Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Dr. Judith Curry's reaction

"Well, I mean, I believe that this was a blow to the credibility of our science. And I'm concerned particularly in the context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report. You know, 1,000 scientists contribute to this from 130 different countries. It's a process that takes several years.

So the IPCC is really the authoritative assessment of our science for policymakers. And some of these emails do mention the IPCC and trying to keep certain journal articles or papers out of the IPCC, and I think that's wrong."

See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121139996

"But the failure to distinguish between, like, the advocacy group, talk radio kind of skeptics versus scientists, researchers and even people on blogs who are actually doing analysis, you know, technical people analyzing the data and doing analyses, I think all of that kind of skepticism needs to be looked at, rather than trying to dismiss it in the way that I'm seeing, you know, in these emails."

Hope this helps others who want to contribute. Ann arbor street (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

-gate link?

While we're calling it ClimateGate, I'd like the link to list-of-gates restored, that [1] removes William M. Connolley (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see any reason to remove it. While it isn't critical to the article, anyone seeing "Climategate" and knowing "Watergate" could wonder, "hey what other -gates are there?" and then find out that it gets tacked onto everything under the sun. Ignignot (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. It is an informative and encyclopedic cross-reference - just exactly what we're here for, with hypertext. --Nigelj (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Within the context of this article, it's trivia. Not to mention that it looks stupid to have only part of a word hyperlinked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

contradiction:

Blog post: ...when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate... [2]

Blog comment: ...At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey...and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our server...[3]

which one is more reliable? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something? What's the difference? --Nigelj (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

first says attempted to upload (implying failed), later says uploaded. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comitting unpublishable OR here but I think the attempt was to upload it to the blog, as opposed to just getting it on their server, which it appears they succeded in doing. I think our article is fine as is, but I can see the source of confusion. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

that makes sense (server vs blog). thanks. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Posting entirely from recollection, I agree with the distinction. I think someone was able to upload the file, and tried but failed to post the “announcement” to the blog. The activity was noticed, and blocked and the uploaded file was removed.SPhilbrick T 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. The interesting question is why RealClimate was targeted. It seems to have been an attempt to frame RC for the distribution of the files. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be both OR and complete speculation. Maybe it was because they are the top climate blog and they wanted to show it to as many people as possible? Maybe it was because a login for the blog was included in the hacked email data? Maybe it was because it was just one of many attempted uploads? Maybe it was because many of the people at the CRU are involved with the blog itself? But the most important question is, where is there a source for any of this? Ignignot (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Alexa climateprogress.org+realclimate.org+wattsupwiththat.com+climateaudit.org -- SEWilco (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

why will have to wait for analysis or confession. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Name – a compromise: Climate Research Unit science controversy

As proposed by Ronnotel suggest above the article should change name to the more neutral Climate Research Unit science controversy as also ChrisO indicates above. Could this be a compromise between the Climagate and current name Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident? Nsaa (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me suggest an alternative - Climatic Research Unit files controversy. This is more precise, since the focus of the controversy is on the stolen files. The controversy is not about the CRU's science in general but about what the stolen files (supposedly) indicate about specific aspects of its science. Compare with Killian documents controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"[W]hat the stolen files (supposedly) indicate about specific aspects of its science" - it's more than the science...much of the discussion has turned to behaviour and ethics. Not to mention, the "response" is as much of a story. Guettarda (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'd have a problem with that. This isn't, primarily, about their science. No one has documented any evidence of scientific misconduct, as far as I know. Not to mention, the main news here is about the willingness of people to cherry pick quotes and turn them into a full blown attack on the scientific endeavour - something that's old hat for evolution denialists, but a fairly new tactic for the climate denialists. Guettarda (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit emails incident any use? (Translation of the French WP article title.) Itsmejudith (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Similar names have been suggested several times and the consensus has been not to use non-neutral words such as controversy. Please also see Wikipedia:Words to avoid.
—Apis (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could go the whole hog and call it Theft of Climatic Research Unit files but I suspect some people on this talk page might have a problem with that... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a point on "files", since most of what was stolen apparently wasn't email. Guettarda (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I suggested it. I could live with a variant of Itsmejudith's suggestion, Climatic Research Unit files incident. I do think we should get away from "e-mails" if we can. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On "theft" as well I think, because hack is rather vague, and we don't know the details of how the files where stolen.
—Apis (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Theft" annoys copyright-skeptics like me :-) because nobody's been deprived of anything; the files were copied, not stolen, as would be obvious if they were physical files. Evercat (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

cf Data theft... Would you say it wasn't theft if your bank had been hacked and your bank account details had been taken? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How about Some climate change deniers attempt to sabotage the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by conducting espionage on the Climatic Research Unit? On a serious note, the title should definitely not include the phrase "science controversy" in it. If the title is to change at all, serious consideration should be given to make sure it is a neutral title that everyone agrees on. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making incendiary comments in a discussion that is supposed to try to get us to consensus on a difficult topic. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It was not an "incendiary comment" at all. I was trying to prove a point - that there should be proper discussion and a cast-iron consensus for a neutral article name, if it is to be changed. Otherwise we end up with "move wars" and pointless bickering. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the "copying isn't theft" argument, but wouldn't the legal term still be theft? So lacking a better word, but perhaps that word is hacking.
—Apis (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am stunned to read the above exchange. Where would the editors have stood on the Pentagon Papers? This scandal - and it is a scandal - has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that emails were hacked/stolen/released, and everything to do with the content of the emails. The possibility certainly exists that the email quotes were "cherry-picked", but the fact remains that (right or wrong) the professors have failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and the neutrality of the scientific community has been called into question. The current article name is convoluted, non-descriptive, misleading, and should be changed to reflect what *most* people on both sides of the issue are calling it: Climategate. Anything else smacks of damage control and spin.Nightmote (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Pentagon Papers sounds pretty neutral to me? It's not called Pentagate, nor the Pentagon Papers Scandal, not even the Pentagon Papers Controversy.
—Apis (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, "incident" is obviously inappropriate. Never has the word incident been applied to an ongoing, multistage controversy before now. If you guys want to use incident, you need to make a separate article about the hack, and change this one to controversy, then get rid of all the hack nonsense that has no bearing on the science issues. And yes, it's Pentagon Papers, not "Daniel Ellsberg Larceny Incident" Drolz09 (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no indication that "incident" is inappropriate, but other titles are possible. The word incident has most certainly been applied to such articles as this one, so you are wrong on that point as well. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that anti-science activists went so far as to hack two websites, steal files from one, attempt to frame the second, and sabotage the Copenhagen Summit with the release of the files, certainly is part of the scandal. It reminds me of the way anti-abortion activists cheered the murder of that unfortunate abortion doctor in Kansas last June, arguing that his supposed "crime" justified or outweighed the crime committed against him. Though in that case at least the perpetrator admitted he had done it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So, anti-abortionists equate abortion with murder, and you equate hacking with murder. Meanwhile, "anti-science activists" reveal widespread scientific fraud, which pro-science Wikipedia editor-zealots will stop at nothing to conceal. Understood. Drolz09 (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He didn't equate hacking with murder, he said that one case of cheering (a theft) reminds him of another case of cheering (a murder). And there's no evidence of "widespread scientific fraud", and even if there were, a debate about whether to put "gate" or "scandal" in the article title is not an instance of editor-zealots stopping at nothing to conceal fraud. What you "understood" appears to have an internal, not external, source. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to state that we do not know that the servers were hacked. Most sources that say so are simply assuming. When we know, we'll hear details, like suspects arrested. Or on the other end, whistleblowers may come forward, were we to find that this was not the act of a hacker. If it were a whistleblower, he/she could have easily had access to RealClimate as well, being a direct colleague of Jones. It is premature to declare that this is the result of an outside computer criminal.Static623 (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already closed one discussion that ended in speculation on the event rather than discussion of the article, and will do so with this if it moves in the same direction. The Norfolk Constabulary reports that it is "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia" and that's what we report. Removal of the word "hacking" isn't going to happen because both UEA and RealClimate have reported separate hacking incidents. --TS 10:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones e-mail

Nsaa just added this bit to the article:

====Jones e-mail of February 2, 2005====
On February 2, 2005, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, wrote, "If they ever hear there is a [[Freedom of information in the United Kingdom|Freedom of Information Act]] now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."<ref name=nzherald_20091128/>

The file mentioned was not actually deleted.{{fact}}

I think we have to be very careful about how we treat these e-mails. First, there's a risk of cherry-picking. Is this particular e-mail notable? Has it been cited by other reliable sources or just this one? Second, what is the context? Third, the "defence" looks awfully thin. What does Jones himself say about this, if anything? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have a simple quote, sans context, of the Jones email from Feb 2005? It's either a random quote, or it's an attempt to imply wrongdoing, without actually having a source to back up the implication. Which, of course, isn't permissible, per WP:BLP. Guettarda (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed a risk of cherry-picking. That bit was deleted by William and restored by me, because the whole "destruction of data" thing is a widely reported topic that we ought to have something on. Even if the section is not neutral now, it will hopefully become so as it grows... Evercat (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Globe and Mail, is it a reliable source? If so, there's this. Evercat (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP doesn't allow us to use material that it "not neutral for now" when it's about living people. Guettarda (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not as if its untrue that he wrote it. But we need more context is all. Evercat (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a cherry-picked quote that implies wrong-doing. If we're going to suggest that people did wrong, we need reliable sources to back up the accusations. We can't print innuendo, not about living people. Guettarda (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well since 2 people have now removed it I will not be restoring it, but note the conversation above at "Why is this quote not included in the article?" - this whole destruction of data business is one of the hot topics that should be mentioned somehow. Evercat (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be discussed in the article. By all means - discuss it. Using reputable, reliable sources. But don't simply use a quote to imply wrongdoing. Guettarda (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not my intention; though I can't speak for whoever added it to start with. Evercat (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda that something of this sort needs to be included. We mention that the UEA inquiry will be reviewing whether CRU violated FOIA laws/rules/etc, so we should say why they are looking at that. Madman (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See "FOI subsection restored" section, below -- a fine spot to include it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see I only moved four references down to the reference section? Where did I add the above statement? Nsaa (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional source

The Stolen E-mails: Has 'Climategate' been overblown'? From TIME. I'm a bit hesitant to actually edit this article, but perhaps worth citing briefly re: press coverage? It specifically addresses the debate over what to name the incident ("Climategate" vs. "Swifthack"?!?) MastCell ^Talk 00:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, anything Blahgate uses US-centric terminology. The term "Climategate" is only popular in the United States, and among a very few US-influenced media outlets. You would need a decent smattering of international sources to really justify using this term. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you to try to search for "Climategate" in the French Google news. I bet you would be surprised by the very reliable sources openly reporting on Le Climategate. So much for the US-centric usage theory... If anything, it is in the US and UK that the mainstream media tries to avoid the word, while the rest of the world is having a ball using it. Dimawik (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It must be made clear that media outlets are using the term, not Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Wouldn't want wikipedia to use the most widely-known international media-sourced phrase available when "Climate Research Unit email hacking incident" was still available.Nightmote (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We aren't talking about the article title, which should be as neutral as possible ("Climategate" implies guilt, due to the association with Watergate). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

US-centric? Not in Wikipedia? Take a look at the Wikipedia articles in other languages. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need to mention the media. While I strongly support keeping the reference to Climategate in WP, personally I dislike the term. Unfortunately, no other concise label had appeared in time to become popular, and by now, I think, it is too late to coin one. The name of the article in WP is a non-starter for any media outlet for obvious reasons (again, I am not in favor of changing the name of the article). Something along the lines, "frequently referred to as Climategate by the media" will work for me. To Nightmote: in WP, there are rules that, if followed, really discourage the use of suffix "-gate" in the article titles - and I think that it is good for an encyclopedia (note that I am also an active supporter of keeping the word in the first sentence of the article). Also note that Google search is smart enough to find the redirect and thus our work comes up first in Google search for "Climategate". Dimawik (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving up on any further comments on this, because I'm beginning to sound nuts. The argument is that the predominantly left-leaning scientific community and green profiteers like Al Gore, with the deliberate support of the MSM, have hijacked the peer-review process and used personal influence and statistical manipulation to establish their personal opinions as irrefutable scientific "fact", gaining power, prestige, and wealth while de-constructing and taxing the industrialized capitalistic Western world. That's nuts. But it's just as nutty to assume that there *can* be no truth to the assertion. Eisenhower feared and fought the military-industrial complex. Good for him. I'm going back to editing hockey articles. Nightmote (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favor of the "frequently referred..." construct you propose. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Began...with the hacking of..."

This is simply inaccurate. The scandal began with the RELEASE of hacked data. The hacking occurred over a month prior to the scandal. Indeed, part of the actual controversy revolves around a BBC reporter choosing not to run the story, after being given the data well before it became public.

Incidentally, this is part of the reason that "CRU e-mail hacking incident" is an absurd article title. If you don't want to call it Climatgate (and I understand the reasoning even though I don't find it convincing) it should at least be called something like "CRU Controversy."

In any event, the opening line should be corrected to "began with the release of data acquired by hackers from the..." or something to that effect. Drolz09 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That sort of makes sense, but you could argue that it did begin with the hack if you regard the article as a sort of "timeline" of events. Personally, I think your interpretation would be correct because the "timeline" approach is more in the vein of a Wikinews article. I am opposed to the use of the word "controversy" in the title of any Wikipedia article, per WP:WTA. It is rare that a case can be made for its use to be neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"The scandal began with the RELEASE of hacked data" - perhaps, but the incident began with the theft of the files. This is about the incident, so... Guettarda (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If incident is used here to mean "an individual occurrence or event," then you are correct, but in that case, it also ended with the hacking. If, on the other hand, incident means "an embarrassing occurrence, esp. of a social nature," then it began with the release of the emails. The reality is that incident is wholly inappropriate as a description of this controversy, and the sentence is still in error.Drolz09 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"after being given the data well before it became public" do you have a reliable source that confirm this?
—Apis (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If BBC reporter Paul Hudson admitting that he got the emails on October 12 counts. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml Drolz09 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, no, not in itself I think. :( There might be more about this later when the police investigation is complete. Very interesting though.
—Apis (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So a BBC reporter admitting on a BBC blog that he personally received the emails on October 12, more than a month before this article says the "incident" "began" is not a viable source? What, would does the BBC need to report that a BBC reporter posted an admission on his BBC blog before it actually happened? Drolz09 (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue seems to keep coming up as people seem to keep misinterpreting Paul Hudson's comment (although many people pointed out that people appeared to be misinterpreting his comment before any clarification) despite the fact he clarified the situation the day later [4]. There is no evidence he received any e-mails from any hack nor has he ever claimed he did. He did receive some of the e-mails discussing him which were copied to him. There has been some suggestion in news sources (well one that I saw) that the hacking began significantly before the documents were released but no evidence was provided for any of the claims Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I yield that point, although it is some remarkably poor wording on his part. That does not change the main point though, which is that the scandal/controversy began with the release of the data. The "incident" began and ended (or more properly, occurred/took place) with the hack. There is no way that the opening sentence is appropriate to the article. Drolz09 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's your POV. Another POV is that this was a theft funded and organized by people intent on disrupting the Copenhagen talks and that the primary relevance of the content is that is a convenient weapon for that purpose but has relatively little intrinsic significance because it has no bearing on the well-established science of AGW and the topics to be discussed at Copenhagen. The stolen materials may reveal unprofessional behavior by a handful of scientists -- a matter of concern of philosophers of science and sociologists studying science as a practice -- but virtually no relevance to the hefty policy matters related to AGW. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to note how easy it was to misinterpret text when we didn't know the whole context. That's also why it's better with a secondary source, we let someone else do the research, and then trust in the journalistic integrity of the source. Still, if someone has sent copies to him earlier it makes me wonder at least, but well have to wait and see.
—Apis (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well secondary sources aren't perfect either [5] although that may say more about that particular secondary source then anything else (interesting the article says he was unavailable to comment, maybe it was because they apparently didn't bother to read his next blog post which came out the next day and 2 days before the Daily Mail article). Interesting enough, a comment pointing out that the Daily Mail had misunderstood what Hudson was saying and that Hudson had clarified the situation the day later is one of the 'lowest rated' comments which perhaps says a lot about the Daily Mail readership or at least comment raters. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who introduced the "began with" verbiage.[6] The reason why is that the previous verbiage implied that the controversy was over rather than ongoing. It might not be perfect, but it's better than it was before. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, that's fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sceptics

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

Wikipedia uses terms such as "Climate change sceptic" because "sceptic" (or "skeptic") is the generally accepted terminology and is a label embraced by most of those of have strong reservations on one or more aspects of the scientific consensus on global warming. Words such as "denier" or "denialist" are controversial and should not normally be used.

This article uses the label 'sceptic' far too loosely. Social identity indicates why some involved in this issue would want to categorize others as 'sceptics'. But, care must be taken when adopting this terminology when neutrality is important.

The article makes is appear as if there is a group, the 'sceptics', whose members hold a uniformly rigid set of ideals. The article attributes many acts and beliefs to the 'sceptics'. In reality, there is no such group.

Is a 'climate sceptic' someone who doubts the existence of climate? Is a 'climate change sceptic' someone who believes the climate is always the same? These are words are used not to inform, but to assign social identity. And the assignmentof social identities is a good indicator of the loss of neutrality. JookBocks (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point actually. "Sceptic" is the chosen self-identification for a group that is called "contrarian" or "denialist" by others. It's a label like "Pro-Life" - it has little bearing on their actual use of skepticism. Guettarda (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sceptics is fairly neutral language compared with deniers (etc).Dduff442 (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's actually why it is to contentious - there is a group of people who are actual skeptics and want more research / more open research on climate change, and there is a group of people who call themselves skeptics who are just reacting against the greenhouse gas environmental warnings. Sorry, tried to phrase that as neutrally as possible but probably offended someone. Even those two groupings are wrong, there is such a broad range of views on the topic that set membership is fuzzy. All I know is, there is a group of people (let's call them "biased") who like to label other groups of people arbitrary things to pidgeonhole them. Ignignot (talk)

Would a link to environmental skepticism be helpful? Guettarda (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'denier' label is an unfortunate digression into politics. Some catch-all label is too useful to resist, however, on grounds of brevity alone. This isn't the only instance where very loose labelling is employed or actually useful. Still, use of the term should probably be minimised. "Joe Scroggs, who is sceptical..." is better than "climate sceptic Joe Scroggs".Dduff442 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All scientists ought to be sceptics -- it is the foundation of science, in fact. Collect (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Amen. It's a proposition AGW cheerleaders couldn't get their heads round yet. Luckily we are far more patient and understanding with them than they are with us. 83.134.87.192 (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing the point. This isn't about "skepticism", it's about professional contrarians. It's newspeak. I don't think we should be using such misleading terminology, certainly not without explanation. Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, some of the greatest scientists in history never were professionals. Science is of course about skepticism, it has nothing to do with positions or pay grades. I know AGW cheerleaders which it would be like that, then they could bully everybody into submission, but you constructivists can't have your cake and eat it too. 83.134.87.192 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem confused, so let me clarify. The term "skeptic", in this context, is the descriptor of choice of the group that is otherwise called the "climate change denialists" (among other terms). It has nothing to do with science - many of them are non-scientists, like my senator. Many of them are also in the employ of the oil industry, or in the pet think-tanks of the oil industry. A few of them are real academics. But their "skepticism" is not scientific skepticism. It's simply a name that has been adopted by this group for PR purposes. Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be very opinionated on the matter. I assume you have sources for this. I see anybody who calls himself or herself as a skeptic as somehow who wants to remind so-called scientists about scientific rigor. 83.134.87.192 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think 'climate skeptics' means 'AGW skeptics'. They doubt the explaination towards AGW, that is. It is quite consistent to other mainstream usage of 'skeptics' (e.g. epistomological skeptics: Those people who deny on whether (most forms of) knowledge is possible). --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Collect, you're absolutely correct. Unfortunetly, it's the term that most WP:RS are using. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A piece on Sky News a short time ago about the "alternative" climate change conference being held at Copenhagen by a group of deniers/sceptics made rather a good point. They're not a monolithic bloc - some deny that global warming is happening at all, some agree that it is happening but deny that human activity is responsible, and some agree that it is both happening and man-made but say that it's either too late to do anything about it or that doing something about it would cause more harm than letting it happen. One could perhaps term them strong deniers, weak deniers and inactivists respectively. The problem is that there isn't really a satisfactory collective noun that covers all of them. Not all of them are deniers, while "sceptics" suggests that their views might be subject to revision or change, which really isn't the case for a lot of these people. Nonetheless "sceptics" is probably closer to the mark than any other term and is widely used by sources, so I suspect we're stuck with it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the views of the "experts" are open to revision or change either. Denier is an insanely prejudicial term to label everyone who questions global warming with. It overtly suggests the holocaust. Drolz09 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Global warming has the potential to kill billions if not dealt with smartly. That's an order of magnitude more than the atrocities committed against the Jews. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The denier label is an unfortunate digression into politics. This issue has become irrevocably politicised, however those on the green end of the argument erred practically as well as ethically when they swerved into this sort of underhanded technique.

Labelling all sceptics deniers dents the credibility of environmentalists. There's a continuum of so-called sceptics from those who'd place a ceiling of no more 1C in temp rise by 2100 all the way over to rent-a-scientist PR men. The problem is that labelling them *all* as deniers gives the real obstructionists the consolation of company -- something they'd have much less of if the 'denier' label was used more sparingly.

Deniers do exist; it's best to allow them to isolate themselves rather than force legions of the naive, ill-informed etc into their arms.Dduff442 (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Skepticism and denial are two entirely different things, although they may overlap and it may also be very hard to tell one from the other from the outside. Speculating about someone's reasoning for questioning things also takes into the realm of opinion and political bias. Plus, even on the most rock solid issues like night following day or gravity causing things to fall some people say things because they believe them, some because of some internal emotional reason, and some because they have been paid. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Jones email wording and other "maybe could have possibly been represented by some to"

Nigelj, I have changed your "their authors may have threatened to attempt undermine the peer-review process" back to the original "their authors may have attempted undermine the peer-review process". I actually toned down the original quote: "the suggestions [that] climate scientists may have actively conspired to undermine the peer-review process". That just seemed too over-the-top. But let's not get too vague, either. Madman (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The above copied here from my Talk page, as it was not really about me, but this article. --Nigelj (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was me! : ) I thought I should explain the reversion, but didn't think it was a big enough issue to discuss here.

I also just reversed this (diff here). The emails do indeed discuss "how to combat the arguments of climate change sceptics, unflattering comments about sceptics, queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers." There's no reason to say that they "have been represented by some commentators and advocates as" discussing how to combat etc. Let's not get so careful that we start to scatter WP:Weasel words where they don't need to be. Madman (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of your statements above are non-contentious, others are contentious. I've tried to establish by editing the distinction between the two. The statements do not match what the journalists in the sources say, for instance, but they do in some instances match what some skeptics have told the journalists. --TS 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. As I pointed out in the edit summary when I added, "...threatened to...", if someone writes "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" to a colleague, there is no way that this can be characterised as an attempt to redefine what the peer-review literature is (unless you have some very powerful colleagues). At most this is a threat to try to redefine what the peer-review literature is. we have no evidence from that statement that he actually tried to redefine it, let alone whether he succeeded (actually, I think we know he didn't). These are not weasel words, they are accuracy words. Summarising that statement as an attempt is just wrong, even if a reporter did so. --Nigelj (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute...what? How is pledging to keep "garbage" out of the IPCC "an attempt to undermine the peer-review process"? And how do any of the references (USA Today, Winnipeg Free Press or Bloomberg) support the idea that this was a "threat to undermine the peer review process"? I don't get it. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, none of the sources say anything about "undermining the peer review process". Looked through them carefully, and they don't say what they're alleged to say. That's a big problem. Guettarda (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is getting warped from the conditional speculation in this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html?do=print Ignignot (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaked E-mails Still At Center Of Climate Change Debate

Here's an article that we can potentially use as a source: Leaked E-mails Still At Center Of Climate Change Debate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

which some have dubbed

Either it's called it or it isn't. If it is, it should be written as "also known as". If it isn't, it shouldn't be in the article. I don't particularly care which it is. CNN refers to it as climategate. They haven't dubbed it as such. Newsweek similarly refers to as climategate. ABC news too. With all the dubbing going on, I think I'm watching a foreign film. -Atmoz (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer that this stupid, jokey "gate" nonsense was purged from Wikipedia as unencyclopedic; however, that fact remains that some sources (though by no means all) have adopted this retarded term for the incident. The usage is particularly prevalent in the US, where crawling information bars and "chyrons" have limited space. "Climategate" is not an encyclopedic term. At best, it is simply a moniker; therefore, "dubbed" seems appropriate (although I would prefer "which some refer to as..."). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think that dubbed sounds very encyclopedic, even though climategate is a stupid name. Instead of foreign films by the way, I was thinking that it should be called Sir Climategate of East Anglia. Ignignot (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using "Climategate" and "Climategate scandal" as alternate titles that redirect here. There's a strong tendency here in the Colonies to append the suffix "-gate" onto the name of any scandal, and so the term is gaining traction. Just trying to help. And calling it a "hacking incident" in the main title assumes that it was the result of hacking, so the word "hacking" should be removed. (P&W immediately covers his head with his arms, and flees from the Talk page in a zigzag pattern.) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate already existed as a redirect, I added in Climategate scandal as another redirect. The hacking in the title thing is a huge can of worms that should be discussed in the appropriate talk section. Ignignot (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to correct someone way up there above, "CRU gate" has actually 690,000 hits -- here. (CRUgate, one word, around 6,000). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 (talk • contribs)

As I'm sure most of you know, the number of hits Google generates is only loosely connected with the number of results it turns up. In this case, it runs out at 469 (and precisely zero of the 9 hits on that page are about climate). Guettarda (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I like "which some have dubbed". At this stage, it isn't a "thing", it doesn't have a name. But some have named the issue. Guettarda (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's recap something that I mentioned when we were discussing the inclusion of "Climategate". If people want to argue that "CRUgate" is in use they need to refer to reliable sources - not blogs - and a general Google search is next to useless in that regard (see WP:GOOGLE). Google News finds just six sources, five of them blogs and one an opinion piece, which use the term. [7] So it clearly is not in any general usage among reliable sources as opposed to the blogosphere. Second, it is original research to use sources as examples of usage. You need sources which specifically speak of the term's usage, rather than sources which merely use the term. Hence - for example - the Reuters source cited after "Climategate" says that the affair was "already dubbed "Climategate", and our article reflects this wording.

Turning to Atmoz's comments, "also known as" is problematic because, first, the existing wording specifically reflects the source, while that wording does not - it's one editor's own spin on it (hence OR). Second, "also known as" makes it seem that the alternate term is a general term for it, which it clearly isn't (hence also OR and rather POV). The term is not in general use like "Watergate"; it was specifically coined by anti-science activists to promote the incident as a scandal, so it is loaded with POV connotations. Given the very partisan way in which it's used we need to be careful about how we present it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources which refer to this as "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident". You're argument is disingenuous at best. -Atmoz (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You will also no doubt find that there are "no sources" which refer to "Rathergate" as Killian documents controversy or "Attorneygate" as "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy". Those names are used because of Wikipedia's policy on article naming and our avoidance of "gate" in article titles. (I wrote the relevant sections of those policies a very long time ago, so I know what I'm talking about here.) Wikipedia is not news: we deliberately avoid non-neutral article titles, and we make an effort to find descriptive article titles. Yes, "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is longer and clumsier but it has the huge advantages of (a) neutrality and (b) telling you something about the subject. "Climategate" tells you only that it's something about climate which someone considers a scandal. I'm not saying that "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is necessarily the best title (I didn't choose it!) but it's significantly better than a lot of the alternatives. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)But "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident", it's a descriptive phrase. Because it isn't really a "thing", it doesn't have a name. Just a descriptive phrase for the article title. Guettarda (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to go on record as saying that this has has to be one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lamest edit war ever. Why not just say "widely referred to as "Climategate"" or somesuch? That would be entirely accurate. Evercat (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple. We have three groups of editors here. One group wants to maximize the damage of this controversy as much as possible. The second group wants to minimize it as much as possible. Then there's the third group who just wants to write a good article in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to that if someone can find a source to support it. As I said, merely finding examples of usage isn't enough - what we need are sources telling us how the term is used (widely? narrowly? who uses it?). Otherwise it's OR and weasel wording. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Would this do as a source? [8] Evercat (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? A list of Google search results? What did I just say about "merely finding examples of usage"? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. It's not just an example usage, its an indication of how wide that usage is, which is what you asked for. Nobody looking at that link can deny that the term is widely used. About 600,000 hits contain both "Climategate" and "Climate Research Unit" [9] indicating that there's a substantial use of the term in this context. Evercat (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is pure original research. It's an argument that's not made in reliable sources. I don't mind including the term, but if we're going to say anything about how the term is used it needs to be sourced. And you should know that Google tests are heavily caveated/deprecated. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not original research. I didn't do the research, Google did. Google is a fairly reliable indicator of how widely a phrase is used on the web. I think it's obvious you're trying to use the letter of Wikipedia policy to object to an edit that you know would be perfectly sensible and accurate. You don't actually deny that "Climategate" is being widely used, do you? [Edit: but see my comment below...] Evercat (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't deny that it's widely used. But the point stands about using a Google search as a source in an article to make an argument that doesn't appear in any reliable source. You can't do that. If you don't believe me, go over to the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm afraid you're wrong about "Google doing the research". You created the list of search results from Google's database snapshot at that particular time. It can't be reproduced because the database is in constant flux and the results vary wildly. Google isn't even a fixed source, let alone a reliable one. This argument about using Google search results as a source is one that's come up time and again; basically, it can't be done because of Google's inherent instability and the general unacceptability of making novel arguments without reliable sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

'About 600,000 hits contain both "Climategate" and "Climate Research Unit"' - actually drill down and you'll find that "600,000" resolves to only 675 pages. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's odd. Have I really been misled into thinking that Climategate is widely used when it in fact isn't? I suppose this is possible... Evercat (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. But with regards to results, see Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Google_unique_page_count_issues and the reference cited therein. Google doesn't actually count pages that match your query. Guettarda (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Now it's beginning to be referred to as "hackergate" it seems [10]. Might be a bit too early to rename the article but perhaps we should add that to the list in the lead section. NB.
—Apis (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Channel 4 News called it "emailgate" the other day... Itsmejudith (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate is the single most common name for the incident. No other name has stuck. I don't actually care much what the title of the article is, but "Climategate" should be introduced without disparagement and the which some sources have dubbed Climategate wording is dismissive, therefore POV. It isn't serious encyclopedic language, either. Let's use neutral language with a more serious tone, the way articles normally use it: also known as Climategate. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate" has two problems. First of all, it's a very US-centric moniker that is little-used outside of US and US-influenced media. Secondly, it carries the implication of guilt on the part of the CRU, when in fact the guilt lies with the individuals or group who conducted the data theft. A fairer approach would be to say something like "which some media commentators have referred to as 'Climategate'". -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You've given a good reason not to use "Climategate" as the article title, but none of those are good reasons not to neutrally note that it is a name very, very frequently used. It isn't just used in the U.S., either. Here's a Google News search limited to UK sources, showing results from many prominent sources. [11] (I did the search to show prominent sources.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still not ubiquitous enough to label it without a qualifier. "Some media commentators have referred to it as..." or "Some media outlets...", etc. Wikipedia itself must not apply this label, if you get my drift. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

also known as Climategate isn't "Wikipedia itself" saying anything other than that it's a name that's been used for it. No more, no less. Neutral. "Some media outlets" using the term is always assumed because it's obvious. Using a "qualifier" is Wikipedia itself making a statement about use of that term, which would be fine if there were something special about the term, but in this case there isn't anything special about it. If it's worthwhile, we might cite some source discussing the term and possible objections to it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but using the term "also known as" would need a qualifier. "Also known as" by whom? Either you stick in a festival of corroborating references, or you simply say "some media commentators" and throw in a couple of representative references. There should be no doubt whatsoever that it isn't "Wikipedia's voice" using the term. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of "some" corrobation. Search the article for Climategate and you find there are already a half-dozen references which use the term. Go through the article's versions in other languages for more non-US-centric examples. Actually read the sources if you need more. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AKA Climategate (as in, the name everyone uses) would need a qualifier, but "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident," which no one, anywhere, "knows" it as, does not?Drolz09 (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Everybody? I doubt it. While Google claims 30 million hits for "climategate", it only turns up 730 of them when you look through the results. Surely this issue has attracted a lot more than 730 distinct hits. Or has it? I think I perception of the size of the internet is grossly inflated by these silly stats Google likes to throw our way. Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What other wikipedia projects are calling it isn't relevant, nor is how they refer to it in other languages. Other language wikipedias might have different policies, and likely they want to reflect the name used in their local language media.
—Apis (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that everyone thinks of the issue as "Climategate" is obvious if only in light of the effort people go to to re-brand it, and how awkward they look doing so. Drolz09 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone" does not think of the issues as "Climategate", and Wikipedia relies on a neutral approach to topics supported by NPOV, rather than a sensationalistic, emotionally-manipulating approach that is promoted by the media. Viriditas (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What is it going to take to change the "some sources have dubbed..." to "which has been dubbed as". I don't believe that wording will carry the implication that Wikipedia is authoritatively coining the term. Additionally, to go on saying "some sources", carries the implication that the incident is going by other nicknames. As far as I've seen, just about every major media outlet has used the term Climategate or Climate-gate. For those undo'ing edits to drop the "some sources" - please list some examples where a different moniker is being used. Static623 (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, "global warming" only yields about 730ish hits before Google posts the irrelevant/redundant results link.76.105.74.127 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have a better idea: In order to reflect the actual content of the article, change the name to "Climate Lobby's Response to Ambiguous Incident Involving Criminal Hacking and Possibly Other Crimes." Drolz09 (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to confuse the issue - there is no other short-hand for this incident other than "Climategate". Static623 (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate and CRU Hack as separate articles

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

See also discussion at #Time_to_Separate_Climategate_from_CRU_Hack, a discussion on the same issue started by same editor.

There is very strong opposition to this proposal, mostly on the grounds that the proposed fork would violate the neutral point of view policy (WP:POVFORK).

I am not a wikipedia expert but it seems to me that these are in fact two separate issues. It's entirely possible for one person to be vehemently opposed to both hacking and scientific malfeasance.

The two issues really have no relation to each other; that is, whether or not the emails were obtained legally has no bearing on whether they reveal corruption. The opposite is also true; whether or not the emails constitute corruption has no bearing on whether they were obtained legally. The only reason that this would not be the case is if the emails had been manipulated by the hackers, but not only has no one alleged this--they have been determined genuine.

Accordingly, neither issue should taint the other on Wikipedia. If the emails reveal corruption, the article on them should not be cluttered with discussion of how the hacking was also corrupt. This amounts to instantiating "two wrongs makes a right" in an Wikipedia article. Again, the opposite is equally true.

Also, the hack occurred months prior to the actual scandal, and the hackers are unidentified. There is no reason to believe that they are even affiliated with the principle actors in the current scandal, but when they are discussed in the same article, they are effectively conflated with the skeptics, unfairly impugning the reputations of the latter. Drolz09 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In reading the article, I was thinking the same thing. There really should be an article related to the scandal and the fallout in terms of the science community and its impact on the overall view of global warming ("Climategate"), and a separate one covering the act of leaking the documents ("the incident"). Tencious9 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep adding material and when a subject gains too much material it will tend to be split off. No need yet to plan what will grow. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are actually several issues packed together there: 1) possible bad behavior by a handful of scientists; 2) the consequences in re the science of AGW; 3) the consequences in re the perception of the global warming issue. The latter is actually closely related to the issue of the theft, since it was clearly the primary intent of the thieves affect that perception. Of course all of these issues relate to one particular event -- the theft and dissemination of the EAC materials, which is the subject of this article. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a WP:POVFORK. Without the hacking incident climategate would not have occured. This topic might already be in the discussion archivesChelydramat (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I hardly see how these events can be considered the same subject. WWI might not have occurred without the Arch Duke being assassinated, but that doesn't mean they are inextricably linked and need to be on the same page. Also, I'm advocating a "fork" explicitly for neutrality. As I said, it's possible to oppose both hacking and corruption. The moral standing of the hack has no bearing on the science. If Climategate is a fake scandal (it's not, sorry), it is because of the content of the emails, not how they were acquired. If, for instance, the hacking were ongoing, or in any way continuing to play a role in the analysis of the documents, it would have a place here, but that is not the case.Drolz09 (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the same subject and we don't need two articles. So, no. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You cannot separate the two. The security breach would not be notable were it not for the release of the e-mails. The provenance of the e-mails is central to their authenticity. While we do not know who leaked the e-mails, they must have intended to embarrass the writers of the e-mails. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, as I said, the only importance the breach can have is if they somehow affect the veracity of the emails. Yet, even though no one contends that it does, discussion of the breach absolutely DOMINATES the article. The topics wouldn't need to be split except for the fact that the Wikipedia "Ruling Party" is so relentlessly shameless in its employment of the NPOV tag as a means to force POV. Drolz09 (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The hack is a central part of the story. Frankly, I see this as just another bid to hide the crime that started this controversy - we've seen people arguing that there was no crime, now we're seeing people arguing that the crime should be hidden away in another article. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So, the main story in the Smoking/Cancer issue is the leak of proprietary data by whistleblowers? Pentagon Papers/Ellsberg? Is your contention that any malfeasance which is revealed due to criminal activity is thereby excused? Or is it just that the real story is always the way in which it is revealed? So Watergate is actually about an observant security guard? Neither claim has merit. In fact, the reverse is, at the very least, more accurate: that is, if someone knows that a crime is being committed and commits a lesser crime with intent to stop it, a reasonable person could see that as justified. The claim you are making, that when ongoing criminal activity is brought to light by a lesser crime, it is excused, defies all reason. Drolz09 (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Problem though is that you're jumping the gun a little. There's no evidence of serious wrong-doing on the part of the CRU folks. As it stands, the story of stolen email, the content of the email, and the way the content was cherry-picked and spun wildly is all woven together. Guettarda (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You have mischaracterized the article, and your characterization of editors not only is wildly factually inaccurate but violates WP:NPA. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree they are two distinct topics (hacking being a technical): [12][13] 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The hackers made their intention plain, and to some extent they have been successful in the short term. It is unlikely that this subject will need two articles in the near future. --TS 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I weakly endorse the idea that two articles are required. The provenance of the emails remains in question, and the motives, methods, and legal status are under investigation by the university and the police. Totally apart from that aspect of the scandal is the appearance of impropriety on the part of individual scientists, missing/destroyed raw data, and the impact on the Copenhagen Climate Summit and the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. Like John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln, the two topics are vitally linked, but essentially separate.Nightmote (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not be in favor of splitting the article. That would almost certainly result in a POV fork. The significant detail of this incident is the data theft, and the local-level consequences that arise from it (security, staff being replaced, UK government investigation). It is unlikely to have any significant impact on the Copenhagen Climate Summit (from a point of view of policies, treaties, etc.) and it will have absolutely no effect on the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (or the science supporting it). At best, it will promote stricter standards among scientists working in climate-related fields. It might provide fuel for the James Inhofe's of this world for a little while, I suppose. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the data theft is the significant issue is unsupportable. Nobody in their right mind cares about an isolated incident of data theft. Claiming otherwise is especially absurd here, because the "stolen" data was subject to FOI requests anyway. The only reason the hack is at all relevant is because of what it revealed. Regardless of whether you believe the data reveal malfeasance, that is the issue at hand. It is not POV to answer this question independently of the question of the hacker's identity/motives, because the second issue cannot be said to have any bearing on the outcome of the first. Drolz09 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It "revealed" absolutely nothing, which just leaves the theft as the important and significant matter. All this alleged conspiracy has already been debunked repeatedly and all over the place. Here, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the article is not about a criminal investigation, but about the content and reaction to those contents. You are completely jumping the gun here by saying that it is all settled and done with because that is obviously not the case. The scientific review has only just been declared. I don't see how you can objectively reach this viewpoint. Ignignot (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite easily, actually. Just as the apoplectic wingnuts of the Limbaugh persuasion had already condemned the scientists within mere moments of the hack coming to light, and by misinterpreting the emails and data (such as the complete misunderstanding of the word "trick", or even what anyone was referring to). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you continue to flip out over the responses of "wingnuts," etc. proves that those reactions are what makes Climategate notable. If climate science is as robust as everyone here believes, it's hard to see how this compulsive suppression of dissent is warranted. Drolz09 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? With respect, the REAL story here is likely to be that some climate change deniers, backed by big oil, hacked into the CRU to find, and then misrepresent, data related to climate change for the purposes of sabotaging the summit. I'm willing to bet that is all there is to it. All this other stuff is fanciful nonsense, quite frankly. The focus of this article should be about the hacking incident, and then the misrepresentation and lies that followed it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well of course it's hard to see if you radically misrepresent it. Nothing is being suppressed, compulsively or otherwise, certainly not dissent -- unless you consider mere factual correction of error to be suppression of dissent. You talk about the robustness of climate science, yet this event and the materials it brought forth don't touch climate science, only the behavior of a handful of climate scientists. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, it's obvious that you're trying to swing this article as far into your own bias as possible. The hacking incident is focused on the by left-wing media, while most of the rest of the MSM is also reporting on the ramifications introduced by the allegations of fraud on part of one of the most prestigious climate research institutes. It's VERY clear that there are two distinct issues to be discussed.Static623 (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to splitting at the time being. The theft and it's performers possible intentions are integral part of this all. If there's a trial or so some day, then it'd be made as a sub-article. --J. Sketter (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am also opposed to splitting, and as someone who is very familiar with the forking process, I cannot see a single valid reason for creating two articles at this time. I am open and willing to listen to proposals. As far as I can tell, this proposal has been repeatedly made on a daily basis for some time now, as if each new thread will somehow result in its acceptable. This a great talking point for the POV pushers, but its tendentious and disruptive. POV forks are not what we do here. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Myron Ebell again

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

The reference in question is no longer in the article.

Continuing this discussion...

Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression states that "concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value" violates NPOV.

This is the relevant passage from the article:

Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said the e-mails showed that some climate scientists "are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

This is verbatim from the source [14]:

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position." (emphasis added)

The phrase 'whose group is funded in part by energy companies' is relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value that has been strangely excised from the middle of sourced information and should be inserted into the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dduff442 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to go down this road, let's include the funding sources for the university professors. They should not be consider clean and uninfluenced by their funding sources. Let's not assume that special interest groups don't fund universities. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on this because these pressure groups and think tanks exist precisely to advance the interests of their patrons. But consensus is against adding the text at least in this form. --TS 09:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The appearance of consensus is misleading. The standing was 2-1-3 F/Neutral/A (it's 3-1-3 if your support is added). Let's see what emerges here and debate the merits of the point. Mere objection is not sufficient to block progress -- the point must be defensible by reference to the rules. The onus is on those objecting to enter into debate.Dduff442 (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, Myron Ebell is a lobbyist? I find the whole idea of adding the comments by lobbyists very odd. How are their opinions notable? Does the CEI have such a huge influence that it makes their statements notable?
—Apis (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Ebell's patrons are in effect paying to have his statements appear in newspapers and the like. If we then quote him aren't we giving undue weight to paid representations? --TS 10:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec 2) I explained above. It's not relevant, as the only purpose is the implication that the sponsors affect the statements, which statement wouldn't be acceptable in Wikipedia even if explicitly stated.

Ebell is a scientist working for the CEI, which is a think tank, rather than a lobbyist working for a lobbying organization. If he were a lobbyist, the identity of the specific sponsors might be relevantHowever, CEI wouldn't then be a non-profit. The separate question of whether the Post's statement is more correct than Obama being sponsored by energy companies (some energy companies did contribute to his campaign) might tben need to be investgated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it claimed that the phrase is not information about sources or sources' credentials or that it is not needed to fairly judge their value? We have no authority to form a consensus on this issue while flying in the face of Wiki guidelines.

Your general objections cannot stand in the face of the specific rule I'm quoting.Dduff442 (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"scientist working for the CEI" - that's a good one! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ebell is a paid media jockey and is a longterm political activist, having worked as a senior legislative assistant to John Shadegg. (see CEI's own bio of Ebell). --TS 11:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also see his "impressive" scientific bibliography: [15]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Mr Ebell is none other than the great Larry David [16].Dduff442 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it as I don't think this is the kind of informed, expert commentary we should be looking at for inclusion in that section. The press is full of hype for anybody who wants that, and people come to Wikipedia for an insight into the facts of the situation, behind the hype. --TS 12:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you, others may not. His notability is doubtful but not completely absent. I'd be satisfied if the words cut from the Post piece -- 'whose group is funded in part by energy companies' -- were included. If there's consensus to cut Ebell's remarks entirely then I'm fine with that too.Dduff442 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree he's not notable, but I'm not OK with the "energy company" statement. As stated, it's accurate, as misleading as to state that Obama is funded by energy companies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That Obama's campaign was funded by energy companies is relevant to him, though I'll wager their contribution to his coffers was a small fraction of the total unlike in this case. The CEI page lists ExxonMobil and Ford as sponsors -- both firms with an interest in energy policy. Extraordinary justification would be required to rationalise cutting out six words from what is otherwise a direct lift from the Post article. The policy is pretty clear as well.Dduff442 (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's interpretation. Mentioning ExxonMobil and Ford (which is not an energy company) may be cherry-picking, but possibly relevant; mentioning energy companies is an incorrect interpretation. No additional justification is needed to remove clauses, where the only justification for keeping the clause is the allegation that the group's statements are dictated by the sponsors.

To quote the policy, the statement is "not needed" — nor is it helpful — "to fairly judge their value". It's needed to unfairly judge their value. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the best option is just to exclude Myron Ebell's comments given that he is obviously not a scientist and doesn't even appear notable and the CEI is not a scientific organisation of any note. Since we seem to have consensus to exclude it I don't think there's much point for further discussion.

However if we start to get opposition to excluding him, in terms of the energy companies bit you can probably say I'm neutral to it. The fact that it's sourced directly to the source used is good however such descriptions tend to be problematic and disputed so personally I prefer to avoid them.

The Obama/energy companies thing is probably not a great example. A better example would be if Obama had made comments on this and we decided to include them, I doubt many people would agree to us mentioning his campaign was part funded by reneweable energy companies and environmental groups (which I strongly suspect is true on both counts) even if it could be sourced directly to a source mentioning his comments. I also doubt we'd have any support to mention the CRU (or any one of their researchers e.g. Phil Jones) or other people and organisations mentioned is this article are part funded by reneweable energy companies and environmental group (which may be true in some cases guessing) even if we can find a relevant reliable source. Some people may say these comparisons are misleading since the percentange and diversity of funding is different but that's a completly different argument. Some may say it's red herring since we could never find such WP:RSes but I'm not convinced that's is the case (and in event, this is an issue that arises in other article and other fields) so it does serve as a good counter example IMHO.

In other words, I won't hold it up if people want to include it but I can also see the POV of those who want to exclude it.

As for ExxonMobil/Ford, let's just not go there again, eh?

Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I differ with Arthur (and apparently some other support his view) on inclusion of characterization of Ebell. If we were to include him we'd need to make clear that he spoke as a political activist, not a disinterested individual--I think it should be the case with all cited sources that we correctly characterize them. The nub of the difference is that I do think the sponsorship of his think tank by companies with an interest in the continued viability of the exploitation of petroleum technology for private transport--and yes, that includes Ford--would be an essential part of that characterization. I agree that we don't have consensus on that.

The reason I removed his entry entirely, however, is that I'm trying to move away from reliance on the usual rent-a-quote mob which has blighted the press and media coverage due to our voracious 24-hour news culture. Unlike news organizations we don't have column inches and airtime to fill, so we can afford to pick through the dross and get the most reliable sources we can find. So I'm against quoting political pundits and think tank mouthpieces who are in effect providing a paid-for platform for their patrons. --TS 09:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad Arthur Rubin has at last chosen to address my points directly instead of merely re-stating a prior position. I note the initial WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP objections have now been dropped to be replaced by a claim that knowledge of CEI's funding would somehow confuse readers.

It was never stated that Ford was an energy company (@AR, not Nil Einne). Ford is listed as a sponsor on the CEI page, and it is a firm with a critical stake in energy policy. The proposed edit didn't mention Ford. I can't comprehend how mentioning ExxonMobil and Ford would constitute cherry-picking, mind, when they are the only funding sources given for the CEI on its own page. I'm going to consider this aspect closed now as nobody is suggesting mention of either.

Ebell is a former congressional staffer; a lobbyist. AR may dispute this last definition, however numerous other eds have used it. It's casual usage but accurate. He has no scientific training and is certainly not 'non-profit'; he's a paid representative. Public corporations have a legal obligation to maximise stockholder returns; if they did not believe their funding of the CEI produced a return for their shareholders that funding would be illegal and those authorising the payments might be sued for damages. Quid pro quo isn't a possibility, it's a legal imperative as actions that deliberately hurt the value of shareholder funds are ultra vires.

I can cite the precedent of the original Washington Post piece in defense of my POV here; what examples can Arthur Rubin provide where journalistic integrity permits such information to be concealed? This is what he is arguing for -- suppression of information.

When this discussion was re-opened, eds quickly came to an assessment of the value of Ebell's comments: 0. Like I said, this is more than I sought and might even be disputable. (with inverted logic, WMC tried to present this as a defeat for my views on his ArbCom election page).

Public_relations#Front_groups states that "one of the most controversial practices in public relations is the use of front groups – organizations that purport to serve a public cause while actually serving the interests of a client whose sponsorship may be obscured or concealed...Instances of the use of front groups as a PR technique have been documented in many industries. Coal mining corporations have created environmental groups that contend that increased CO2 emissions and global warming will contribute to plant growth and will be beneficial...". (emphasis added) Do we agree we're not in the business of 'obscuring or concealing' information?

This is from the Society of Professional Journalists [17]: "Journalists should identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability." (emphasis added)

From the BBC [18]:"As with any medium, hidden commercial or political agendas can shape a Web site's content. Researchers should check the links to and from a site as these can often reveal political or commercial affiliations. It is wise to question where the financing for a Web site comes from". (emphasis added) Again, the Post thought it unwise to hide the commercial affiliations and possible commercial agenda of the CEI.

This dispute relates to matters of editorial judgment rather than fact, the facts being undisputed. AR's position is that one particular undisputed and sourced fact needs to be excluded, the definition of suppression of information. My position is in complete agreement with Wiki policy and the various editorial standards quoted.Dduff442 (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Trick

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

The disagreement has been resolved.

I find this edit very odd [19] especially the comment "rv: you wouldn't need so many refs if it was true". All the refs are from the side of the University of East Anglia / RealClimate. --Rumping (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit being removed was a tendentious and opinionated synthesis. --TS 10:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are happy with a long quote from RealClimate which fails to say whether or not tree-ring and thermometer data were spliced together but unhappy with the following:

The trick involved replacing proxy temperature data from tree rings in recent years with data from air temperatures, following the tree-ring reconstruction up to 1960 and the measured temperature after that. This contradicted an earlier statement on RealClimate by Michael Mann in 2004 which said

"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, 'grafted the thermometer record onto' any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum."

with refs at

"The Stolen E-Mails: Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?". Time. 2009-12-07. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
"Climate change e-mails have been quoted totally out of context". The Times. 2009-12-08. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
"CRU update 2". University of East Anglia. 2009-11-24. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
"Myth vs. Fact Regarding the 'Hockey Stick' - response to comment 4". Real Climate. 2004-12-22. Retrieved 2009-12-08.

There are clearly serious POV games being played with this article. Were the two series spliced together or not? What do the sources say? --Rumping (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The tree ring metrics were used as a temperature proxy which was tailed off for the time series where more reliable metrics were available. That isn't a controversial statement, nor is it an allegation of any wrongdoing at all. --TS 11:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So were the two series/metrics spliced together? I think you are saying yes, but your words are unclear, as is the current article and the current quote from RealClimate. The sources are much clearer: they were spliced.

Whether this involves wrongdoing is subjective. RealClimate now takes your current position that there was little wrong with the splicing "trick"; five years ago it described such splicing claims as specious industry-funded climate disinformation, so presumably at that time such splicing was not seen as being so reasonable. So let's state clearly in the article that the "trick" was splicing the two series, with the sources and (for POV balance) the two RealClimate quotes. I do not see how RealClimate can be a reliable source now if it was not five years ago. --Rumping (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the word "spliced" is inexact and suggests sloppy work. The works in question have been subject to repeated peer review so we can rule out sloppiness. We cannot directly or indirectly suggest sloppiness, nor render important disagreements as debates over sloppy grammar. --TS 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - I am not fixed on "spliced", even though splicing is in fact a skilled technical opperation, and it is a fair description of what was done. Would you prefer "joined", "stuck together" or something else? In fact the reverted edit did not use any of these words: it used "replaced" as does the reference from Time. So without using "spliced", I take it we now have consensus. --Rumping (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Spliced", "joined", "glued", "stuck together" or any other verb suggesting an ad hoc operation not technically justified by the mathematics and the science would be inappropriate. The RealScience description really is very good and we needn't strain hard to improve on it using our own synthesis. Their wording is "the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear." And that's what it's all about. --TS 13:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure your contention that the “works in question have been subject to repeated peer review” is accurate. My recollection is that the work in question is cover art for some publication. If cover art is subject to peer review, it will come as a complete surprise to me. I’ll have to dig to source my recollection. I don’t question that both the temps and the tree ring values have been peer-reviewed, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is whether it is OK to create a hybrid curve, consisting of tree ring data through c1960 and thermometer temps post c1960. In my profession, that would be unethical. Is there evidence it is ethical among climate scientists (assuming my recollection of what happened is correct)?SPhilbrick T 14:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The point I have been making is that the "trick" was not just plotting the the two series together. The sources say the same thing. If that is really how you read the current article and the RealClimate quote, then the current article and RealClimate are misleading you. What happened was that the tree-ring data was truncated for recent decades and replaced by the thermometer data, with the two lines being drawn as one. This was not technically justified by the mathematics, and the ad-hoc scientific justification was that showing the reconstruction after the 1960s would be misleading because the reconstruction did not track actual temperatures. What you describe as plotting one series along with another is the second chart at the end of the University of East Anglia press release [20] linked in the reverted edit. What actually happended with the "trick" was the first chart in that press release where the tree-ring and thermometer series are joined to become one, by replacing part of one set of data with another. That is what the Time, The Times and UEA sources in the reverted edit say. Have you looked at the sources? You are now making my point for me as to the confusion in the current article and the need to reinsert the deleted edits. --Rumping (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rumping, you're conflating several different facts: a particular figure was under discussion, and the data sets and conclusions from them have been discussed in articles that have survived multiple independent peer review. As for the CRU document you cite saying anything about splicing, what it actually says is: "To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month." Nothing about joining, splicing, sticking together, gluing or indeed anything not justified by the requirements of faithfulness to the most reliable data.

Sphilbrick, according to UEA the actual case under discussion was "a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999." --TS 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So you would be happy with "combine"? You do accept that the series on the WMO cover [21] combine tree-ring data up to 1960 and thermometer data after 1960 into single series? --Rumping (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've indicated, I'm happy with our use of the RealClimate description which is more than adequate, is a reliable source on this field of expertise, and doesn't rely on synthesis. --TS 15:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I will try again another way. Does the RealClimate description suggest to you that the "trick" was to combine tree-ring data up to 1960 and thermometer data after 1960 into single series? --Rumping (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a description on a matter of expertise provided by experts, and is consistent with other expert descriptions. --TS 20:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes or no would have done. So you can't tell us what the RealClimate statement means. That makes it a bad statement and it needs to be replaced. All you have given is an appeal to authority (part of the list of red herring fallacies), and in this case RealClimate is an unreliable and ambiguous apologetic source, strongly connected to the leaked emails. The secondary sources linked above and that from UEA are clear and therefore better. --Rumping (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I brought up the issue of reliability at the WP:RSN, and the end result of the discussion was that RealClimate is reliable under WP:SELFPUB.[22] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to authority is Wikipedia's bread and butter. If you would read the article you cite, you will note that it says that appeals to authority are not generally fallacious; they are only fallacious if it is claimed that the statement must be true because it was stated by an authority. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this is POV as stands. If you are going to include a huge block of text published by an interested party for the express purpose of explaining away controversy, you should at the very least include an equally detailed explanation of what skeptics claim "trick" and "hide the decline" entail, rather than one vague sentence that says "manipulation" is alleged. Drolz09 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The point here is that the RealClimate text clearly fails to make clear whether or not the "trick" was to combine tree-ring data up to 1960 and thermometer data after 1960 into single series, in particular in the WMO cover graph[23], and is perhaps deliberately obscure and self-serving. The secondary sources do make it clear, as does the UEA statement. So excluding informative sources but including the RealClimate text, simply because RealClimate has spoken, is hopeless and is indicative of the problems with this article. Remember that is simply a description of what was done in 1999. For true NPOV, we might also consider what the skeptics are saying "hide the decline" means: that the divergence problem meant that tree rings did not track temperatures in the last 40 years, casting doubt on their ability to track temperatures in the previous 1000 years. Given the behavior of other editors on simple sourced facts, it would be impossible to get something like that here.--Rumping (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have veered off into original research. Let's stick with what our reliable sources are saying, and not try to push our personal views on the matter into it. --TS 09:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not it has not. This discussion has shown that you refuse to allow the article to use what reliable sources have said. The University of East Anglia said This email referred to a "trick" of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The Times says They draw the line to follow the tree-ring reconstruction up to 1960 and the measured temperature after that. Time says According to PSU's Mann, that statistical "trick" that Jones refers to in one e-mail — which has been trumpeted by skeptics — simply referred to the replacing of proxy temperature data from tree rings in recent years with more accurate data from air temperatures. Which of these is "original research"? What do you object to? Why? --Rumping (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not object to the characterization in the UEA's statement. That is a falsehood. I do not object to the characterization in the Times' statement. That is a falsehood. I do not object to the characterization in Mann's statement. That is a third falsehood. I do not refer to any of those three as original research. That makes a fourth falsehood. Please rethink your line of discussion, which appears to involve a grossly mistaken characterization of argument against your own line of original research and that of Drolz09.

In short, you appear to have manufactured a controversy from your personal interpretation of the RealClimate description, although it is quite compatible with what all other reliable sources have stated. --TS 13:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I will take that as consensus that those three quotes can go in the article. --Rumping (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never argued against the inclusion of further reliable sources on this matter. The RealClimate description is, however, detailed and accurate. --TS 13:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Reactions to Incident is slanted

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

Consensus was not reached to incorporate any of the sources, most of which were not viewed as remotely reliable.

I can't help but note in the "Reactions to Incident" section that pretty much every scientist, politician, and media personality quoted is an AGW theory supporter. In fact the most interesting reactions to this incident have been from the scientists, politicians and media personalities who are AGW skeptics. The "reactions" have obviously been cherry-picked by the handful of AGW activists here on Wikipedia. I propose we broaden the skeptic reactions and narrow down the activist/supporter reactions. JettaMann (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What other notable authorities are missing? Guettarda (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Climatology founder Dr. Tim Ball has done tons of interviews and written articles. Search Tim Ball Climategate and there are lots. Here's one article:

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/5663-obamas-science-czar-john-holdren-involved-in-unwinding-climategate-scandal

Lord Monkton has a great summary from the political end of the debate:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/

CBC Television has a prominent reporter named Rex Murphy who reported on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbxxlSRa4Y0&feature=related

There have been other commentaries ranging from Jon Stewart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

To Glenn Beck (multiple, I'll spare you the links)

To Lew Rockwell:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/lost-left-climate-morass136.html

Economist/author Christopher C. Horner.

And of course James Delingpole who was on top of this from the start:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/

I can go on and on.JettaMann (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a single reliable source in that little list. Glenn Beck WTF??? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a single one?! They are ALL prominent and notable people. You guys want to have it one way: Only AGW supporters (in media, politics and science) are allowed to be quoted. Well forget that, that absolutely violates Wikipedia standards.JettaMann (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Garbage in, garbage out. It certainly explains where JettaMann is coming from. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok Chris, you just passed the hypocrite test. You said earlier in this discussion list that we weren't supposed to attack one another personally. You just did. The fact is, these reactions are supposed to be from PROMINENT and NOTABLE people. These people all have large audiences. You simply want to have only AGW supporters/activists in this list.JettaMann (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand Chris. He is not attacking anyone; he is saying that as you have utilized fringe and questionable sources, it explains your somewhat original views. That's all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The second you stop talking about the issue at hand and instead start talking about the PERSON (me) then you are doing ad hominem. You are attacking me instead of what is at issue here. That's debating 101 guys and you just failed spectacularly.JettaMann (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Stop attacking other editors, read my (ironical) comment below that lists some of the criteria for notability and then read the link policy that Scjessey kindly gave you in the next section. --Nigelj (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)But, that's an un-usable list of political blogs, fringe activists, personal opinions and youtube videos. Where are all the notable, authoritative sceptics who hold positions of power, like elected leaders of countries or heads of national or international scientific organisations? --Nigelj (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just what is this magical criteria that allows someone to appear in the list of notable reactions? Let me guess, they must support the AGW theory.JettaMann (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable here. A "large audience" has absolutely no bearing on the importance or reliability of an individual. Glenn Beck is a comedian who is now a conservative radio talk show host and the titular host of a conservative wingnut show on FOX News. There are mice and bits of balsa wood more knowledgeable about science then he is. I'm having a really hard time keeping a straight face. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual you cherry pick ONE person from the list (which I didn't even add a link) and pretend he is representative of the whole list. And I still stand by the statement that, love him or hate him, he is a notable media commentator. There is NO substantial difference from the people in this list and the people some of you AGW activists use for your "reactions" section.JettaMann (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at all of them. Only I posted it in the wrong section by mistake, and then botched my attempt to relocate the comment. So look below. Guettarda (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

None of these people appear to have any expertise on the subject. None appear to be connected wit the incident. None of them appear to be terribly notable in their own right. Why would be care to include the opinions of seeminly random people? Guettarda (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

climatechangecraud.com - not a reliable source. Who is Tim Ball and why is he a notable source?
wattsupwiththat.com - not a reliable source. Lord Monckton - why should we care about the opinion of some random British peer?
youtube - not a reliable source
youtube - not a reliable source
Glenn Beck? He's notable on this topic in what way?
LewRockwell.com -not a reliable source. Does not appear to be notable on the subject.
Christopher C. Horner - no source. Does not appear to be notable on the subject.
James Delingpole? Does not appear to be notable on the subject.

None of these people appear to have any expertise on the subject. None of them appear to be terribly notable in their own right. Guettarda (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done some looking into Ball recently - he's a retired geographer, and climate change denialist. Ball was misattributed in the "Global Warming Swindle" as a "professor in the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg" (the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology and Ball retired more than ten years before the show aired.) Glenn Beck has had him on a few times. A real fringe theory kook, no climatology expertise at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe has saw a cloud once. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe even twice, but I don't think that makes him an expert somehow. I could be wrong, mind you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jettaman has listed some responses from the following people: Timothy F. Ball, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Rex Murphy, Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, Lew Rockwell, Christopher C. Horner, and James Delingpole.

Well that's a whole list of guys who are as entitled to have an opinion on this matter as I am. The only difference I see here is that nobody, including me, is saying that my opinion belongs in the article. I want to go on record as averring here and now that I do not sock puppet, and that Jettaman is not a sock puppet created by me to make opponents of Wikipedia look bad. --TS 19:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for linking these people to their Wikipedia entry. As you can see they are all notable enough to have entries on Wikipedia. Furthermore, they all have some interest in this incident and decided to weigh in on this case, which is the same as all the hand-picked people in the current "reactions" section. Let's not be slanted POV dicks here, people. Time to obey some Wikipedia rules.JettaMann (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The notability of an individual bears no relationship to the suitability of said individual to opine on a given topic. Most of the people on your list are insignificant figures in the field of climate change, and some have no scientific background of any sort whatsoever. Their only link to climate change is their refusal to believe in the facts concerning it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would add that very few of the people listed in the Reaction section have direct connection to the issue - and none have an expertise on the subject of the article (hacking) - they are just climatologists supporting the AGW theory. Yet their quotes way out of their expertise area ("this illegal act of cyber-terrorism") have been put in - and are being defended by the very same team of editors who cry foul (and revert without discussion) a well-sourced quote from a computer security expert - but not a climatologist. All JettaMann is asking is to apply an even-handed approach and allow the quotes from other notable people. Dimawik (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, your argument is laughable. According to you, the only reactions the Wikipedia article needs to mentions are from Climatologists i.e. People who will (duh) overwhelmingly agree with the AGW theory because their paycheck depends on it. Skeptics are important when it comes to truth, which BTW is what Wikipedia is all about. Naturally skeptics will be found outside this self-reinforcing AGW religion. People like Chris Horner are important. He wrote a whole damn book on Global Warming. Why the hell wouldn't his input matter? Ditto for Dr. Timothy Ball, he practically founded climatology. These obtuse objections to including this information are weak, very weak.JettaMann (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you seriously stating that Ball "practically founded climatology"? Is that a joke? I'm not getting it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Please note they are notable for other reasons than climatology. Similar to an instance when an editor wanted to put Michael Creighton's opinion in a article: it was disallowed. Why? Because Creighton was famous for being an author. Not a scientist. Not even a doctor, although he held a medical degree he wasn't a noted doctor and his medical opinion was no better than any other retired GP. The area of expertise is highly relevant. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The topic of the article is supposedly hacking, not climatology. Yet there are no security experts quoted. Dimawik (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The topic is the incident, not the hacking. So far as I'm aware no one has bothered to discuss the details of how the hack was accomplished. Have you a source regarding that aspect? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the topic is "hacking incident", not "climatology incident". Anyhow, the quoted opinions of the climatologists are way out of their supposed area of knowledge. How does an opinion on an "illegal act of cyber-terrorism" relate to the climatology? These words are clearly from the areas of computer security and law, and have nothing to do with the climate. What is the background of Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago in these fields? Precisely nil, I think. So why is his quote still in? Dimawik (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) That is a fair point. I have spent the last couple of days trawling reliable sources and Googling, but I have been unable to find any decent quotes from security experts commenting on the incident. The media seems more interested in the hype (remember Balloon Boy?) than trying to investigate the important issues. I think more will become available once the police have completed their investigation. -- Scjessey (talk)

Here is an analysis from a network administrator. It's self-published, though it is drawing some media attention, so one of the places that links to it may be citable as a reliable source. Gigs (talk)

I've just finished reading that, and it is certainly a fascinating analysis. My concern would be that the author would only have been able to study the content of the zip file, and would've been unable to corroborate certain aspects of the UEA network. The police investigation is more likely to lead to an accurate analysis because of their ability to study the network directly, interview the network administrators, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Small Dead Animals? Oh how precious. No, no, no. Not a reliable source. Not at all. LOL. Guettarda (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've worked as a senior network administrator for a multinational company, and I have a blog. Does my opinion go into the article? Thought not. --TS 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If your opinion gets coverage in reliable secondary sources, yes. We can't and shouldn't cite smalldeadanimals. We may be able to cite reliable coverage of that analysis though. Gigs (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Any reliable secondary sources covering this? All I see is a lot of links from blog comments, and from other far-right blogs. Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No Tony. You see, you get 644 Google hits, while Lance Leven gets 408. And, um, if you add up the digits in his total you get 3 (4+0+8 = 12, 1+2 = 3), while if you add up your number you get 5. Three is the largest single-digit number whose square is less than 10. Which is why his opinion is more notable than yours. Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I get 644 google hits? Hmmm, 22 below par for me. --TS 22:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about if you're a president of a business technology research firm and describe several issues in Computerworld?Data leak lessons learned from the Climategate hack -- SEWilco (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda, Scjessey and a few others have organized into a leftist cabal bent on slanting this article as far into their own bias as possible. Unless your idea of NPOV is defined by their bias, focusing this article on the real scandal is a worthless endeavor, as these trolls will revert your page edits at all hours of the day. Static623 (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's curious, I don't see them listed on Wikipedia:List of cabals. Which one do you belong to, guys? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just awesome. I've never been accused of being in a "leftist cabal" before. Do they sell t-shirts on CafePress with leftist cabal logos, or something? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't deny it Scjessey, there's photographic evidence of you being sworn in here. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of denying it. It makes me feel like a secret agent, or perhaps a superhero. Do I need to get a white cat or something? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the white cat is only required if you're planning to take over the world. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am planning to take over the world. I moved to the United States with the specific task of getting Americans to speak proper English. When that failed, I decided to plan world domination so that I could force the populous to talk properly. The plan is going pretty well - I've already acquired a US driving license and switched to an exclusive diet of cheeseburgers so that I can "blend in" with the locals. Perhaps an RfA should be my next plan, so that I can also be in the power-crazed Nazi cabal of administrators. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Brings back good memories of the old days and of fallen comrades, Kizzle, Derex and Ryan, who fought the vast rightwing conspiracy back in the days when Wikipedia was young and Jimbo would still descend from Mt Olympus to mingle with the mortals. Good times... Guettarda (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Alleged lack of coverage by media

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

No original research

There have been some credible reports of suppression of this story, including non-reporting by the major networks and delaying reporting of the story for weeks after it occurred: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/ and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd_XssuWtyc&feature=related and here http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091202135822.aspx

I propose that this article should include a section called "Suppressed or delayed reporting" and we include the news outlets that failed to report this story in a timely fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JettaMann (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea if you were to study this policy carefully before posting more of this fringey conspiracy stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy about it. These are the facts: A major story broke and the three big US networks failed to report it. I know you guys want to shy away from certain facts about this whole incident, but suppressing pure facts is not part of what Wikipedia is about. There is ZERO interpretation about the fact that the three big networks failed to report this story. JettaMann (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's editorial decision if the decision was made independently at each of the networks. That happens all the time. It's collusion if there's a conspiracy between the three to delay or under-report such stories. It's suppression if an outside agency pressures them not to report as they see fit. For better or for worse, Wikipedia is a "lagging" indicator, we only allow what other reliable sources have already reported, especially for pages which could, if not backed up by a reliable source, cause harm to a real, living person. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But nobody, and I mean nobody is even trying to say it's a conspiracy! This article just needs to report the fact (yes, the fact) that some media outlets failed to even pick up on this story, despite the obvious magnitude of the story. This fact deserves to be here far more than this lame "death threat" sympathy attempt that several AGW activists here want to push into the article. JettaMann (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be useful to review the timing and volume of media reports by region or continent? It may even be fascinating.Count Spockula (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really, no. Such a review would yield nothing that could be used in this article because it would essentially be original research. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, take your pick. Ignignot (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So far as I know the "big three" haven't reported that Michele Bachmann is a self-identified lovable little fuzzball, either.[24] They have to draw the line somewhere. But unless you find a reliable source stating it is a Big Deal that they didn't report that, then it doesn't go in her article. You can't just put in non-coverage as though it were sourced; it isn't. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You are saying that this is not a big story? You are living in denial pal. Why did This Week with George Stephanopolis report on it? Why did McLaughlin Group talk about it? Why did CBC National talk about it? These shows (excluding the latter) only cover about 3 issues per week, and thi swas one of them. Get real. You are entering absurd territory here.JettaMann (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are in error. I have made no statement whatsover on whether I consider this a big story or not, and your accusations of "living in denial" are based on nothing but your own imagination and lack of manners. I will now say that there is no source' that makes the assertion that there was any suppression, and until you produce one, and a damn good one, too, it won't go in the article per WP:NOR, WP:V. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

IOk, you are agreeing that if I can get a good reference it can go in the article. I produced three, and that was without even looking. The Daily Telegraph looks pretty good to me.JettaMann (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The Daily Telegraph hosts it, but it is still an opinion piece by a guest blogger who happens to be a climate change skeptic. Like I said before, read WP:RS. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So your point is that the story is a big story, because it is covered in the mainstream news, and that we should have a section on how it is not covered in the mainstream news? Ignignot (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say that had me confused too. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Recommend you refactor your last comment per WP:BLP. You cannot accuse Bachmann of being "lovable" without reliable sources (good luck with that). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected my statement to indicate she is a self-identified' lovable fuzzball. Thanks for the catch! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

JettaMann, can I give you some friendly advice? Your arguments are always going to be rejected unless you cite reliable sources. By "reliable", think major mainstream news sources such as BBC News, CNN, Washington Post, etc. Also, Wikipedia makes a strong distinction between straight news articles and opinion pieces such as editorials and blogs. The only way your arguments are going to be taken seriously is if you cite news articles from mainstream news sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Time to Separate Climategate from CRU Hack

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

See also discussion at #Climategate_and_CRU_Hack_as_separate_articles, a discussion on the same issue started by same editor.

There is very strong opposition to this proposal, mostly on the grounds that the proposed fork would violate the neutral point of view policy (WP:POVFORK).

I wholly agree with Viriditas, and the obvious remedy is to make a separate article about the controversy, so that it does not interfere with this article about the hack and investigation. If anyone disagrees, please explain why. Otherwise, show your support so the move can get underway. Drolz (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I've never said any such thing and I've specifically argued against POVFORKS each and every time they are proposed. Suggest sanctions against Drolz for manipulating my comments and making deceptive claims about other editors in violation of WP:TALKNO. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no way in which either of these comments are taken out of context or misrepresented. The fact that Viriditas has repeatedly made statements that contradict his desire not to POVFORK is his problem. I never indicated that he said he wanted a POVFORK, but that I agreed with his statement that this article is not about Climategate, which as written, is very true. Drolz (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never said anything such thing, and I respectfully request for the final time that you stop taking my comments out of context from other discussions on other pages and deceptively and maliciously trying to use them to support your failed proposals. Your behavior has gone from tiresome and naive, to troublesome and disruptive in a very short amount of time. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you accused me of being disruptive pretty much the first time I posted, and basically spammed my talk page with it from then on. Those are direct unedited quotes. Why don't you explain how they are out of context, if you can. Drolz (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am not in violation of TALKNO. The quotes are unedited and you have given no support for your claim that they are out of context. Please discontinue threatening me. Drolz (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are in violation of TALKNO, the quotes have nothing to do with this discussion, and do not support your proposal in any way. Cease and desist. Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You obviously cannot think of a reason why your statements do not logically entail the FORK, and are following a pattern of threatening rather than explaining yourself that has been ongoing for a while now. Drolz (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Now it's "all known talkpage guidelines?" I can't help it that you have repeatedly made statements which contradict eachother. You act as though I asked you, "Do you think dogs belong in the cats article?" and you said "No way that belongs in that article," and then I posted that comment in this article. Of course, the reality is that in both situations your comments were directly about this article, and you have still failed to come up with a way to reconcile your statements. Drolz (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Last time: Stop taking my words out of their original context, discussion, and threads, and using them to promote or support your own proposals in new and unique ways. Enough. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't help having a better use for your words than you do. Drolz (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not allowed. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It very obviously is allowed, as evidenced by your ongoing inability to identify a single rules which it contravenes. Drolz (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I identified the rule in my very first reply to this thread at 06:55: WP:TALKNO and I warned you on your talk page about violating WP:TALKNO: "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means...Be precise in quoting others...As a rule, do not edit others' comments." You misrepresented me, moved my comments out of place and out of context, and edited them to fit your POV. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"edited them to fit your POV" That is a baldfaced lie. The only editing was copy/paste, and an accurate [] for clarity. The problem here seems to be that you do not understand what "misrepresent" means. Drawing attention to contradictory statements you have made is not a misrepresentation. Nor did I ever represent you as having supported a FORK--I represented you as having made statements that supported a FORK, which was and is an accurate representation. In fact I even linked to your original statement in my first post which you deleted in contravention of a real TALKNO rule WP:TPO. Drolz (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is abundantly clear who is lying here. My comments had nothing to do with your proposal, and you took them out of context to dishonestly claim that I supported a fork. Stop touching my comments, and stop trying to deceive people. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose, per WP:POVFORK. Guettarda (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we already have this discussion just a few hours ago? No, I don't support a content fork at this stage, though I don't rule it out as a possibility for the future. We will have more to go on when the CRU's review is completed, but that won't be for a while now. --TS 07:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that Viriditas and most other editors are acting as though Climategate is not part of this article, and Viri even admitted to it, I think that is pretty strong support for going from de facto to de jur separation, where Climategate will actually get coverage. Drolz (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How about instead of just saying strong oppose in bold text, you give a reason for your position. Drolz (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(a) It's customary to bold !votes (you might know this if you edited other areas of Wikipedia); (b) a reason is given. I have cited the appropriate guideline which explains why a split like that would be inappropriate. It's a hyperlink. Wikipedia is hypertext. You have tl click links if you want to understand what's going on. Guettarda (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose as obvious POV-fork, and not in line with how RS report the events. And I am shocked by the way you misrepresented Viriditas' views, placing a quote by him, complete with signature, directly beneath a heading that was entirely your own. For a second I really thought that Viriditas was making the suggestion, which was obviously your intent. Does anyone else think this should go straight to ANI? (I need to get back to real life right now unfortunately so won't be making the report myself.) Itsmejudith (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that I put his text in quotes, and even linked to the page where he posted it, that's ridiculously hyperbolic. Drolz (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz09, I think you've misinterpeted what Guettarda is saying. I tend to agree with him that there's no significant scientific debate on global warming arising from this event, and rather the main focus is on the hacking, which has been interpreted as an attempt to sabotage the Copehnhagen talks, and the extent to which that attempt has succeeded. Obviously there isn't yet a lot of hard information about the latter so we're concentrating on the reactions of expert commentators and those involved as victims.

Now consensus on the talk page appears to support this broad approach, so your proposal to split the article is understandably being interpreted as an instance of a POV fork. --TS 07:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Massive lulz. I think the underlying point here that you two are missing is that since you don't want to include notable, pertinent content pertaining directly to the "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident", we should make another article to put that notable, pertinent content. Or you can just let us put it in this one. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Do we include the notable, pertinent information here, or do we include it elsewhere? Macai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia isn't run by pirates who hold articles hostage while making ransom demands from editors. Viriditas (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that expecting you to have a coherent perspective is an attempt to "hold articles hostage while making ransom demands from editors". Macai (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The two are inseparable. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose suggestion to create a WP:POVFORK. You already made this suggestion before #Climategate and CRU Hack as separate articles, it's disruptive to suggest the same split over and over. I'm also bothered by how Viriditas was misrepresented.
—Apis (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of how quoting statements he made while talking about this page constitutes "misrepresentation." Drolz (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Patent WP:POVFORKing. Come on, this has already been discussed and rejected. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:POVFORK. Hans Adler 08:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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

FOI subsection restored

I've restored the FOI subsection which had previously been removed with the objection that it was somehow a BLP violation. Discussion at WP:BLPN showed otherwise. See WP:BLPN#Use of blog to source allegations of criminal wrongdoing by named individuals. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, here's the diff showing what we're talking about: [25] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, i don't agree with your reading of the comments on that board. Its a WP:SPS and it doesn't come under any of the exceptions to the rule (ie. he's not an expert). And since it is BLP material that we are talking about, then there has to be some very good reasons for ignore wikipedia rules. Find better and reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no other way to read the comments at the BLP board. He isn't self-published, as is made abundantly clear by the section on the BLP noticeboard, which I'm surprised you didn't notice. The blog is published at the Science magazine website. Using italics doesn't make your argument for a BLP violation any better: It's been discussed in numerous publications by now and an inquiry has begun. The source is as reliable as they come: a journalist from a reputable publication where both he and his editors can be expected to be well-versed in libel law. And as for sourcing, the journalist himself uses sources: a British lawyer familiar with FOI and the British agency that handles FOI law. You didn't really read the BLP noticeboard discussion, did you? All this information is there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My, my, Kim, you actually participated in the BLPN discussion. I'd forgotten. All of your objections have been answered there, yet you repeat them here. Perhaps you'd forgotten those parts of the BLPN discussion in which your objections were answered with evidence. Again, please review them. It would save us the trouble of repeating them all here, although by this point, I think I might just cut and paste previous responses. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough there are only 2 (uninvolved) comments to that BLP request, one is ambivalent with a nod towards "No", and the other is positive. Thats not nearly enough to assert that it went in the way you want. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please address the actual issues, which you failed to do in the BLP discussion. Please address the actual points I made here (after I already made them there). You objected on the basis of BLP and self-published sourcing. I've already shown that there is no BLP violation and the sourcing is not self-published. Do you have any other objections or any further BLP objections that haven't already been knocked down? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all familiar with this aspect of the matter. Were any emails actually deleted? If they were, then absolutely it should be in the article. If they were not, then it all becomes speculative stuff from a blog that should not be in the article, per WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the BLPN discussion conveniently linked at the top of this section. All your points should be answered there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A simple "yes" the emails were deleted, or "no" the emails were not deleted is all I need. The discussion you refer to does not seem to focus on the salient point I am getting at. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Your point is slightly off topic: the section is not about whether or not FOIA was violated but whether or not that is a possibility, based on what Jones said in some of the emails. The point that the journalist was making, a point made by other reliable sources as well, is that this is an area where Jones wrote some suspicious statements in the emails, and if emails or documents were deleted in the face of an FOIA request, there are legal consequences involved. The point is not whether or not anything was actually deleted -- something we have no way of knowing. This is an issue that many reliable sources have brought up about this well-known person, so there is no BLP violation in WP bringing it up. If you look at the BLPN discussion, this will be very clear, very quickly. Again, sorry I wasn't clear about that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what you have made clear is that you want to write about something that didn't happen. Some iffy-sounding emails that offer no proof of anything, that a few blogs and other sources have picked up on. Regardless of the outcome of that BLPN discussion, it does not seem as if the long-winded exposé that is currently being edit-warred in and out of the article is appropriate. If it gets mentioned at all, it would seem that WP:WEIGHT demands it be a one-line mention, or something of that level. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can't discuss this civilly, I'm going to ignore you. I asked you to familiarize yourself with the facts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been perfectly civil. I am coming at this from the perspective of being an experienced Wikipedia editor, not an expert on climate change. The information you seek to include is about a nebulous "maybe" scenario, so it is clear that it does not warrant the enormous chunk that has been proffered thus far. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, edit warring of this section must stop. Until there is a clear consensus for inclusion of this controversial section (on this talk page, not some other meta page), it should not be in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Anybody still think it's a BLP violation to bring up possible FOIA violations? Apparently the University of East Anglia thinks it's a subject worth discussing: [26]

LONDON - The British university at the center of what climate skeptics are calling "Climategate" on Thursday named an outside reviewer and detailed what would be investigated. [...]

The university said Russell would also review: [...]

"Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data."

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is a BLP vio. My assertion is that it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT because too much coverage is given relative to the rest of the article, violating the neutral point of view. Clearly, we need to establish a consensus for what (if any of it) should be included. That is a discussion that should occur here, and not elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What I think you misunderstand is that the problem was with the source, and that criminal allegations are subject to WP:BLP. You cannot source that material from a blog, even if that blog is hosted by science (compare with a column in a newspaper).
—Apis (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just wrong. There is no problem with the source, since the source doesn't make an allegation. Your idea that we don't or can't rely on reliable sources to state the obvious with regard to legal liability is without any foundation whatever in policy. And it's not just that source, of course, but all sorts of sources. To cut and paste from the WP:BLPN discussion that you're ignoring:

See also: The Guardian news story from 11/23 [27] it emerged last week that hundreds of their emails and documents had been leaked that allegedly manipulated data and destroyed evidence for Freedom of Information Act requests. Jones has been called (by a writer in the Daily Telegraph) without doubt, one of the world's most influential proponents of the theory of man-made global warming [28] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[...] here are two more, so we have at least four reliable sources (Science magazine, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail) saying that Jones' statements call into question whether or not he violated Britain's FOIA:
- The Daily Mail in the UK: Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real, the emails appear to show researchers manipulating raw data and discussing how to dodge Freedom of Information requests. (11/25) [29];
- Daily Telegraph story: Thousands of documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) also seem to show that academics on both sides of the Atlantic discussed deleting sensitive emails to evade Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics. (11/24) [30]
- Here's what Phil Jones wrote in one of the released emails (09:41 AM 2/2/2005):

Mike,

I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McKitrick, McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it ! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And why not have The Financial Times of the UK [31] join the party (registration required, but it's free) -- referencing the very blog post that's the supposed BLP violation: Lesson 2: Don't evade Freedom of Information requests. As noted in the Science Magazine link above, many of the e-mails discuss how to destroy documents in anticipation of Freedom of Information requests. That's a criminal offense in the United Kingdom (where the CRU is located). IT folks should be aware that an increasing amount of data (particularly scientific and research data gathered via public funding) is subject to FOIA. They should work with researchers to ensure documents are stored and organized with that in mind. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your usual spin-doctored, scare-mongering version of the facts with special bold bits that were the same bold bits Glenn Beck showed the other night. The simple fact is this: there is no evidence that any emails or data were actually deleted. They are allegations, not confirmations. The only actual criminal offense was perpetrated by the hackers who stole the information. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mention of news reports about claimed FOIA violations would be in order so long as undue weight is not given. Debating the meaning of individual primary sources (i.e. the emails) is WP:OR.

WP:BLP should not be a problem so long as wide-circulation media outlets are the source. Blogs are not sufficient because moving info from a (low-readership) blog to (high-readership) Wikipedia makes Wikipedia the publisher of said info and liable to court proceedings if the claim is not provably correct (because people can 'sue in England').

The publisher needn't be especially noteworthy, mainstream or even reliable, assuming proper contextual info is provided, so long as it has reasonably broad readership.Dduff442 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"The publisher needn't be especially noteworthy, mainstream or even reliable" Um....no. Sources must be reliable. Readership is irrelevant. We have specific policies and guidelines about this: WP:V and WP:RS and they are not negotiable on this talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few WP:RS that report deletion of emails in a way that suggests it's significant. The Telegraph covers it [32] and includes a comment by Michael Mann: "Prof Mann also said he could not "justify" a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders. "I can't justify the action, I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that's clear."" They also cover it further [33] where they refer to it as one of the most contentious emails: " Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public" and again [34] when Nigel Lawson says "They were talking about destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act" (Lawson is firmly in the "climate change isn't as bad as it's claimed in terms of the policy changes that are required" camp). Phil Jones himself directly addresses it in The Guardian: [35] "We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that". The Wall Street Journal mentions it here [36] " In one email, Dr. Jones asked others to delete certain emails, apparently after some data were requested by a climate-change skeptic under the Freedom of Information Act", and Science mentioned it via one of their news editors [37], where a link between the law and FOI and deleting emails is made (and again [38]) Brumski (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, the Michael Mann quote should be included, given that he is an "expert," directly involved in the scandal, and it's in a trustworthy source. Drolz09 (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses by Whitehouse spokesman Gibbs

Obviously we should add a reference to Robert Gibbs' statement Monday, when asked whether the affair "Climate change is happening...I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly among most people, in dispute anymore." [39]. Should this appear under "elected national representatives"? Although Gibbs is a press secretary, he speaks for White House official policy. --TS 10:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama is the President of one of the most prolific carbon polluters in the world, and one of his key energy policies was a proposal for a strong carbon-limitation regime. That's why the responses by his spokesman to press questions on this matter is relevant--just as Gordon Brown's response is relevant. --TS 10:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's arguably one of the most notable political comments, the US is a key player globally, the response by the US government/president regarding this is highly interesting because it will have a direct effect on global politics (e.g. in Copenhagen now).
—Apis (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Russia response may be interesting as well. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

interesting: [40] According to the Mail, computer hackers in Tomsk have been used in the past by the Russian secret service - the FSB - to close down websites which promote views not approved by the Kremlin. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an allegation published by a (not particularly reliable) newspaper. It isn't an official response by Russia. --TS 11:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

i know. i just thought it was interesting and somewhat relevant. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article contents and how to improve it, not for chatting about whatever catches our interest. --TS 12:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

whatever. your perception is wrong. that interesting fact IS related to the article topic, not necessarily to this thread. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that quote doesn’t come close to being notable. It isn’t even clear from the article when he said it. There no indication that it was in response to ClimateGate, and even if a transcript shows it was in response to a question about ClimateGate, there’s no indication that the White House has actually done anything to investigate and reach a conclusion. It is an extremely common, perfunctory, restatement of current opinion. SPhilbrick T 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Gibbs was speaking on Monday and had been specifically asked whether this affair would affect Copenhagen. If you don't regard this statement by the press representative of the most powerful government on the planet as "notable", my impression that the phrase "not notable" is often used as a synonym for "stuff I don't like" is strengthened. --TS 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the US is the biggest emitter of CO2 in the world, so the US Government's position on CO2 emissions and reaction to the CRU thing is probably the most significant single national response, with the possible exception of the UK because it happened in their jurisdiction. The only other political response that would be as important would be the UN or the results from Copenhagen. Ignignot (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I do not appreciate the barely veiled implication. Let’s talk about the article, and not impugn motives. I think I’ve managed to do that.

Your claim that Gibbs was “specifically asked whether this affair would affect Copenhagen”, may be correct, but it is not in the article. And no, I don’t autmatically assume that a press spokeperson’s boilerplate response is automatically notable.SPhilbrick T 15:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why this is notable, either. Robert Gibbs is asked about everything by the press corps (he was asked about Tiger Woods, FFS!). To me, it seems like editors want to see this quote in the article because he said, "Climate change is happening..." If his words concerning the CRU incident specifically become significant in a preponderance of reliable sources, then it is reasonable to mention it. Right now, that is not really the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To what extent can Gibbs be said to be speaking for the Administration? If what he says reflects the position of the Administration, then I would call it notable. If not, then it's more debatable. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He is paid to be an official spokesman for the administration. And he is paid to waffle when he is unsure what the administration position is on anything related to the administration. He is not, however, paid to independently determine facts. Collect (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite what I asked. If what he says is the official position of the Administration, then that is notable whether or not that position is based on (what you regard as) the facts. The question is whether his statements represent the Administration's official position. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course they do -- he's the official spokesman. If he says something that doesn't reflect the official position of the administration, he or the administration issues a correction/clarification. That said, this comment is only relevant if it is specifically about the effect of the CRU incident and if it is presented that way in the article. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Contested edits

I changed:

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded^[1] to withhold scientific information,^[2]^[3] intefered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published,^[2]^[4] deleted e-mails to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act,^[4]^[5]^[6] and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.^[2]^[4]^[7]^[5]^[8]

to:

Controversy arose after various allegations were made that the emails showed evidence that climate scientists colluded^[1] to withhold scientific information,^[2]^[3] intefered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published,^[2]^[4] deleted e-mails to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act,^[4]^[5]^[6] and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.^[2]^[4]^[7]^[5]^[8] Some prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign.^[9]

This was contested by Viriditas. I'm not sure why. For justification see (currently)recent edit history. Any specific problems with these changes?--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you deleted

Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December.

and you changed

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded

to

Controversy arose after various allegations were made that the emails showed evidence that climate scientists colluded

(Emphasis added). Why the deletion? And what's your basis for claiming that "the emails showed evidence"? Guettarda (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(And obviously it wasn't just contested by Viriditas, I also contested the changes. Guettarda (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

These are the edits indicated in the passages I pasted here. I didn't realize you contested the pages. You said you were enforcing what you saw as WP:BRD. In any case, I made the deletion that section because, as I said in the edit summary, it is the opinion of a scientist implicated in the controversy and with no indication of this it is not contextualized appropriately. The following sentence provides similar information from a noncontroversial source. I made the change because "my" version better represents the sources and the subject matter of the article itself.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they aren't. There is no mention of your deletion of "Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December." And you didn't add the sentence about Richard Somerville, you merely changed the first word of it.

You say your version better represents the sources. Can you explain what you mean? Guettarda (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, the idea that most of this is about "selectively quoted words and phrases out of context" is one of the most central ideas to the whole issue. So what's your rationale for removing it from the lead? As for sources - the material you removed appears to have been produced by AP's staff writers. The latter is based on a post from SolveClimate.com that was re-distributed by Reuters. What makes one "noncontroversial" and the other, presumably, "controversial"? As for the "collusion" sentence - your change makes the sentence longer and clunkier without changing the meaning in any important way. So how is that an improvement? Guettarda (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Such controversial and opinionated statements have no place in Wikipedia without strong evidence. No such strong evidence has been found. --TS 08:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits to article summary and climatologist's reactions[41]. I moved the last two sentences from the article summary, the reactions from Trenberth and other climatologists to the Climatologists' Reactions section of the article. My edit was undone and the summary given was "Severely unbalances lead." I did not remove the content, I simply moved it to the section allocated to climatologists' responses. What do you mean by unbalances lead? Is the article summary looking lopsided from a formatting standpoint? Please explain. I don't believe we should be misplacing content just to make paragraphs look longer. Static623 (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He presumably means that taking out those sentences makes the lead too favorable to the skeptic side. Personally I think the lead should just be a quick summary, like "Content of the letters set off a new controversy in the climate change debate..." and then move all the specifics down below. Drolz (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean that a rather contentious charge was mentioned but the vigorous and near-universal rebuttals were not adequately covered. I agree that the lead could be more compact, but it should still be balanced. --TS 09:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We already have a section for rebuttals - including a few rebuttals in the lead makes the article seem biased towards apologists while disorganizing the overall article. Note that I did not delete the rebuttals, but merely replaced them. Also, your edit summary said it "severely unbalances lead". I don't feel this is the case. Does anyone else feel that the lead summary becomes biased by moving the rebuttals? In my opinion, it seems bias is introduced leaving them there. Static623 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Static that the only reason to put the rebuttals there is to preempt the actual allegations. Drolz (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else care to offer feedback? If it's only Drolz, TS and I, then I'm going to put my edits back in, as there is agreement over the length of the summary and some of its content is misplaced - amid other concerns of disorganization/bias. Static623 (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The charges are mentioned in the lead, so including rebuttals, which were given promptly and with vigor, is appropriate. Not including rebuttals simply isn't acceptable because it gives a false impression. --TS 10:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The charges are mentioned in a general way. The rebuttals should be included, but in the same general way. The specific rebuttals seem out of context there. 71.206.138.96 (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)— 71.206.138.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, the rebuttal is perfectly acceptable and encapsulates and summarizes the incident. If we wish to rewrite the lead, that is another subject, but pushing one view over another isn't the way to do it. The material stays. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Guardian 20 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Cite error: The named reference ClimateGate1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference NYTimes 20 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Cite error: The named reference Moore 24 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: The named reference BBC 3 Dec was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Guardian 23 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Telegraph was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference AP 21 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Reuters 25 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Guardian_20_Nov-1] Cite error: The named reference Guardian 20 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[ClimateGate1-2] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Cite error: The named reference ClimateGate1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[NYTimes_20_Nov-3] Cite error: The named reference NYTimes 20 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Moore_24_Nov-4] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Cite error: The named reference Moore 24 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[BBC_3_Dec-5] Cite error: The named reference BBC 3 Dec was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Guardian_23_Nov-6] Cite error: The named reference Guardian 23 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Telegraph-7] Cite error: The named reference Telegraph was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[AP_21_Nov-8] Cite error: The named reference AP 21 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Reuters_25_Nov-9] Cite error: The named reference Reuters 25 Nov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]