy reaction to people objecting to the Weekly Standard. How about a self-revert?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Was Tillman suggesting the Weekly Standard is a reliable source on climate policy? His Weekly Standard edit said nothing about policy, so I assume not. It looks to me like he believes it a reliable source for its own views, which he believes represents the views of those critical of the UEA, at minimum a significant minority viewpoint in the controvery, and therefore required for inclusion per WP:NPOV. I doubt you are saying the Weekly Standard can't be relied on to accurately communicate its own opinion, and you're obviously not arguing it can't be included because you don't think its views have merit. Is your objection that you don’t believe those critical of the UEA represent a significant minority? --DGaw (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Clearly Nature is a good source to give an informed overview. I don't see a lot of controversy here, I see one or two people making a lot of noise and a pretty solid consensus trying to help them see the bigger picture. --Nigelj (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
And it is indeed a wonderful thing that Wikipedia editors contribute such diverse perspectives. I’ll bet you would find some here who disagree with you, though. For my part, Nature is a perfectly fine source, but only so long as sources with opposing views are given due coverage. --DGaw (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It's only a good source so long as opposing sources are presented? That's not how it works. We don't do 50/50 when the RS isn't anything like 50/50. You have yet to offer a policy-based principle for judging which sources should be used. You are asserting an unbalanced representation of reliable sources, not demonstrating one. Public opinion is irrelevant to NPOV, the number of skeptical or denialist wikipedia editors is irrelevant to NPOV. The blogosphere is pretty much irrelevant to NPOV. We need to have RS. The Weekly Standard is a minor loss-making publication funded and staffed by a lot of professional deniers; it's effectively primary source material in global warming "controversy" issues. The WSJ in all of this appears to be an outlier (its opinion pieces anyway are notoriously at odds with its news reporting). We should be wary of how we use the Delingpole material because it would be violating NPOV to give the impression he represents any kind of substantial authoritative reaction to this second release - because that simply does not appear to be the case. Delingpole himself is at the extreme end of "skepticism".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Comparing Nature to The Weekly Standard is like comparing Apples to Oranges. Nature is a perfectly fine source for representing the narrow perspective of scientists and academics. However it is a particularly poor source for representing the point of view of lay person sceptics. Agreed? We need to rely on sources which are applicable to the points of view they are describing. Failing to do so inherently introduces bias. In this instance demanding only science oriented sources introduces bias in favor of the science point of view and necessarily detracts from the lay person point of view. So the first thing we need to agree on is whether non-scientists have a significant point of view with respect to the subject of this article. I believe that they do. Do you agree or disagree that lay person sceptics have a place on this article at all? --NewGuy5342 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:DUE says, "For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief." Referring to "the narrow perspective of scientists and academics" implies that alongside people who have taken the trouble to understand all this, we should give undue weight to further uninformed ideas as well. We already make the point that someone took the trouble to post these on a Russian server with selective quotes highlighting the same issues as in the original incident. That's one side of the story, which is balanced by the response of a few of those who understood the previous incident as well as this one. An academically sound overview of the relevant topic does not represent a minority point of view, it is the stuff that encyclopedias are made of. --Nigelj (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:DUE also says articles must represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I don’t think quoting the policy is likely to help much with the various disagreements hereabouts, because everyone seems aware of the policy. We simply disagree on what is fair, what is proportionate, which views are significant, and which sources are reliable. --DGaw (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with your analogy. This article is not analogous to Earth. It is not about the more broad, scientific issue of climate change, it is about a very specific political controversy that has gained attention in the lay media. As such, I believe the lay POV should be represented and I would bet that the proportion of skeptics in the lay population is much higher than that of flat-earthers.--Taylornate (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a better analogy is the creation–evolution controversy, we show how the "lay" POV differs from scientific views, make clear that it is a tiny minority view among experts on the science of evolution, and show how it has been received by these experts. Of course since many creationists are theologians or preachers, perhaps "lay" is the wrong term. Some hold both minority views, for example... What we do not do is misrepresent the clear majority scientific view to cater to the proportion of some population who hold these fringe beliefs. And of course all scientists are sceptics, but the contrarian minority and their supporters are fake sceptics in the view of most scientists. . . dave souza, talk 22:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, as this is not a science article, but a political article about scientists, the analogy to a science article doesn’t work well. The types of claims made, and the applicability of scientific expertise is different in each.
(For example... a climate scientist might be presumed to have expert insight into interpreting a study on radiative forcing. But the opinion of that same scientist regarding whether people who disagree with him are real skeptics or “fake” skeptics would carry no more weight than anyone else’s. --DGaw (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Taylornate that the Flat Earth analogy is flawed. I also agree with Dave souza that the Evolution analogy is superior because it mirrors the divergence of opinion between the scientific and the popular opinions on the subject. I agree that it is important not to conflate the scientific and the popular opinions on the subject of the climate science. This should not be a problem here since this is not an article discussing the science of climate change, but rather an article discussing a political controversy which happens to involve climate scientists. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2011 (UT)
Its a false analalogy for three reasons. 1) Skepticism is not a unified movement, being just against something never created an ideology so comparing it to the reaction of a religion is a mistake. 2) Scientific Skeptics (like the ones we are primarily talking about here) believe in science,think with science, and use the language of science as well as the principles of science to judge their works, even if they make mistakes. They are thus legitimate voices in scientific discourse unlike a creationist whose adherence to faith makes communication almost impossible. 3) Skeptics are doing science and thus contributing to science, even if that is just keeping the AGW crowd on their toes and poking holes in their methodology. Even if one views their skepticism as 'fringe', there is no rule that someone who is wrong about something cannot do good science elsewhere, so why margianlize them by lumping them together with people whose belief's function on a rejection of science itself? The current attitude of many in scientific circles is to treat skeptical scientists worse or as bad as creationists.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Eh, creationism isn't a unified movement, it covers a wide range of beliefs and only since the 1960s has become shorthand for "anti-evolution", in other words being just against something. Even in that there's a wide range of anti-evolution beliefs, and proponents of them argue against each other. Fake skeptics like the ones making hay with the hacked emails in many cases use the same arguments as creationists. These "skeptics" aren't doing science, they've commonly done science in the past and are mostly now just producing opinion pieces in venues like business newspapers and blogs. One technique they share with creationists is finding a small and unimportant error or questionable part of methodology, which they then argue invalidates all the subsequent science. Newsflash: MBH98/99 were superseded by 2003 by later studies which used different methodology to reach very similar main conclusions. . . dave souza, talk 18:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

PT edit warring on 1RR page

PT, will you please stop edit warring? You're on about 3R on a page under 1RR - you're clearly getting to het up to edit within the rules. This [26] reverts my addition of Nature; this [27] restores the WS; this [28] restores the "authenticity" stuff removed earlier [29] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So I'm on the same page as everyone else, how exactly is 1RR defined? Suppose I add something. You remove it. I restore it again. Is that a 1RR violation? --DGaw (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
No, but on a 1RR article it is about as likely to be considered edit warring as doing three reverts elsewhere. 3RR or 1RR is just the bright line that (given optimal staffing of the edit warring noticeboard) leads to an instablock. Below that, an admin will look closer at the circumstances such as attempts to discuss on the talk page, apparent consensus, long-standing version, usual practices on the article such as BRD etc. Hans Adler 10:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Assuming by "add" you mean "add something new". If you add something that had already been removed, that would be a revert. Also note an unfortunate asymmetry: if you *remove* something, I re-add it, and then you remove it again, you've broken 1RR. Another problem is that if someone adds something junky-but-not-vandalism, I remove it, the other person adds some more junk, but different junk, and I remove that. Then I've broken 1RR but they haven't William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Having just tested editing the page, I see that this is covered by the edit notice that appears: Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period - I've bolded the bit you seem unsure of - its not additions or removals, per se, but reversing the actions of someone else William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see my reply at ANI. I'm taking a voluntary break from editing this page for a couple of days. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Climategate 2.0 Parachutes into COP17"

Well, this should liven up the Durban meeting, if it goes off as scheduled: [30]

"On Tuesday, December 6 at 11:00 a.m., CFACT skydivers will parachute past COP17 trailing banners demanding attention to the Climategate 2.0 emails. The skydiving team will land at Toti beach. Media and all interested persons are invited to the beach to observe the landing." Heh. Let's hope for a PD photo! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather vindicates the "nothing to see here" attitude some of us have been suggesting. Last time, no-one had to sky-dive into anywhere to get people to pay attention. This release has been a damp squib; thanks for helping demonstrate that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
All it really confirms is that the story was a damp squib within the subset of reliable sources that those sympathetic to Jones and company will concede are reliable sources. I doubt anyone here disputes that. --DGaw (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
"Last time, no-one had to sky-dive into anywhere to get people to pay attention." Sounds like something that is worth noting in the article as a significant contrast from the earlier release. --NewGuy5342 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Not unless an RS comments on the difference.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Raid on blogger "Tallbloke"

Another report at the Telegraph -- Guardian report just above. Interesting reaction at the Washington Examiner by Christopher C. Horner. As always with breaking news, best to wait for a bit before adding to article. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The other sources seem reasonably factual, Horner's piece giving the Competitive Enterprise Institute's spin on the affair is just an op-ed. . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
As it says on the credit line. And your CEI "spin" cmt is simply your WP:OR, eh Dave? Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Tillman, you've offered nothing at all here. It's pure speculation by climate deniers and adds nothing substantial or important to this article. And it is pure unbridled spin just as Dave observed. I'm curious, what is it we are supposed to add here? "Conservative climate denial think tanks speculate that climate data is being hidden by the government to promote global warming.". Are you serious, Tillman? Global warming conspiracy theory is that way... Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
V., as it clearly states, this is an op-ed by a Wiki-notable person, in a notable newspaper. Your fulminations are perhaps because you don't like the writers opinions? Perhaps you'd prefer to banish all opinions other than yours from WP?? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Notability isn't the criteria we are concerned with here, it's reliability, including relevancy, significance, and accuracy. Again, I will ask you, what are we supposed to add here? We get that conservative climate deniers believe in climate change conspiracy theories. Have we not made that clear in this article? Please tell me what needs to be added here or how this latest conspiracy theory is relevant. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
As PT indicated in his initial post he doesn't expect anything to be added to the article at this time. Presumably he posted this for possible future use. If something from this source is ultimately used it would have to be attributed as Horner's personal opinion and be given due weight. This should be obvious. --98.135.55.94 (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
What's blatantly obvious to me is that Horner is not a reliable source for this subject, nor is the Washington Examiner. End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you forgot to add, "in my opinion". Unless you have a RSN ref for your assertion? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Tell me then, Tillman, how is Horner and the Washington Examiner reliable sources on this subject? Feel free to evaluate them using the standard criteria. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Off topic banter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You appear to be trying to antagonize your fellow editor. Please stop. Doing so only serves to create an uncomfortable editing environment and raises the temperature unnecessarily. I would ask you kindly to refer to Pete using either Pete or via the standing convention of using the editor's initials (PT in this case). Using only his surname in the manner that you have been can be viewed as disrespectful. Now, to answer your question, I believe that PT made it quite plain from the outset that he didn't think anything needed to be added at this time. Presumably he was only making note of it here for potential future use. --98.135.47.193 (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
And you, Mr. SPA, appear to be confused and likely trolling. Users are referred to by their user names, which in this case is "Tillman". My question still stands and has not been answered. Exactly what is Tillmam (and by proxy, yourself) proposing that we add to this article from these sources? Every week now, we have the same unsubstantiated conspiracy theory attacking climate scientists and the government churning out from thought-less think tanks like iPhones made by Chinese slave labor. Wikipedia isn't a repository for merchants of doubt. If this latest conspiracy theory is significant or notable, we will have an indication of that from reliable secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, a wikilawyer style defense. Technically accurate but misses the spirit of the point. Obviously PT has taken steps to sign his posts using his preferred identifier. Wikilawyer excuses aside common courtesy would still be to respect that. You aren't. You are being unnecessarily confrontational even in this latest post where you refer to me as a single purpose account. You know nothing about me. But if demanding common courtesy for the editors here defines me as a single purpose account then count me guilty. It is a badge that I will proudly wear with honor. As to your question, it most certainly has been answered: nothing at this time. If in the future something from this opinion piece should be included it will be done after having given proper weight to Mr. Horner's opinion which will be properly attributed as such. This should be obvious. --98.135.14.86 (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I would hate to show you discourtesy by referring to you as "anon" or 98.135.14.86, so I'll just call you Rumpelstiltskin. I hope you don't mind. I don't know of any guideline or policy that says we have to call someone anything other than their user name. Feel free to point me to one if you like. While you're searching for it, I'll point you over to SPA where you can educate yourself on the matter. Thanks for your interest, Rumpel. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)