Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:55, 5 February 2010

Template:Community article probation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 2 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Template:Shell

A news item involving Climatic Research Unit email controversy was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 November 2009.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate"? A1: There have been numerous discussions on this subject on the talk page. The current title is not the common name, as is generally used for Misplaced Pages articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent Requested move discussion has indicated that there is no consensus to move the article to the title of Climategate, and so further discussion of the article title has been tabled until at least June 2011. Q2: Why aren't there links to various emails? A2: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Misplaced Pages avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to Copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email. Q3: Why is/isn't a specific blog being used as a source? A3: Blogs are not typically reliable sources. Blogs may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Q4: Aren't the emails/other documents in the public domain? A4: No. Some of the hacked documents are covered by Crown copyright, others by private copyright. The Freedom of Information Act does not affect copyright. Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ? A5: Misplaced Pages reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary have said that the information was released through an attack carried out remotely via the Internet and that there is no evidence of anyone associated with the University being associated with the crime. Both the University and a science blog, RealClimate , have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained". Q6: Why is there a biographies of living persons (BLP) notice at the top of this page? This article is about an event, and the Climatic Research Unit is not a living person. A6: The BLP applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages, specifically to all potentially negative statements about living persons. It does not apply solely to articles about living persons. The notice is there to remind us to take care that all statements regarding identifiable living persons mentioned in the article or talk page comply with all Misplaced Pages policies and with the law, per the BLP. Q7: What do I do if I have a complaint about the conduct of other people editing or discussing this article? A7: Follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional. Unduly cluttering the talk page with complaints about other editors' behavior is wasteful. In the case of egregiously bad conduct only, consider contacting an administrator. Q8: I think there is inadequate consensus on a matter of policy. What should I do? A8: There are several options. Consider posting the issue on one of the noticeboards, or starting a request for comment (RFC) on the question. Q9: Why doesn't the article report that BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson received an advance copy of the leaked content? A9: Because it isn't true. In fact, the only involvement Paul Hudson reports (see here) is that he had been the subject of emailed complaints from CRU climatologists concerning a blog article he had recently published, and that he was able to confirm that those emailed complaints which had been copied to him by the senders, and which later appeared in the zip file of stolen documents, were authentic. That is to say, Hudson received some of the later leaked e-mails, but only those originally also addressed to him or the BBC, which forwarded them. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. This was also confirmed by the BBC on the 27th November 2009 and on the 13th March 2010 when the issue arose again. Q10: Newspapers have reported that this article and a lot of the global warming articles are being controlled and manipulated. Why don't we report that? A10: The items in question are opinion columns by James Delingpole and Lawrence Solomon. Misplaced Pages's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Misplaced Pages article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Misplaced Pages coverage to be a major part of the controversy. There is no consensus that the two opinion columns meet this criterion. This does not preclude coverage of those writers' opinions on Misplaced Pages in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Misplaced Pages, but that would be a matter for the editors of those individual articles. On specific charges against an individual named by Lawrence Solomon and repeated uncritically by James Delingpole, please see this discussion on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.

Issues related to this article have been raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard on 21 November 2009 (archived) 28 November 2009 (archived) 31 December 2009 (archived) 6 January 2009 (archived) and at Neutral point of view noticeboard on 7 December 2009 (active as of December 15, 2009) and at Requested moves on 11 December 2009 (failed) 23 December 2009 (Talk:Climatic_Research Unit hacking incident/Archive 14#Proposed page move

Problems with "Naming of the incident" section

Fact Check citation inappropriate for subsection: proposed removal

This discussion got kind of de-railed. I take your point to be that the Fact Check article doesn't appear to be asserting that skeptics named the incident "Climategate" in that quote, and that it should be taken out of that section. Is that fair? If so I'd agree.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say whether or not skeptics introduced the term, it does express the view that they're using the name and why. A neutral finding. . . dave souza, talk 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that skeptics use the term. Re-read? It's weirdly phrased.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's clear enough–"Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: "Climategate.".... We find such claims to be far wide of the mark." Clearly that's what they're portraying it as, and the name they're using. Pretty obvious. . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course they're using the name - that isn't informative. Even MIT is using the name. As this section is about the "naming of the incident," and not "the way the incident is being referred to," we should remove that sentence. Agreed on this count? I'm willing to cede on your interpretation if/given that the removal stands on these (separate) grounds.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept your concession, but consider this independent source on the naming and framing of the "controversy" a useful clarification which belongs at the start of the naming section. The fact that MIT World™ used the term in announcing a debate doesn't mean that MIT have officially adopted the term, and is synthesis – if you can find a third party analysis stating that the term has entered the mainstream, that would be useful. However, picking examples, expecially where reporters distance themselves from the term by using inverted commas for "climategate", is original research and not the way to go. Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 10:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've not picked any such examples...

Be that as it may, and backed by a rather ingenious double deployment of "modus tollens+the two preceding comments" and modus ponens, here I go:

It simply isn't true that

Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: 'Climategate.'

means

Skeptics are using or have named the affair 'Climategate'.

To argue the contrary one must break WP:OR. The sentence is uninformative and irrelevant to the section. It should go. QED.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As stated before, it's plain English, and you've offered no alternative interpretation. Restoring, sorry didn't keep coming back on your keeping coming back on this. Thanks, dave souza, talk 00:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/cru_foia_guilty/ - UK Authorities wanted to prosecute those at CRU, but loopholes in law wouldn't allow it. The 'email hacking' incident has uncovered highly suspect behavior, regarding evasion of FOI requests, prompting a desire to change relevant laws. "The leaked emails are widely believed to be the work of an insider in response to the delaying tactics." I and many people have commented on this issue, THAT THE HACKING INCIDENT WAS NOT VERIFIED AND THAT THE MEDIA REPORTS SUGGESTING SUCH WERE UNFOUNDED.128.61.127.19 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Name of the Game

On Nov 27, 2009, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial summarizing what they called the "leaked email and document scandal" using quotes from the FOIA trove. So it has been thought of as a scientific scandal rather than an information theft for quite a while, even before the coining of "Climategate". That moniker therefore does not introduce anything pejorative not previously identified. Their summary includes text that might be considered for inclusion in this article, or a related one devoted more to the revealed behavior than to the method of revelation -

The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged.

This September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more famous papers.Oiler99 (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More Literature

I award Dave Souza two Stalinpedia BarnStar's , you see Dave if you are going to act like a control freak on these global warming topics and enforce the pro-AGW perspective no one will take wiki seriously ( oh that's already happening). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.196 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to the first paragraph

A rough consensus is forming (see earlier section) for the following text to replace the first paragraph of the lede:

The Climatic Research Unit hacking incident came to light in November 2009 when it was discovered that thousands of e-mails and other documents had been obtained through the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England. The subsequent dissemination of the material caused a controversy, dubbed "Climategate", about whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists. The University of East Anglia described the incident as an illegal taking of data. The police are conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach and subsequent personal threats made against some of the scientists mentioned in the e-mails.

I am, therefore, turning this into a formal proposal and seek to build a consensus. I believe this has reasonable support from both "sides" of the debate, and so I request supports/opposes/comments to get a general idea of how this might be received. If adopted, it will mean the second paragraph will also need a little bit of revising, but we can get to that next. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC) - Note: This subsection broken out of earlier section and moved here. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - It's been well over 3 days and that should have been enough time for everyone to have had a gander and made their preferences known. Apart from a few comments expressing concern, there is near unanimous support for this change. I believe consensus can be fairly assumed. I am, therefore, going to go ahead an stick it in the article. I will then review the second paragraph to make sure it makes sense with the changes to the first. If there are any last-minute objections, please express them below rather than reverting the change. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support iff the bolding of Climategate don't get thrown out. Nsaa (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Code section

Proposed removal

Following Nightmote Hipocrite's reorganization of this section, I'd like to propose we remove the second paragraph completely. Stuff like "various editorials and blogs have stated" and a quote from Declan McCullagh that adds nothing but crystal ball gazing "what-iffery" isn't worthy of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Current" version

The CRU files also included temperature reconstruction programs written in Fortran and IDL, programmer comments and a readme file. In a BBC Newsnight report, software engineer John Graham-Cumming found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" because it lacked clear documentation or an audit history. Graham-Cumming also reported finding a bug in the code's error handling that could result in data loss. Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase and question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record. In his CBS News blog, columnist Declan McCullagh stated that "East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way."

Proposed version

I propose the following, shortened version, written to take account, from the start, of our (i.e. everyone's) current ignorance as to purpose:

The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. There is no indication as to the purpose of the code, nor any that it was ever used in the preparation of data for publication. Various sources, including a BBC Newsnight report, have found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" possibly including bugs and poor error handling.

Totally broken

We should not be discussing re-writing this section. It should be removed. It is totally and irrevocably broken. It contains gobbledegook of the Sokal hoax type: Graham-Cumming also reported finding a bug in the code's error handling that could result in data loss. - this is just wrong. The code does not work like that. We're not talking about real-time software that can lose data (obviously). You cannot drag in an outside "expert" who knows nothing about the code, have him read some undocumented fragments, and expect them to say anything useful. And indeed, he has said nothing useful William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at code section

Bold, revert, revert, revert, revert while discussing is not a good model for editing this or any other article. This is a developing story and improvements to the rest of the article are ongoing, making me loathe to lock it from editing. In the meantime, any further edits to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Code and documentation made absent consensus here will be considered edit warring. Edit warring is damaging to the encyclopedia, and may lead to your account being blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

To gauge the current consensus, can people indicate their preferred version of the 'Code and documentation' subsection below? --Nigelj (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Longer version

The CRU files also included temperature reconstruction programs written in Fortran and IDL, programmer comments and a readme file. In a BBC Newsnight report, software engineer John Graham-Cumming found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" because it lacked clear documentation or an audit history. Graham-Cumming also reported finding a bug in the code's error handling that could result in data loss. Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase and question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record.

Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU. When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story. He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code.

Shorter version

The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. Various sources, including a BBC Newsnight report, have found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" possibly including bugs and poor error handling.

Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU. When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story. He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code.

Even shorter version

The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. On BBC Newsnight, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said that the code lacked clear documentation and an audit history, and possibly included a bug and poor error handling. Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU.

Modified Even shorter version

Incorporating the changes discussed above

The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. On BBC Newsnight, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said that the code lacked clear documentation and audit history, and found a bug in the error handling code. The purpose of the code and its effect, if any, on the scientific conclusions reached by the CRU is unknown. Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU.

(Please add your !vote here) JPatterson (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of subsection

Interim step

Here we go again

Climate change emails hacked by spies

The independant http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emails-hacked-by-spies-1885147.html Interception bore hallmarks of foreign intelligence agency, says expert . By Steve Connor , Science Editor Off2riorob (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh... that is so speculative it gives me that uncomfortable feeling I get about the whistleblower speculation. If wikipedia has proven anything, it doesn't take a sophisticated organization to do something exceptional (good or bad). Ignignot (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

David King admits to speculation over source of climate science emails - Former government adviser backs away from sensational claims over involvement of foreign intelligence or wealthy lobbyists 91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We have to take this out then. It is just ridiculous. Ignignot (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it from the lead. It makes us look like idiots to put something completely made up in the head of the wikipedia article. The other reference to it will need to be updated, I don't know if people would want to just remove it or modify it to mention that the comments were later retracted. Ignignot (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear sweet god remove it, it is pure speculation by king. We may as well put in Ignignot did it cos i`m speculating that he is :) Until plod has finished the investigation there really should be zero about who did it or why. mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The material also exists in this section. Presumably this speculation should be removed as well? Ronnotel (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For now let's remove it - just having the tinfoil hat viewpoint is a little silly. It could be an improvement to mention what he said and then later retraction though. Ignignot (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why has David King been expunged from the article? The above does not look like a fulsome discussion to me. His inclusion is not "just ridiculous", and does not "make us look like idiots". Those aren't rational arguments, just personal comments. David King is a very significant figure in the fields of science and politics in the UK. His conclusions are fully attributed as being his own statements. We have the opinions of other significant individuals in the article, what's so wrong with DK? (Of course, a lot of this is only provisional, as most of it will be superseded by the results of formal inquiries, but still) --Nigelj (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What would make the opinion of a "government science advisor" any more relevant on what is and what isn't a clandestine intelligence operation than, say, Joe Six-pack? He's clearly speaking as an individual, not as a representative of the government or the university and I don't see much in his CV that would indicate expertise in this area. Best to leave it out unless corroborated. Ronnotel (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that Sir King has backed off his story slightly, which would make it better not in the lede. He's still in the article as noting the intent to disrupt Cophenhagen, I believe. Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Kinda predictable – which is why WP:NOTNEWS. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So Nigelj - it was basically speculation taken out of context that King has since stepped back from, as referenced in the guardian. There is still a short mention of him in the lead - I am completely open to revising that somewhat, but in this (rare) case there wasn't a big discussion because people that are normally arguing on different sides of this article both wanted it gone. The reason I said it makes us look like idiots is because it is silly to make what was revealed as off the cuff speculation into a sizable portion of the lead of the article. At first I left it in the reactions section but then people asked to take that out as well - personally I would have left it in and then added to it that he had later clarified somewhat, but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to argue and didn't have the time to do it myself, so I shut up. Ignignot (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - it is still in the article almost in its entirety. It was actually repeated 3(!) times. Ignignot (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It was in there three times? What makes me think someone was trying to get a message across :) Best to remove them all. mark nutley (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it still in there - only his claim that it was designed to target Copenhagen, which he hasn't backed off of. Where is it? Hipocrite (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to what you partially removed . I might have been looking at an older version or something. Anyway this looks a lot better now. Ignignot (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Inch given - MILE TAKEN

Oh, look, I gave an inch on the lede (excluding who did the dubbing on climategate) because I was told "note that "dubbed" links to explanation." Apparently it no longer does, so untill it does, I'd like to know exactly where these changes were discussed. Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the in page redirect? I removed it via consensus reached above in Edit warring over bold-face?. What exactly is your issue with this? --mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bozmo said it was unusal, i removed it, scjessy agreed with it. A few guys further up the page also said they did`nt like it. I removed the link + the bold typeface as it was causing needless arguing, i thougth it was a good compromise lose the link and the bold typeface? --mark nutley (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What happened to hippocrites comment? Sorry if i deleted it :( --mark nutley (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it when I found two people commenting on it. I don't think you should be undoing compromises I make with others without first waiting for me to opine. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, please be careful with WP:OWN. This is out of line.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

PSU Inquiry to conclude later this week

- I don't know if this merits inclusion in the article but the findings will definitely be important to the reaction section. Since the PSU paper will probably be the first to carry this, does it constitute a RS on the subject? Ignignot (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful heads-up, something to look forward to. Not sure if they'd be counted as an RS, but I'd expect there to be plenty of coverage immediately afterwards, and presumably the conclusions of the findings are likely to be released. The difficulty may be finding neutral commentary. . . dave souza, talk 16:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm uneasy about using a student newspaper. Better to refer directly to the university's press releases. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Uneasy"?!? Sweet Jesus. A University Newspaper is one step removed from crayons and butcher block paper. I wouldn't use it to line my bird cage. (ahem) By which, of course, I mean that we should be careful in the sources we choose. Nightmote (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Student-run newspapers have come up on the WP:RSN, and the general feeling is that they are reliable, especially if the university has a good journalism department. I would guess Penn State qualifies. The article doesn't contain anything controversial or factually inaccurate that I can see. Then again, it won't kill us to wait until another reliable source picks up the story. It doesn't really add much to the article anyway. Based on everything I've read so far, it appears as if Mann is going to be exonerated anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Guardian - Phil Jones - UHI - China

If it is in the Guardian it must be the truth, right?

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws - Exclusive: Key study by East Anglia professor Phil Jones was based on suspect figures

Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege - In the first part of a major investigation of the so-called 'climategate' emails, one of Britain's top science writers reveals how researchers tried to hide flaws in a key study

How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar article in The Independent today. Thepm (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• As ever, the Grauniad is pretty good at including differing viewpoints, though such a contrast between pieces by the same journalist seems unusual. The first two really do make the behaviour of Jones and Wang look problematic – perhaps a little mitigated by Jones struggling with a siege mentality and the belief based on bitter experience that any information released would be badly misrepresented. The Grauniad claims an exclusive study, the Indy refers to "a study" so they may be echoing the other newspaper.
  One good point made in the comments to the first piece is that the description of Jones & Wang 1990 as a "key study" and as being cited by the IPCC ignores many other studies of the same topic. The comment by Bioluminescence, 1 Feb 2010, 9:21PM, refers to Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found which is useful as the second page onwards of the pdf gives a review of the literature on the subject, A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban, Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China, A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change.
  So, these first news reports need to be treated with caution, it will be interesting to see scientific responses. As the third Grauniad piece points out, so-called skeptics have grossly misrepresented innocuous statements, this issue appears to have more to it. The second piece includes a quote from Mann which is worth mentioning in our article: "This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking for one thing they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They can't take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalise that the science is entirely compromised." . . dave souza, talk 11:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I am at a loss for words. I will get back to this but... wow... your glasses must have some heavy duty polarized coating to only get that from these sources. Are you sure we are talking about the same material? Shocked...91.153.115.15 (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, wow! Suggest you read the articles more carefully. . dave souza, talk 16:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Supplement: Jones, Wang et al. 1990 isn't just about Chinese weather stations, the focus of the complaints, it also covers European parts of the Soviet Union and eastern Australia. . . dave souza, talk 11:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Have the russians also made statements of cherry picking data from their sites? i recall reading that recently. I`ll dig it out later on. But that would make two lots of stations they were messing around with. mark nutley (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As always, reliable sources will be of interest. dave souza, talk 16:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

] Here's one.

Mr. Briffa sent Mr. Mann a copy of his Science article on April 12, advising Mr. Mann that he had "decided to mention uncertainties in tree-ring data while pushing the need for more work." Earlier emails also show Mr. Briffa struggling with Russian tree-ring results and the reports of Russian scientists on their difficulties. Their findings often contradicted the idea that the world is warmer today than hundreds or even thousands of years ago. "Relatively high number of trees has been noted during 750-1450 AD. There is no evidence of moving polar timberline in the north during the last century," wrote Rashit Hanntemirov from Russia in October 1998 -- implying that warming has been common in the past and nothing unusual was happening today. ... The public battles between Mr. Mann and the two Canadians are already on the record. The emails reinforce the worst of suspicions that the official scientific community did all they could to smear Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick, prevent publication of the work of skeptics, manipulate the peer-review process and isolate all skeptics as cranks. On May 31, 2004, Phil Jones, head of the IPCCdesignated Climatic Research Unit, wrote to Mr. Mann: "Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised ... "

Again we see the pattern of wagon circling, with the emphasis on suppressing information the CRU scientists see as damaging to the cause. The irony is they have done more damage to their cause than anything that could have been accomplished by the skeptics if they had simply operated according to time honored principles of science. This is an important part of the story and deserves more attention than it is currently getting. JPatterson (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting article. The National Post appears to give a clear account of the anti-action on AGW position, suspect it may not be a reliable source for the science: can we find mainstream journal info on this? . . . dave souza, talk 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full article but by the Russian author mentioned in the NP article would be interesting to read in full. Note that the NP article appears to have the spelling of his name wrong it's Hantemirov not Hanntemirov JPatterson (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a nice article. Roughly: Trees show clear damage on extreme weather events. This gives a binary type signal in the annual rings. "Normal" weather =0, Extreme weather =1. This is however not the same as using tree rings as a general temperature proxy which is obviously much more tasking.130.232.214.10 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this really true? How can Nature accept such unsourced material. I'm speechless. I was in the believe that they worked after the Scientific Method standards (it looks like the "These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results." and "is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists," is not part of the process ...)

Professor Jones and a colleague, Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of the State University of New York at Albany suggested in an influential 1990 paper in the journal Nature that the urban heat island effect was minimal – and cited as supporting evidence a long series of temperature measurements from Chinese weather stations, half in the countryside and half in cities, supplied by Professor Wei-Chyung. The Nature paper was used as evidence in the most recent report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, it has been reported that when climate sceptics asked for the precise locations of the 84 stations, Professor Jones at first declined to release the details. And when eventually he did release them, it was found that for the ones supposed to be in the countryside, there was no location given.

— http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climategate-scientist-hid-flaws-in-data-say-sceptics-1886487.html ()

Nsaa (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, bad news. It seems very strange that positions weren't given in the 1990 paper, and Jones has dug a hole for himself by not stating earlier that info was missing or unfindable. . . dave souza, talk 16:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@DS - We've already had a response from a scientist in the know, and a contemporaneous one at that. Tom Wiggins who was head of CRU at the time, thought Wang had "screwed up". "Were you taking W-CW on trust?" he asked Jones. He continued: "Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?". Why indeed. And why didn't Wiggins demand the article be withdrawn? Wang now says the original data can not be found. Where have we heard that before? The overall picture that is emerging here shows the CRU seemingly more concerned with the reputation the institution and its scientists than the integrity of the science. Not good.

I think you offered the Mann quote as some sort of justification. To me it is all the more damning. This overriding concern for how contrary results might be spun is at the heart of the problem. Suppressing data contrary to your theory is the definition of scientific fraud. "But we're right on the science and this will be misunderstood" is no excuse. JPatterson (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments by Wiggins are part of the hacked emails, not a response to the current investigations. As stated above, not good.

The Mann quote is part of the report, and is highlighted by the Grauniad. The background to the seige mentality is an aspect of the issue that we should cover – the articles are clear that there was a lot of pressure on the scientists, and some reacted in exactly the wrong way by trying to stop information going to amateurs they regarded as untrustworthy, instead of making it all public.

As a clarification, the repetition between the first and second Grauniad pieces is explained by seeing the paper edition – the first piece is the headline front page story, and the second piece is the detailed report inside the paper. Perhaps this was obvious to others, but I found it a bit puzzling that two articles were covering the same topic in the same issue of the paper. . . . dave souza, talk 16:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, they can`t have it both ways, why was there a siege mentality if they only had one FOI request like it says in this article? Since when was one FOI request a siege :) mark nutley (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Read carefully. The ICO refer specifically to their opinion about one person making FOI requests. Also read the Grauniad's front page story – 105 freedom of information requests made to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU). It also says only 10 had been released in full, but doesn't say how many were released in part with some info properly redacted as exempted by the FOI legislation. . dave souza, talk 16:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe view? This has been known since at least 2007 ...

Hmmm... I've just waited for the claim that all this is a WP:Fringe view (some examples from this discussion page). Hopefully Papers like Wei-Chyung Wang fabricated some scientific claims "I have formally alleged that Wang committed fraud in important parts of his global-warming research. Below is a relevant timeline." by Douglas J. Keenan in 3 August 2007 as reported by Andrew Bolt in Climategate - now the Guardian discovers what was always there at least can be accepted as valid points.

— "In global warming studies, an important issue concerns the integrity of temperature measurements from meteorological stations. The latest assessment report from the IPCC indicates that the global average temperature rose by roughly 0.3 °C over the period 1954–1983. Thus, if errors in temperature measurements were of similar size to, or larger than, 0.3 °C, there could be a serious problem for global warming studies. The problem with Jones et al. and Wang et al. was first raised on the ClimateAudit blog of Stephen McIntyre (who exposed the “hockey stick” graph of temperatures over the past millennium). McIntyre noted that the stated claims about Chinese data seemed “absurd”. Indeed, for anyone familiar with Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, the claim to have obtained substantial reliable data for 1954–1983 makes little sense.", http://www.informath.org/WCWF07a.pdf

Nsaa (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Readability and style change

I started re-reading the article from scratch and I note that someone finally followed my suggestion and added the sentence "Scientists, scientific organisations, and government officials have stated that the incident does not affect the overall scientific case for climate change." to the lede. Not sure who wrote that, but thank you.  :)

When I got to the E-mails section, I noticed a similar sentence, "The Associated Press ... concluded that they ... did not support claims that global warming science had been faked."

The following paragraph then contains a similar sentence, "FactCheck stated that claims by climate sceptics that the emails demonstrated scientific misconduct amounting to fabrication of global warming were unfounded, and emails were being misrepresented to support these claims."

The next paragraph opens with a similar sentence, "An editorial in the scientific journal Nature stated that the e-mails had not shown anything that undermined the scientific case on human caused global warming"

By this time, (as a reader) I started noticing how redundant it was to keep stating basically the same thing: AGW is real. I wanted to read something new. So I removed that part of the sentence so it goes right into new information that the reader hasn't been told yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You have removed a significant piece of the article. Why have you not sought a consensus for this controversial removal of referenced material? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored this material, since it seemed especially significant. Rather than being redundant, it reinforced the prevailing view that the science remained sound. Please seek a consensus for such controversial edits in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I decided to assume good faith that fixing readability issues wouldn't be controversial. It's repetitive. Try the same exercise that I did. Read the article from the beginning and see if you get bored by the fourth time you read essentially the same information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest both of you read the new sources from the Guardian (above). Major revisions appear likely.91.153.115.15 (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did read the sources above and none of them change the scientific consensus regarding global warming. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This (Heat Island) is one of the major criticism of the land based temp. measurements used by the temperatures that produced the Hockey stick if I remember correctly ... So this is possible another nail in the AGW coffin. Nsaa (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Or possibly another scientific question to be further investigated – as is continuing. See the sources above, for starters. What we need to reflect primarily is the mainstream view, not denialist spin, and the implications of removing all the research based on the east Chinese weather stations will be of interest. . . dave souza, talk 15:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The ironic thing is that when I suggested (twice!) that article should explicitly state that this controversy didn't change the scientific consensus, my suggestion was rejected both times. Now that it's finally in the article - at least 4 times - and want to drop it down to only 3 times for style reasons (it's redundant and the repetition bores the reader), my suggestion is again rejected. Where is the logic in that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is only a symptom of the real problem: the article is a jumbled mess because it's the product of warring factions. No one sane would volunteer to step in and make it coherent because they'd be caught in the crossfire. As a result things end up being repeated in different places because there's no effective organization. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The article looks like a cafeteria after a food fight because that's what it is. I think the paragraph-by-paragraph approach was showing promise (the first paragraph is much improved). I tried to keep the ball rolling with my rewrite of the second paragraph above but that discussion never really got started before it was sidetracked into the weeds on some minor point. We need to drop the us vs them mentality and concentrate on composition and coherency. JPatterson (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that virtually any change to this article will be controversial. I was tempted to except spelling corrections, but then I remembered the skeptic/sceptic wars, so even spelling isn't exempt. I agree that four statements of the same point is redundancy to the point of idiocy, but that said, there are probably fierce supporters for each and every one of the entries, so the best course is to itemize each of the entries, and propose which two or three would be best to remove. Then we can debate it, and possibly even reach a consensus.--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think that it might be worth the effort to remove most of the references to the AGW hypothesis. If we look at this event as being comprised of three phases - the theft, the scandal, the consequences - the *only* section where the valididty of AGW needs to be touched upon is the "consequences" section, in which it can be asserted that the basic hypothesis remains valid, with a wikilink to the appropriate global warming article. We could cut down on the redundancy, reduce the number of contentious statements, and pass the whole AGW issue back to the appropriate article. *If* this scandal causes a re-think of the AGW hypothesis, the story would be continued in that article. Nightmote (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, "scandal" is a gross exaggeration. It's not like one of the CRU was caught fiddling the data while dressed as a Nazi and secretly dating Tiger Woods. The "controversy" arose because people specifically opposed to the theory of AGW seized upon the material (which was apparently cherry-picked for this particular cause) and tried to use it to suggest the theory was wrong. It is important that it is made completely clear that the anti-AGW people were wrong, and that the science remains rock solid. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, at least the talk page produces comments like this gem... Ignignot (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

..... and so we start round 12 of this knock-down, drag-out, smash-fest. Nightmote (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not as rock solid as it appeared in respect of one specific 1990 publication, the articles confirm that the consensus remains essentially the same. There's a lot of pointing at flaws found in old research as though newer research can be ignored. . . dave souza, talk 15:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to try and put it another way. To the best of my knowledge, nobody at this stage is saying that Climategate is a game-changer. The general contention is that one or more CRU scientists engaged in unprofessional behaviour (yes, they bloody well did fiddle the data; there's an article today about the Chinese stations that ought to raise eyebrows), but that Global Warming is real. There is some real-world sentiment that the "A" in "AGW" ought to be "a" or even "-", and the infighting on this talk page reflects that. I believe that we can describe what happened at UEA/CRU and the fallout without needing to pass judgement on whether that "A" belongs there. A statement in the summary paragraph stating that Global Warming remains a scientific fact, a statement in the consequences part of the article stating the same thing, and a wikilink to the Global Warming article where the "Anthropogenic" part of AGW can be debated all day. We don't need to compromise our beliefs, but we can best reach consensus by not forcing others to compromise theirs. Nightmote (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right about what we should be doing, unfortunately some editors seem to think that it's not just a game-changer, but "another nail in the AGW coffin". Presumably not thinking of the deaths likely if worst case projections are correct. Per making necessary assumptions policy, we accept that mainstream scientific opinion is that AGW is significant, and present that as the majority view while also noting significant minority views raised by reliable sources relating to this article subject. . . dave souza, talk 16:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether or not AGW is accepted "rock solid" science, does the valididty of AGW need to be debated in this article? This article is about Climategate - the theft of computer files and people's perception that the files suggested unprofessional behaviour on the part of CRU scientists. Maybe we can skip the "consequences" part altogether, since they are part of a much, much, larger sphere of debate. Really. If this scandal changes the ladscape of the Global Warming Controversy, then *that* article should be changed. Perhaps we can limit this article to saying (in about 10,000 more words) "These files were stolen (link). These guys looked really bad (link). The newspapers and governments reacted like this (link). This guy was fired (link). The scientific community changed these things (link). The police arrested this other guy (clink)." Nightmote (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of rewriting this article to present just the bare facts. If someone were to draft a bare-facts version in their userspace that they thought the other "side" of the fence could get on board with, that would be quite helpful. Hipocrite (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(grin) I'll get right on it! "Section 1: The Scheming Bastards ...." Nightmote (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Scjessey: Can you please rejoin this discussion to see if we can get some sort of consensus to remove some repetitiveness and improve the article's readability? Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've already made my opinion clear; however, if a new version is properly proposed here I'll take a look at it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did and I asked that you try the same exercise that I did. Read the article from the beginning and see if you get bored by the fourth time you read essentially the same information. Did you get a chance to do so? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed. I came to the conclusion that I'd like to see the point rammed home even further, with additional elaboration. Right now, much of the article seems to suffer from an anti-AGW point-of-view that unfairly maligns individuals and gives the skeptical hordes too much time on the podium. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should the point be "rammed home even further"? We're not supposed to engage in disputes, only cover them. If this is your reason for repeating the same things over and over again, then I suggest it's not a reason at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. So much for any semblance of NPOV. The article as it stands reeks of pro-AGW goaltending. Honestly, this article would be much clearer and more accurate if it simple read something like this:

"Data from CRU was posted on the Internet without the permission of CRU. CRU believes the data was stolen from their servers. The local police are looking into the matter to discern if a crime took place. The data in question consists of files and emails, of which a portion details questionable behavior on the part of a group of climatologists with regards to treatment of climate data. In other emails the authors discuss their preference for blocking publication of opinions and studies conducted by other climatologists that do not agree with their conclusions. People who believe that global warming is anthropogenic in nature, and most climatologists and scientists, state that the data and emails do not change the science, and should be considered as an unfortunate display of normal human nature. People who don't believe global warming is anthropogenic in nature, and some climatologists and scientists, state that the data and emails reveal flaws in the published works promoting the idea of anthropogenic global warming and expose an unscientific attempt to squelch studies and scientific work in opposition to the prevailing scientific thought."

There. You can all go get some rest. Textmatters (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge has asked me to say a bit more about this section. My feeling is that that we give coverage to three separate organs (AP, FactCheck and Nature) that are valid and worthwhile. AQFK says that there is redundancy there, but I disagree because I think that having the three separate sources is indicative of how expansive the agreement is that the science hasn't really been impacted by this incident. Therefore, I am not in favor of these being cut down. If someone can show me a better way to do it (proposed here, not shoved into the article without prior discussion) then I'm willing to give it consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that someone else has already deleted the repetitive phrase (along with the rest of these paragraphs), I let's table this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, although my fellow Britons will be confused by your use of the word "table" instead of "shelve" ("table" has the exact opposite meaning in the world outside of North America). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing Question

In Mann_e-mail_of_11_Mar_2003 we have in square brackets and in Jones_e-mail_of_8_Jul_2004 we have also in square brackets. I thought these were editing errors, but the second is quite deliberate. If this has been discussed, please tell me when and I'll search for it, or if someone can explain why, I'd appreciate it, as both look out of place.--SPhilbrickT 14:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the bracketed bits are glosses rather than direct quotes, e.g. AR4 has been replaced by . But I think it would make more sense to use ]? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

<ec > :It's a standard way of dealing with things that are clear from the context, but not actually in the quoted text. In the 11 March example, I thought the bracketed text might have replaced "they", but looking at the source it actually says "the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revi-" so the bracketed name is to avoid readers thinking he meant Caledonian Railway. Haven't checked the 8 July text, but the same principle will apply. . . dave souza, talk 16:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, WP:MOS discourages linked text in quotations somewhere. . . dave souza, talk 16:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Good point. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistently, we accept AR4 as a term in Jones_e-mail_of_May_2008, but replace it with an alternative in Jones_e-mail_of_8_Jul_2004. As noted, the replacement is wikified, in contravention to policy. The Guardian didn't feel the need to explain "AR4" to their readership, and neither do I. For consistency, I'm changing the quotation to its actual value. Should someone feel that some readers here won't know the term, it could be added to a footnote, but I don't think it is needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Per MOS, the adjoining text is now modified to make it clear what AR4 means. Repeat and rinse until anyone reading the article will not have to remember an explanation given three sections earlier. The Grauniad does, of course, expect its readership to be uncommonly knowledgeable and erudite <ahem> . . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Better than my suggestion of placing it in a footnote.--SPhilbrickT 17:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate now re-directs to "naming the incident"

This is getting absurd. Where prey tell, was consensus reached over this piece of POV pushing? I don't know how to tell where the change came from but I hope that the person responsible would self revert and start a discussion here. JPatterson (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did that in response to this edit. I suggest you stop calling things POV pushing, as it's not conducive to a civil atmosphere. I've reverted my edit to the redirect as the in-text redirect to naming the incident has lasted. Hipocrite (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As you know I have always supported the link from Climategate to the naming the incident section. Ironically enough, my edit to put that link in was the one that prompted your request for a 1RR sanction against me that got me banned for a month. But as much as I agree with your position, tit-for-tat editing just promulgates the mentality that is keeping us from moving forward. Given the never ending controversy surrounding the naming issue, one could reasonably assume that a change to the redirect would be hotly contended. As you are well aware, the terms of the article probation require you to seek consensus here first for such changes. Please be more conscientious in the future. JPatterson (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly endeavor to do so. Thank you for your reminder. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The perception of scientific scandal predates the use of the term "Climategate", as discussed above in The Name of the Game. If this perception of scientific scandal cannot be discussed in this article, then another with the Climategate title may be appropriate.Oiler99 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be so simple to just start a new article that deals with climategate in its broader scope. So why not? Bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Collapse/Archive/Housekeeping

Would anybody object to my (partially) collapsing some of the discusisons, or would someone like to archive some of them? This page is just getting a little long for me, is all. Nightmote (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've shrunk the archivebot to 2 days from 3 days. I can't imagine any shorter would be acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and collpased a few sections. I will be in no way offended if anybody expands 'em again. On this issue, I have no agenda. Nightmote (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate Timeline

A very well done synopsis of the hacking and then the subsequent news/political fallout as it grows is documented on this PDF:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/climategate/history/climategate_timeline_banner.pdf

I suggest a preface to the time line like this: With the Internet release of the CRU e-mails last November, Mohib Ebrahim started work on a visual presentation setting out who, what, when, where, and how.

Can Wiki accommodate a visual style timeline? I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It ought to be seen unless there are those of you who would like to hide this too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I admit I find this timeline interesting but unfortunately it can not be used on Misplaced Pages due to how Misplaced Pages operates. Blogs are not acceptable sources... which is in many cases is a shame.130.232.214.10 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So, if this time line has been published elsewhere, such as a government web site, a book, a researchers paper then it would then be"acceptible"? There are numerous citations in wiki that refer to blogs. Realclimate is frequently referenced. The author of the Climategate Timeline, Mohib Ebrahim, has had his work published on many non-blog sites.

For example it is referenced here:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256:mohibebrahim&catid=1:latest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Refer also to this very article, Anthony Watts, (reference 117) a blogger. It is archived at his site:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=mohib+ebrahim

So, put the Climategate Timeline up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see FAQ question #3 Ignignot (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly; Yes, BUT with several other qualifiers. The source also needs to be NEUTRAL.

I think neutrality is a nebulous term, not befitting ALL CAPs like an understood legal term of art.

This means it's in effect easier to get something pro-AGW in than something anti-AGW. That's just the way it is for the moment. I'm really the wrong person to argue with as I feel your pain. I find that both Wattsupwiththat and ClimateAudit often rise to a quality well above many crappy peer-review articles of which there are plenty in all fields. In short: peer-review OK, blog's NOT. If anyone else wants to comment on this feel free to do so. (And I see someone has already done so.)130.232.214.10 (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is clear to everyone that "crappy peer-review articles" are about eleventy-billion times more reliable than the skeptical rantfests like Watts' blog. I'm not even sure if 130's comment was meant to be serious. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It was. I have published peer-reviewed articles in good/high impact factor journals (Nature Publishing, Springer Verlag). It is becoming common to first submit ones crappy article to one journal, get rejected, resubmit the same (identical) crap, get rejected, resubmit another 3 times... and surprise presto it's published peer-reviewed. There are simply too many papers submitted for reviewers to do proper reviews on all papers. I would accept Anthony Watts data on surfacestations.org if properly submitted. This does not change the fact the Misplaced Pages does not use blogs.130.232.214.10 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well irrespective of what you might think of peer-reviewed work, there is no possible way anyone could consider Watts' blog to be a reliable source. I suppose a printed version might be useful in the bathroom. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer-review does fail. For instance Phil Jones 1990 article is probably crap because he trusted that his friend Wang had done good job which he quite apparently did not. I believe Phil Jones acted in good faith when he submitting the article. And likewise the reviewers trusted that the data was good. Science is still built on a fair amount of trust, simply because it is in most cases not practical for the reviewers to replicate the study. So most of the review is checking for common sense errors and making (friendly) suggestions.130.232.214.10 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Watt's "blog" is already abundantly referenced, and in the very article. see 117. There is no excuse to NOT include this very well done piece of work other than biased exclusion. FAQ #3 does not apply since wiki acknowledges Wattsupwiththat.com as a credible information source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk)

Er.... no. Watt's blog is only acceptable as a source for what it says. It is not a reliable source and it will never be regarded as such. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29

Read reference number 117 in the main article. So it already is acceptible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but you do not seem to understand what I am saying. The Watts' blog is only used to reference statements attributed to the blog, or to Watts himself. It is absolutely not a reliable source for anything else, least of all science stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Take you mouse, click "article" in the above tab, scroll down and there is a reference to Anthony Watts's site(117). That being said, I provided other sites that host Mohib Ebrahim's PDF, one being www.climatescienceinternational.org. It appears that some people dislike of the expansion of the Climategate scandal and some people wish to contain it or have it characterized an a hacking incident. That appears to be biased. I say put up the Climategate Timeline by Mohib Ebrahim, referenced on pro-AGW sites as I have shown. Concern yourself with the revelations that the IPCC used non-peer-reviewed evidence to "prove" the Himalayan glacier melt argument. Or that it used an article from the NY Times to "prove" the peripheral effects of warming. Climategate is not something that happened in the past, or simple a single incident. It is a growing multifaceted monster of hiding facts and concealing knowledge and suppressing information, alive and well... here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Watts himself has done tremendous work on the Urban Heat Island effect study with extensive documentation of thermal stations left out or surrounded by asphalt. Utterances of hyperbolic dislikes of Watts' excellent work discredits those who are hyperbolic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest disclosing the information, not "hiding" it or "tricking" it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

let the discussion continue.

Is this section geared towards improving the article? I don't see how it is. Perhaps the first person to not respond wins. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would look at the time line as written by Mohib Ebrahim, it details who, what, when, and how each of facts that have arrisen in realtion to the "hacking" or whistleblowing incident in this subject. In fact it present a far better picture od what happened than this butchered article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wigley 2005

In 2005 Wigley appeared to agree. "This is truly awful," he said, suggesting to Mann: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this reference. It's very good. Please remember to sign your edits with four tilde (~) at the end. Click on the (talk) page on your last post to find out more.91.153.115.15 (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on the wiki conventions... I'll get there, thanks for the pointer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I dropped by to note the same citation. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Himalayan Glacier Melt of 2035

As part of the increasing expansion of the scope of the Climategate scandal,knowledge of the inclusion of Non-peer reviewed works in the IPCC document has just come to light. Known by Rajendra Pachauri prior to the Copenhagen 2009 conference, he now admits the errors.

The basis of the claim that the Himalayan Glacier Melt to eliminate certain glaciers by 2035, now retracted by the IPCC, was non-peer reviewed publications. Specifically, the conclusion was based on 2 publications, one a student paper and a an article in a mountain climbing magazine, a sports enthusiasts magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1955405,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247616/Climate-emails-hacked-spies-claims-chief-scientist.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583711,00.html

This incident speaks to the continued claim of Climategate that the reason specific papers were not included in scientific journals because they were not peer reviewed. This incident demonstrates that this claim is not true. It significant to Climategate. But not specifically to the limited dimensionality of the email hacking incident which is what some of the AGW activist desire to confine this discussion to.

Don't be in such an activist hurry to shut down discussion. Open minds never fear the truth.

"The evidence – which for the first time firmly links the so-called Climategate affair with the almost equally embattled Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – turns out to be quite separate from the overhyped claims of tampering with the evidence which have so far dominated discussion of the emails."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100024719/new-evidence-puts-east-anglia-climate-scientists-future-in-doubt/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The glacier issue is covered at Criticism of the IPCC AR4 in detail, with reliable sources. Your last quote doesn't refer to the glaciers, though the blog does make a mention of them in the context of "The new evidence does not invalidate the almost universally acknowledged fact that the world has warmed up over recent decades. This is supported by widespread measurements from around the world, including from the oceans far from any urban effect. Like previous revelations over the past weeks – most notably an erroneous claim in the latest IPCC report that Himalayan glaciers will melt away by 2035 – it does not affect the basic science underpinning global warming." As it then says, it raises questions about Jones which we were discussing at #Guardian - Phil Jones - UHI - China above. Please note the blogs are not generally accepted as reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 10:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Souza's assertion is not entirely correct. the Criticism of the IPCC AR4 section mentions the fact that there is criticism but does neither state the 2 sources which were not peer reviewed nor did it state that the head of IPCC has already confirmed the error. The idea to ignore this subject here and to point to a faulty effort to carry the subject elsewhere is just bad practice.

The point of the Himalayan Glacier issue wrt Climategate has to do with the claim that in the Jones et al emails, the publications had to be peer reviewed. As a direct consequence of the email hacking incident and the scrutiny subsequent to it, we now know that the claim of Jones et al wrt to peer review is utterly a fabrication. Include the 2 non-peer review example as evidence.

Is this section geared towards improving the article? I don't see how it is. Perhaps the first person to not respond wins. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

Investigation into Michael Mann at Penn State

The University of Pennsylvania has entered into an investigation of the behavior of Michael Mann. Michael Mann was one of the principle researchers in the email exchanges in the hacked emails.

"...e-mails reveal that Mr. Mann might have committed a variety of acts that constitute significant and intentional scientific misconduct, including data manipulation, inappropriately shielding research methods and results from peers, and retaliating against those who publicly challenged his conclusions and political agenda."

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/01/23/commentary/op-eds/doc4b5a2e41299e5579065379.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This article conforms to the BLP criteria. Only referenced information is used, with the citation. You may suggest that the entire article be transcribed. May I suggest the article title and reference? ie 'Mann-Made' Global Warming?

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/01/23/commentary/op-eds/doc4b5a2e41299e5579065379.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this section geared towards improving the article? I don't see how it is. Perhaps the first person to not respond wins. Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a copy-paste comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

DUDE! Seriously, learn to sign your comments! Click on the (talk) on the signature of your IP to find out how.130.232.214.10 (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2010(UTC)

Inquiry into climate scientist moves to next phase: From Penn State Feb 3, 2010

RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E, Mann, Department of Meteorology, Department of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University

"In looking at four possible allegations of research misconduct, the committee determined that further investigation is warranted for one of those allegations. The recommended investigation will focus on determining if Mann "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." A full report (http://www.research.psu.edu/orp) concerning the allegations and the findings of the inquiry committee has been submitted."

http://live.psu.edu/story/44327

Worth noting that the stuff above is cherry-picked to hell and back. Consider this quote from ars technica:

"After having examined the relevant e-mails, other e-mail provided by Mann, and interviewing Mann himself, the committee determined that there was no evidence that Mann destroyed, suppressed, or falsified data, or misused any confidential or privileged information obtained during peer review or from embargoed papers."

A different kettle of fish indeed. While additional investigation continues, it is apparently based on the volume of complaints rather than their veracity - imagine that! (source) -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone explain this reversion?

In the edit summary for this reversion of an edit, the following rationale is given: too much information for the lede. The edit originally made reduced the amount of words in the sentence, and so I am left wondering how this is "too much information" and thus needing reversion? Moogwrench (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the comment that it too much information. It looks more like an excuse to kill a reference to a UK paper that is critical of the scientist's behavior. Several news resources and articles are actively being blocked. But they can't block them all so some other excuse has to be made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

The reversion removed the repetition of the word "sanctions" (it appeared twice in the same sentence) and also removed the reference (there are no references in the lede of this article). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I got slightly confused there. Partially reverted. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored the content to the paragraphs, minus the reference (I assume the reference is what you wanted eliminated). I also eliminated the annoying passive tense of the timeline--"had been dealt" and "had been breached"--which featured no clear actor for the corresponding passive tense actions, and provided content to support the lede change. Moogwrench (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

These changes introduce editorial opinion by one newspaper into a statement by the Information Commissioner's Office. In the lead and the timeline, we have "The Information Commissioner's Office stated that the UEA had breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data..". It's cited to The Times which opens its article with "The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data.", giving the newspaper's opinion, then further down in the article quotes the ICO: "The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation." The statement in our article is clearly incorrect: it can be changed back to the previous wording or rephrased to accurately quote the ICO, or failing that state that it's an opinion by The Times and not the ICO's statement. On a related topic, this issue now appears in the lead, the timeline, e-mails and Jones e-mail of May 2008. My own preference is for the detail to go in the Jones e-mail of May 2008 section which shows the context, with all other instances being concise summaries, linking down to it if appropriate. Any other proposals? . dave souza, talk 09:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

almost certainly not a hacking incident

I know the status quo of Misplaced Pages wants this to be a hacking incident, but as most IT people have been saying since day 1, it almost certainly can't have been a hacking incident. UEA IT have finally admitted that all files were contained on a single backup server and the Norfolk Police, who were previously investigating "theft of data", are now only investigating "how private emails have become public". That is, it seems that everyone is finally waking up to the fact that there was no hacking incident. See The Guardian. Is it time to do something about the title of this article? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Either modify this page to be Climate Research Unit Hacking Incident and confine it to only the very narrow issues related to the hacking or whistle-blowing or whatever it turns out to be, and release the word Climategate to involve the whole range of associated issues that precipitated from the release emails not discuss the actual hacking. The wiki editors DO NOT want people to use Climategate as it has evolved since November. That is tyranny. The world is out-running the wiki editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article says: "The government's former chief scientist has backed away from his sensational claim that a foreign intelligence agency or wealthy US lobbyists were behind the hacking and release of controversial emails between climate scientists." The term hacking is still used. There is no reason to believe that the release of the e-mails was authorized. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Alex Harvey - I agree that the likelihood that it was a hack is diminishing. It appears from The Guardian that the police are no longer investigating a crime. Let's face it the only proof of a hack seems to be the UEA saying 'well I don't know how they got out!'

The trouble now is that the likelihood of a reliable source trumpeting that the files were *not* stolen is fairly remote. More likely is that there will just be "less emphasis" on the idea that they were. For what it's worth, I fully endorse your move to make the title less POV, but you'll need to get consensus from the team here. That's proven difficult in the past. Thepm (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Newsnight last night said "hacking". And if you look at the archives you will find that Scjessey has gone to extraordinary lengths to propose a range of alternative names for discussion. People simply cut across that, but please, go ahead and start a new naming discussion if you want. There is not a "team" here except to the extent that WP editors try and work collaboratively even when they disagree. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than speculating, why don't you wait until the official report comes out later this month? I note that Alex is ignoring the fact that there were two hacking incidents - one of the CRU's mail server, and one of RealClimate, in the initial attempt to distribute the stolen files via RC. The anti-science activists who've been promoting the completely speculative "whistleblower" claim have been trying their hardest to ignore the RealClimate hack, which doesn't fit their preferred narrative of a "whistleblower". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no actual proof that RC got hacked is there? Other than them saying it, whic hwould fit nicely into the narrative they wanted to portray that this was a hack. In fact, given RC`s absolute belief in AGW i doubt very much that any hacker would waste time hacking that server and uploading the files there, what would be the point? RC would have never made them public the way the Airvent did. mark nutley (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There were only a few people with login credentials to RC, and someone else logged in and tried to post something to the blog and remove everyone else's privileges. While I have been a little skeptical of attributing the CRU part to some vast conspiracy of hackers, the second part is definitely the work of at least one hacker. Most likely (pure speculation) there were login credentials in the email that was taken from the CRU, and the hacker simply used them. Ignignot (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this section geared towards improving the article? I don't see how it is. Perhaps the first person to not respond wins. Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a thoughtful comment. Back to the concept of splitting the Climategate subject from the CRU hacking incident. Why not run it as a completely separate article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I am sympathetic to the position that this article should be called "Climategate", this particular discussion was held at length (and several times) and the determination was that the "-gate" suffix was to be avoided in the title per WP:AVOID, down at the bottom of the page in the "Controversy and Scandal" section. Regarding splitting the article, that issue has also been raised (and lowered) several times and rejected due to concerns over WP:POVFORK. I (and others) have concerns regarding the neutrality of this article. Some view the theft of the data as pivotal - an invasion of the privacy of scientific professionals by parties unknown in an effort to discredit a valid and possibly apocalyptic hypothesis. Some view the actions of the scientists as a scandalous and deliberate effort to misrepresent data and interfere with the peer-review process. Some editors want to limit the discussion to scientific aspects of the situation, while others feel that the political and social aspects also have merit. It's complicated, but I am (sometimes) confident that by working together on the existing article and editing in good faith with tolerance of the views of others, we can eventually find an uneasy peace. Nightmote (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The theft of data is not determined. That is an assumption made by "some". This article should not be so quick to jump to such unsubstantiated conclusions. Since theft has not be verified (an may be ruled out) the pivotality of it in the Climategate subject makes even the title of the subject erroneous and obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty please, learn to sign your posts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.232.214.10 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (Oh great lead by example.)130.232.214.10 (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The terms "theft" and "stolen" are, I believe, correct. It has been a while since I reviewed the terminology (I didn't like it, either - I wanted to go with "copied" or something, I think), but I seem to recall that (at least under US law) the copying of files without permission constituted theft (British law may be different). I think that the prosecutor's office has the option of not charging the individual(s) involved based on "whistleblower" status, but I don't have the references in front of me and don't know. Oh - please sign your posts. Nightmote (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is important to note that there has never been a suggestion from any of the people or organizations involved that there was a "whistleblower". I am not aware of a single reliable source that supports this theory. The most prolific term has been some derivation of "hacker". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Scjessey; we may be talking about two different things. A whistleblower doesn't necessarily have to be an insider, simply someone identifying wrongdoing that is a threat to the public interest. In this instance, were someone to be apprehended under United States law, that individual might very well avoid prosecution for the theft based on whistleblower status. Like I said, though, I am no lawyer, and I'm especially not a barrister. The question of whether or not the hacker was an insider remains completely unresolved. Nightmote (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My comment made no mention of the meaning of "whistleblower", although it usually means an insider. I was remarking that no reliable sources have used the term. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The identity of the hackers

This section of the article is wrong wrong wrong.

Dr. Gavin Schmidt a scientist at NASA stated that the hacking operation required considerable skill and knowledge that an opportunistic hacker would not have had. While the hacking operation was occuring, Dr. Schmidt had attempted to disable it but was prevented several times before finally succeeding because the hackers had penetrated deep into the website's database software. Dr. Schmidt said "That requires some kind of monitoring-tool set-up and required them to have more access than you would get by simply logging into the blog." The hackers used a legitimate computer based in Turkey as a proxy server but the attack could have been launched from another computer anywhere in the world. Steve Connor, Science Editor for The Independent, called for an investigation to find the perpetrators.

• Ref`s 66 & 67 lead to King`s statement which he has now backtracked on.
• ref 68 Is also just a rehash of Kings statement, which he has now backtracked on.

This entire section should be removed, as RC has given no proof that they got hacked, and King has retracted his "It were spy`s that done it" statement. Comments please? --mark nutley (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, I don't see where 66 and 67 reference anything from King, rather "He attempted to disable the hacking operation as it was taking place, but was prevented several times before finally succeeding because the hackers had penetrated deep into the website's database software. This required considerable skill and knowledge which an opportunistic hacker would not have had, he said. "That requires some kind of monitoring-tool set-up and required them to have more access than you would get by simply logging into the blog," Dr Schmidt said," and "Dr Schmidt said that the hackers were using a legitimate computer based in Turkey as a proxy server but the attack could have been launched from another computer anywhere in the world." I don't know if ref 68 has been passed by events. I don't think it has, but it might have been. I don't think Schmidt has backed off his statements. Has he? Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I used to run a web site for cancer patients which included a blog. I kept getting hacked in a similar way, unauthorized uploads of files and pictures. Turns out there was a backdoor installed in the open source blogging software I was using. It was clever, installed into the database initialization routine. Search for a certain term and voilla your in. Just because a server is hacked, doesn't mean the hackers were particularly skilled. The backdoors are published on hacker sites. Any school kid can find and exploit themJPatterson (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Both 67 and 66 lead to The Independent 'Climate emails hacked by spies' Schimdt has ot backed off of his statement no, however there are no ref`s no prove what he is saying is true, were is the ref to his statement? Plus the proof the RC was hacked? None of the ref`s in this section are usable as King has backed off on his statements as shown here mark nutley (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the independent article? It's about more than just King. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and i ask again, were is the proof that RC was hacked? We have one quote in a newspaper, were did that quote come from? There is no link from the indy to schimdt`s statement. Were are the third party verifiable sources? Currently this fails miserably in actual proof. mark nutley (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This should be simple to fix. Make sure Schmidt is attributed correctly, and then no "proof" is required. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I thought proof was required? We have a quote in an op-ed attributed to him, not really a wp:rs is it? Why are there no links to schimdt`s statement? Have the police questioned him as yet about this hack? Were is the actual proof that RC was hacked? Surly you guys ca nfind the links to this stuff? mark nutley (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I don't quite understand your problem. Could you please pick a specific statement in the article that you think is poorly sourced and present it? Note further that op-eds in major papers are reliable sources for many things. Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire statement by schimdt is the problem, there is no proof RC was hacked, just the say so of one guy. If RC was hacked then why have the police not questioned him about it? The entire statement seems to be for the sole purpose of going with this was a hack story, I don`t think this is a reliable source, not without proof of this alleged hack. --mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, Dr. S. is quoted in an op-ed by a reliable source and he's an expert on Real Climate (as the operator of the site). Probably better than saying "the entire statement by schimdt is a problem," you should instead quote exactly what in the article is a problem, and what exactly the problem is with it. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)"Hack" is a vague term that could cover the scenarios that the "must-be-a-leak" camp are proposing. We know for sure that UEA did not release this data on purpose. Someone - inside UEA, outside or both acting together - got access to computer stuff they shouldn't have had access to. It's likely to be illegal, hence the police investigation. Not "theft" as defined in UK law but it could be a violation of one or more provisions in the rather complicated UK laws relating to IT. As I said, Newsnight said "hacked" last night. That should be source enough to keep using the loose term until the police investigation is over. Or do we really have to track down a transcript of the Newsnight programme? They also said "emailgate" and not "climategate". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the entire paragraph is poorly-written with what looks like a mega-sentence that rambles on forever. I'm taking a look at it now. Will post an alternative here momentarily. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith I think this statement is a bit broad: " ... got access to computer stuff they shouldn't have had access to ... " As far as I understand it, the identity of the "hacker" remains a complete mystery and their clearance level remains unknown. We may find out what's what when (or if) the Police release a report. Because the data was released without the permission of UEA/CRU, the term "stolen" might be considered to be neutral. "Hacker" would seem to apply to the Real Climate uploading. The way I see it, the term "hacker" has connotations of an "outside-in" attack. (shrug) Or maybe I'm just talking out my posterior. Nightmote (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Alleged theft is the exact term to be used. If a legitimate username and password was used by an insider then that is not a hack but may be theft. Depending on the status if the confidential disclosure agreement the person had with the entity that owned the server, there may not have been even a crime. So "alleged theft" is the proper term. No evidence of a hack has be produced.142.68.92.131 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not as I understand it. The laws relating to computer crime aren't all that clear to me, but as I understand it the copying of the data from the server without permission is a theft. That theft may be forgiven under some "whistleblower" statute irrespective of whether or not the thief was an employee of UEA/CRU, but the data were stolen. As I understand it. Nightmote (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative text for first part of "The identity of the hackers"

How's this:

Gavin Schmidt, a scientist at NASA, stated that the hacking operation required considerable skill and knowledge that an opportunistic hacker would not have had. He said that the hackers had penetrated deep into the website's database software and it required several attempts before the operation could be disabled. Schmidt stated, "That requires some kind of monitoring-tool set-up and required them to have more access than you would get by simply logging into the blog." -- no longer valid. We are already way beyond this version. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to cleaning up, I've changed "Dr. Gavin Schmidt" to simply "Gavin Smith" and wikilinked him - I'm pretty sure titles like "Dr." are not generally used on Misplaced Pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, he's named above - he should be just "Schmidt" no link here. I boldly edited the text as this shouldn't be controversial. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The way that currently reads it looks like he tried to stop the alleged hack at cru, not the alleged hack at RC. Are there no links to prove that RC got hacked? or is it just based on what schimdt is saying? --mark nutley (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Hipocrite - can't find another wikilink, so I've put in the new version with the link applied.

@ Mark - I've changed it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the timeline has his name linked, and you are quite right, mark, so I changed it first , but I think that got lost in the wash? Let's put back "at RealClimate" in that paragraph, if that's ok with you SCJ? Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you put alleged hack at real climate instead of stated that the hacking operation as there is no actual proof of a hack at RC? mark nutley (talk)

No, we really can't. He's a reliable source on Real Climate, and casting doubt on his statements of fact dosen't seem kosher without a source. Is there any doubt RealClimate was hacked in a reliable source? Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits doth fly back and forth with gay abandon, eh? I've left the wikilink in because the "timeline" section is way north of this one, and I've restored the "against RealClimate" that I'd mistakenly removed earlier. All should be better now. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sallgood. I'm glad we cleared that up. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough sjc, then stated that the hacking operation should have at real climate in it ya? Just to make it clear that`s what he is talking about.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I have already fixed it to make sure it is obvious Schmidt is talking about RealClimate. Was there something else? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stating that he is a scientist at NASA makes absolutely no sense in how his opinion has any validity to the statement about RC's website being accessed. Is he an expert regarding websites? Is he an expert regarding RC? How is his being a scientist at NASA make his opinion about the ability of someone gaining access to RC anymore reliable than me going down the hall and asking my network administrator? It reads like "John, a pig farmer, sated that the fox that gained access to his neighbors hen house must have been very skillful and knowledgable about hen houses." Arzel (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and corrected on main page. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry scj, i do not see realclimate anywere in the proposed text above? mark nutley (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's on the main page. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've struck out the version above to avoid further confusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Doh Sorry guys, and thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

emails rekindle Keenan's accusation against Jones and Wei-Chyung Wang

From the Guardian Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege 1st Feb 2010. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to see how things play out during the next month or so. Fred Pearce is a reputable journalist with green credentials. What I find most interesting is that he is now echoing a lot of things that have been circling on blogs for weeks, months even years. At last focus of the story has shifted away from the hacking incident and the news are starting to cover more of the actual substance. The main points/big questions of interest are in my opinion:

1. Peer-review. Did it work? If not then where lies the fault? System or person(s)? 2. What are the implications for the science/sciences? Good? Bad? Ugly? 3. The IPCC. Impact of the story. Scientific impact and perceived impact?

There are countless angles to this story but maybe these good starting points for a discussion.130.232.214.10 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not the appropriate place for a discussion. This is a talk page for a wikipedia article, where the only discussion that should take place is related to changes in the article. Please don't mistake this for a web-forum. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. This is exact place to raise and present this issue. Since the wiki editors insist on forwarding the "Climategate" body of information to the hacking incident page, this one, and then claim that this page is only related to the hacking incident, blame yourselves for people putting, as you call it, unrelated information here. Open the independent article on Climategate to address all these so-called inappropriate inclusions. This the circular logic of religio-science. Like a religion. The bible says god exists, and god told the prophets to write the bible to say he exists. In a similar fashion, wiki editors define climategate only as the hacking incident and then reject info related to climategate that does not fit their contrived definition. I think there a few job openings in religious leadership that this kind of reasoning requires.142.68.92.131 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How does this section propose to edit an article? Please focus on what we're here to do - write an encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Open up a separate page to deal with the larger issues of bad scince, alleged bad scince, precipitated from the alleged theft incident. It is your fault that all this other stuff is landing here.142.68.92.131 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I put it to you, Hipocrite, that unless we limit the scope of this article, and that right soon, the above talking points will eventually be included because they go to the heart of the content of the emails. My (constantly evolving) opinion is that this article should pretty much avoid any discussion of the validity of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. By including (multiple) statements about how the science remains super-dooper valid, we are inviting a proxy battle royale with various hard-corps alarmists and hard-corps skeptics cherry-picking this bit of data and that bit of data. We should limit the article to the theft and the resulting scandal, and then wikilink as appropriate to the global warming article to discuss What It All Means to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, the hockey stick graph, and the thong industry. I know I've whined about this before, but I've been reluctant to start writing a hack-and-slash version of this article without at least some consensus that such a rewrite would be welcome. Nightmote (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I already consented to that above. Do it in your user space, and I'll even help. I wonder, however, will we really stop getting the talking point inclusions if we make the article focus on what the article should focus on? Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be great if a small group worked on a slimmed-down and logically structured version of the article. I don't know how much I can contribute though because my real-life commitments are unpredictable at the mo. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a poke at it in my user space. I took the time to misspell "hacking" in the title, which I hope is appreciated. Seriously, though, I can't see it taking the place of Leviathan. Feel free to make wholesale changes to it. Nightmote (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate needs its own page

I propose creating a separate article called Climategate and breaking the forward to this article.142.68.92.131 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a bore, but you ought to maybe read these archived talk sections: . This idea - which is not without merit - has been done to death. Nightmote (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No. It is still alive and well. the editors refuse to add content citing it's irrelevance to the narrow self-imposed definition of the "hacking". So, Open it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop beating the dead horse. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that bias exists and the biased editors want Climategate to disappear. It won't. Open up the article.142.68.92.131 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate Analysis

Climategate Analylis by John P. Costella This should also be linked to this article. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are. You'd better explain that one. You mean "I disagree with what they publish so therefore it is not reliable" right. Or is there a legitimate reason why you label them as not reliable. Explain "reliable".142.68.92.131 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:RS they are not a reliable source as they do not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Hipocrite (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, not RS, in fact they specifically oppose peer-review. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a fringe advocacy organisation with a pretty poor reputation for factual accuracy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That isn't true. Please provide proof that they have publish false information. This what Jone or Mann might do. Just find an excuse for not including someone's work because they don't necessarily agree 100% with your POV. John Costella is a reputable researcher with credentials that exceed most editors in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not. John Costella is the owner of , which states that 9/11 was done by the US government, not by terrorists, among other lunatic fringe ideas. It's time for you to go. Hipocrite (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just provide a citation for this liable. Here are his credentials: John P. Costella, B.E.((Hons.), B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed. I'd say he has earned the right to have an opinion about science. Would you please post your credentials? and a link to his 9/11 claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I did a "whois" on the domain name: Domain ID: D148170851-LROR, Domain Name: scienceandpublicpolicy.org, owner unknown. How do you know who owns it?

You are looking at the wrong web page. This is his home page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The article to which I was referring was carried on scienceandpublicpolicy.org. His work is also already referenced in wiki wrt image processing, the bulk of his academic work.(better purge those too.) http://en.wikipedia.org/James_H._Fetzer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.214.226 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC) So since John P Costello, is already a cited reference in wikipedia, then why not include this addition excellent work carried on scienceandpublicpolicy.org? Other wiki editors have acknowledged his work. those wor don't have an axe to grind.142.177.214.226 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Costello may or may not be a reliable source on certain topics. That does not make him a reliable source on all topics. In particular, competence in image processing does not imply any competence in climate science or scientific processes. And SPPI is a known advocacy group with no credibility. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Costello is well published and frequently cited in scientific papers and in wiki as I have shown. To dismiss his work based on accusations of incredulity demands a citation about either his work or the site. I have asked for, and the critics here have yet to produce, a justifiable disqualification for his work or that of SPP. Disagreeing with his conclusion is not sufficient justification for his exclusion unless of course he is aka Galileo.

I'm well published and frequently cited in scientific papers. So is WMC. So are several other editors here. Will you accept our report? Or are we also Galileos? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have written on the subject at hand and it is carried in a publication and can be referenced then of course you can submit a report. Fill your boots. Disagreeing with Costella, does not elevate to justification to disallow inclusion. You, as an academic, ought to know that. It is particularly because you disagree with him that you have to scrupulously inhibit your compunction to silence his work. Please provide justifications for his exclusion. I have provided, the work, the reference and its relevance to the subject.142.68.165.13 (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Excerpts from this report should be included in the Reactions to Climategate section. Right now the reactions are like a kangaroo-court where only people favorable to AGW theory are allowed to be heard. John P Costello has impeccable credentials. JettaMann (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann, are those IP addresses you? Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann, I am inclined to agree with you, they ought to be included.. someone erased my affirmation, someone who doesn't agree with you and me I presume.142.177.62.236 (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Major proposed edit

Nightmote and I have worked on a major edit to this article that would shrink it dramatically. It is located at User:Nightmote/sandbox_CRU_Hackining_Incident#References. We would welcome comments, concerns, or criticizms with an eye to taking the cut-down version live in the very near future. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Before everyone yells at me ....

I swear that I made this huge edit on good faith. I didn't dicsuss it here first because it's so huge, but the text that's left is stuff we all agreed on. I just really pared it back. Nightmote (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say "we" because I wanted Hipocrite to be able to disavow all knowledge. Nightmote (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I support Nightmote's edit, but accept that if someone reverts it we should progress to discussion. Hipocrite (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's better than some of the versions I have seen! Perhaps small is beautiful. But I don't understand the section on the identity of the hackers: this sticks out like a sore thumb as much weaker than the rest IMHO. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree and boldly removed it also. Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

However this ends up, my thanks to Hipocrite for fixing the refs, and to all of the editors who provided weeks and weeks of effort to create the article. All I did - I swear - was to remove everything extraneous to the core story. I expect a revert, but I hope we can talk about this. Nightmote (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I also deleted all the emails! But yes, I think NM and I are eagerly awaiting someone to ask us to justify some or all of our removals. Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OMG, don't let the Information Commissioner hear you saying that! (;-P . . dave souza, talk 20:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is very little reason we would all be looking at this event/article right now, were it not for the unusual content and character of the emails which were hacked/distributed. To reduce the description of the content of those emails to 2 very small and general paragraphs will leave the honest reader wondering what all the fuss was about. I urge the restoration of the more specific email information. Moogwrench (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added them back for the reasons you state, though I only read this just now. Open to argument.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've only just realized what has happened here after being out for a big chunk of the day. Holy shit, dudes! You must have testicles the size of bowling balls. I'm going to need to cogitate over this for a bit, and maybe have some booze and a bit of a lie down. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever edited this article, but it's been on my watchlist from day one. Anyways: I think the massive cut and trim by Nightmole is a HUGE step in the right direction. The article had become way too bloated with interesting but overly detailed info. And for the record if the choice is between this "Content of the documents section and this one, my preference is the short one. The ideal length is probably in between, but I suspect it'll be easier to find that happy medium starting from the pared down version and building up rather than starting with the detailed version and pulling stuff out. Yilloslime _C 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Emails

Do we really need to go into the minute and extreme detail on every single one of the emails? It's such a waste of the reader's time. Can't we summarize it? Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, is it really fair to include the gory details of each and every one of the emails but not allow the gory details of each and every one of the responders (5 Reactions to the incident, 5.1 Climatologists, 5.2 Scientific organizations). Is anyone willing to step across the barricades and work to fix the article? Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with restoration of detail about emails, I put a lot of work into that :-/ However, are we now at the stage where we can go for topic headings rather that dates and authors of specific emails? For example, the jolly hockey stick bit fits a descriptive title, the various letters about deleting data/emails can be grouped in relation to the FOI requests. That could allow more concise treatment of the emails. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything to shrink that section down so that the article isn't a gory rehash of the emails. It's just excessive - especially now that they are actually 1/2 of the text of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't, though what would be nice would be the text of the e-mails at the heart of the controversy, as is and was present in the article (cf. Moogwrench's comment above). It's not a waste of the reader's time. On the contrary, anyone coming across this page and not finding any e-mail text will undoubtedly look elsewhere. This saves a trip.

I generally like this use of WP:Bold, though, by the way.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But you can't have the text of all the emails, because they're not published in a reliable source. So, given that what you can get is 6 or 7 emails and scads of paragraphs going over all of the gory boredom, do we really need it?Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. All of the e-mails included are sourced by RSs, and often by multiple RSs. You can refer to the article for them.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were talking about including a database with all of the emails in them. Yes, the 6 or seven emails we go through word by tortuous word are fully sourced. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian is linking directly to eastangliaemails.com in their stories. I assume there was a good reason Misplaced Pages does not? Also I would like to keep the emails but not clumped together. Maybe they could merged into (new) topics as suggested? Appreciate the effort, this version of the article is better!85.76.70.109 (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a policy against linking to copyviolations or stolen goods, as in many Youtube links, so best to play safe. Also, per synthesis policy we should find a secondary source to select which ones to discuss. . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: And I'm sorry for using the phrase "On the contrary" twice in one conversation. That was annoying on my part.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am engaging in a rewrite of the gratituous parsing of the emails - see Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/emails. Hipocrite (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: To your first point, the e-mails need to be the article. In fact, that's the reason why I came to this article in the first place. I wanted to know what all the fuss was about. I wanted to know what the e-mails said, if they were taken out of context and how. To your second point, I believe that balance is already in the article. At least it was the last time I checked. To your second point, reliable sources are cited, at least they were the last time I checked. BTW, it's a bit of exaggeration to say we're covering all the e-mails. AFAIK, there were hundreds if not thousands of these e-mail. We're only covering a handful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My rewriting of the execessive email section is open for comments- please see Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/emails. Comments welcome. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Rearranging the article content based on issue rather than by e-mail is an excellent idea. I don't think anyone's really attempted to do this given the contentious nature of the article. But now that it appears as if the admins are finally starting to get fed up with both warring factions, maybe we can finally make some progress on improving the article's structure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure so much commentary from the e-mail authors should be included. As per WP:BLP "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Can we find secondary sources to replace commentary by Phil Jones, and also perhaps the UEA stuff? Or just take them out flat.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably we've not tape recorded these statements, but are sourcing them to reliable secondary sources which establish their noteworthiness. In view of new analyses that are emerging, we should be able to incorporate all statements into more of a narrative structure. As for your NPOV quote, see also the undue weight section, particularly in relation to the scientific consensus, giving "equal validity", and the pseudoscience section when showing positions of antiscience denialists. . . dave souza, talk 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use phrases like "antiscience denialists". It really doesn't help anyone. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It was to emphasise the range of views – outside science, there are clearly views expressed that don't have any scientific backing, and there's been a long campaign against scientific findings. "Even McIntyre denounces the more vocal sceptics with their conspiracy theories.". . dave souza, talk 22:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing "understanding of climate science" with "understanding of research ethics," and mistaking "the scientific consensus" for "the consensus of CRU researchers." This article is only tangentially related to Global Warming, as people kept pointing out when the news was first broken. Even beyond these points I'm puzzled by your response: WP:BLP isn't invalidated by WP:Undue... --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I kept a *brief* summary of the emails in my original effort. But as I thought about it, Hipocrite's edit made really good sense. The emails may have caused the controversy, but they're not the controversy. A link to the emails text should be sufficient, and goes a long way towards removing contentious material from the article. The email text is indisputable, but then we start adding explanations and interpretations - all from reliable sources, all from respectable authorities, and all really just supporting our individual POVs - and we get bogged down. I propose either reverting to the summary *or* providing a bare-bones presentation and an external link to the emails. Maybe some enterprising souls could produce articles on each email and we could wikilink to 'em. (grin) I mean, they're either noteworthy or not, right? Nightmote (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

With care over balance and weight, the section as it was could be split as a detailed article about the emails, and treated as a main article for a concise summary style statement on this main page. We could note the main issues here, and use them as section titles on the sub-article which would remain usefully informative for readers wanting detailed background. . . 23:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it`s worth good job nightmote and hippocrite. There is wp:bold and then there is common sense :). Way better now, i`ll look over it a bit more later when i wake up properly, i was up half the night (kids ill) and am off out on a job in a bit, just want to say, well done guys :) mark nutley (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Much better now. Congratulations. I changed the headings, see if you like it. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that in the next few hours, baring comment, I'll be taking Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/emails live. Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reads well. Is there repetition in Trevor Davis' comments? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't explain what the controversy is about. It quotes the e-mails and provides an explanation, but fails to mention what critics have claimed. Please don't go live until explanations of what the controversy is about are included. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that in there now? What content should be moved over? Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see now - some got commented out. I tried to reinclude it. What other critics complaints failed to make it over? Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Public Reaction

The incident took place during a time when public certainty in the United States about the cause of global warming was declining. Harris Interactive, in a Harris Poll conducted shortly before the CRU e-mails came to light, reported that those in the United States who answered yes to the question "Do you believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures, or not?” had declined by 20% between 2007 and 2009 to 51%.. In December, Angus Reid Strategies conducted a tri-national poll which found that between November, 2009 and December, 2009 those who agreed with "global warming is a fact mostly caused by human activity", declined 11% in Canada (to 52%), 3% in the U.S. (to 46%), and 4% in Britain (to 43%). The same poll found that only about 1 in 5 Canadians had followed the CRU controversy closely, while 57% had not followed to story at all.

Request that this section be returned as no consensus was reached on its deletion. It is well sourced, multi-national and I'm working on additions. Thank you JPatterson (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a giant step back for just one section and consider if the article is really better with that section in it, even if it's well source and multi national. Does it help the article explain what happened, or is it just an avenue for warring factions to duke it out? I haven't looked closely at the section yet, but we should really consider if a section helps the reader understand, or is just a place for bickering. Let's look over it together? Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course such discussions are always welcome but should take place before entire sections are removed. I propose we put it back so we have something concrete to look at while we discuss it. Thanks JPatterson (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've pasted the section above, so we can talk about it. Having reviewed it, I actually think it's a violation of WP:OR by WP:SYNTH.

How dat? Everything in this section is contained in the cites. JPatterson (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a cannonical synth example - John Doe admitted to having sex with Jane Roe(source). Jane Roe has herpies(source). The above paragraph says a lot about public opinion on AGW, then says something about the CRU controversy. What does A have to do with B, and are we implying C? If we're not, why are A and B in the same paragraph? The only think in the source that has to do with this article (as opposed to an article about public perception of global warming) is the last sentence. Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I know what synth is. The only statement that is not a direct report of poll findings in the whole section is "The incident took place during a time when public certainty in the United States about the cause of global warming was declining.", which is completely verifiable. The cite shows the historically trend is in fact declining. This is neither OR nor SYN. The rest of the section is verifiable fact. We draw no conclusions at all so there can not be SYN issues by definition. JPatterson (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, wait. Here's the problem - my herpies and john doe article dosen't draw any conclusions either - but it certainly implies that john doe has herpies. The poll section you have above doesn't drawn any conclusions either - but it certainly implies that the CRU caused people to lose confidence in global warming. Let me ask you - why is public opinion before the incident relevent? Hipocrite (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're reading something into the section that is not there. It does not infer cause and effect. Again, the introductory sentence states "The incident took place during a time when public certainty in the United States about the cause of global warming was declining.", a statement which the rest of the section goes on to support. It is not about cause and effect Remember, I wanted to add "even while consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming was growing among scientist" to that sentence but am prevented from doing so by my sanction. It is this juxtaposition between the science and public opinion and the impact of the scandal on widening that gulf that I think gives an interesting context to the incident JPatterson (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that there are two separate articles in one here (yes, I know we've had this discussion before). The para above is not really relevant to the "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident," which was an incident whereby emails and other documents were obtained and then released by party(ies) unknown. It is relevant to the "Climategate Scandal" (or whatever name you might prefer) which was the public reaction to the release of those emails. "Hide the decline" and "redefine peer literature" and so on belong firmly in the second article. So does the background of Public Perception of Global Warming science, which is what the para above discusses. Thepm (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mann Results

So Mann was mostly cleared, with further inquiry planned for whether his conduct deviated from accepted practices for scientists in his field. Ignignot (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals? Huh? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's from Penn States pre-existing standards for "Research Misconduct," specifically. --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Mann was not completely cleared. I'm a glass half full kind of guy. "The recommended investigation will focus on determining if Mann "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities."142.68.92.131 (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation is the following. The university followed standard practice and could not find any obvious wrongdoing or fraud. Quite as expected. However, they have left a HUGE opportunistic hole in case there is anything they might have missed. I am stating this because the university investigation will continue and what we put on this page will need to be amended and we need to be prepared for that as well. I think there are a lot of people in the scientific community that don't like Mann's "style" but that is not a crime. Possible bad science and incorrect findings do not translate to intentional fraud. We should not wait 120 days to update this page but that's when we get the final say.130.232.214.10 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As you say "Possible bad science and incorrect findings" are bad enough.142.177.62.236 (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a relevant source for discussion purposes only. 130.232.214.10 (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Guardian series

New Grauniad articles are worth checking out:. . . dave souza, talk 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Updated, see this page for latest articles. They give a good if rather devastating overview, covering reasons as well as misdeeds . . dave souza, talk 21:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Great series. Kind of makes our obsessive focus on "the hack" seem a bit silly. JPatterson (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not silly if you want to suppress the dissemination of the malpractice of scientists. The last reference is particularly good.142.68.165.13 (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

JPatterson, I read your page about Climategate. I also read all the blocking and games that various editors have subjected you to. Your page on Climate gate better represents the world view of the evolving nature of the scandal. It is not just a "maybe theft" incident. 142.68.165.13 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the paragraphs from FactCheck, Associated Press and Nature editorial?

I just went through the article history and can't find the diff. But they were there yesterday.. Why were these paragraphs deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha and all of the other allegations of misconduct were removed to, leaving the reader with the (wildly mistaken) impression that the controversy exclusively concerns breaches of the FOIA act. I'll add this back later if someone doesn't get to it first.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999

I must admit, article looks better now after the big overhaul. I'd like the following inserted into the final comment on the "nature trick" email.

"Before the incident, other research in which Mann was a contributing author had found similar results with or without the tree ring records. "

The point here is that this statement should not give the false impression that Mann's Hockey Stick graph was independently validated by other researches. Sirwells (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're bringing in the hockey stick controversy which wasn't quoted in references used at the time that was put together – as this shows, the graph was validated by other researchers. That's a source which should be reflected in our article. No objection to clarifying that the specific study had Mann as a contributing author, but we must be clear that the scientific consensus supports a form of Mann's thesis.

This article gives a useful overview, concluding with the IPCC 2001 "claim that 'it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium'. Most researchers, including Briffa, now believe that statement was correct." It describes how other emails show that the dispute at that time was between Mann and the CRU research by Briffa. Interestingly, the detailed IPCC Chapter 2 report shows the downturn in the tree ring reconstruction in its graph. The Jones email was about the graph for a WMO Statement, which I've not checked out. McIntyre, who was on the scene later, brought in the IPCC 2007 report. Our section would be better retitled, perhaps "Tree ring proxy reconstructions", and there's getting on to be enough material for it to be a standalone article with a brief summary in the main CRU hacking incident article, summary style. . . dave souza, talk 11:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears there are no objections to my edit referenced above (that the specific study had Mann as a contributing author).Sirwells (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Reversion in error

I'm interested in this revert, which undos my moving some text to a more appropriate area and inserting a reference. Perhaps it was a mistake? Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. replacing a well sourced statement with a fact tag is vandalism as far as I'm concerned. You should be able to revert without penalty. One quibble, to avoid issues, I'd replace "most" with "nearly all" which is how the source phases it. JPatterson (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's got to be a mistake. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC) PS - agreed on most to nearly all. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead not reflective of the article

Since the article rewrite, the current lead is not at all representative of the article or of the sources on this subject. Currently, the article goes into great detail about emails that have been reported upon all over the place, but in the lead the only hint of the controversy of those emails is "the material caused a controversy, dubbed 'Climategate', regarding whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists", and the FOIA result. This needs more exposition, as several allegations have been made, both my skeptics and non-skeptics, regarding these emails. To have more discussion in the lead about scientist threats than about email controversy is a gross WP:NPOV violation, given the coverage in reliable sources. The lead reads as if the major story here is a hacking and oh, by the way, some random people may have implied that these emails indicate some problem. The reliable source coverage of this story is not to that effect at all and focuses most on the contents of the documents and the ensuing controversy (or asserted lack thereof). The lead needs to reflect the balance of sources and article and spend more time discussing the controversy of the documents. Oren0 (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate what you are saying, I think this is actually part of a much larger problem. The massive rewrite, while admirable in intent, has been a mistake. I would prefer to see the entire article reverted back to the version immediately before the massive rewrite. This will also restore all the lost references that forced me to do this to your last edit. All that is happening now is that we are slowly adding back all that was lost, which is a waste of everyone's time. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lost refs will be fixed by the magic ref-fixing bot. Just leave them broken for a little bit. Hipocrite (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's only part of the problem though. A lot of people did a lot of work that just got deleted, and now an awful lot of that work is getting added back in bits and pieces. The result is a bit of a mess, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The old article was worse, I think. What parts of the removed stuff do you think added substantial value? Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that this becomes moot if the rewrite is reverted as I propose below. Then individual changes could be discussed and agreed upon. I think trying to discuss the reversion of several sections at once will be a nightmare. Oren0 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I like Hipocrite's restructuring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Code and documentation redux

This edit replaced a nice, simple, clear explanation with something more complex, designed by committee (including me) up above. I suggest that this wording is used, under the restored heading, rather than what's been restored there.

Suggested wording

The quality of some of the source code included in the documents has been criticised, and an associated README file has been interpreted as suggesting that some data was simply made up. Myles Allen of the Climate Dynamics group at Oxford has said that the code under discussion is not that used in actual climate reconstructions, which is maintained elsewhere.

--Nigelj (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me where this version was discussed above, maybe I'm missing it in the collapse boxes? The shortest text I see above is under #Modified_Even_shorter_version, which is still much longer than your proposed text. I just restored the section as it was before its removal and I'm not necessarily attached to the current version. I don't oppose concise text for this, though I do believe it belongs in its own section. Oren0 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter now as the edit was reverted. --Nigelj (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Need non-involved reactions

Since the rewrite, the current "reactions" section is really an "inquiries" section, as the only reaction from a person is Pachauri's. This article needs a proper "reactions" section where the reactions of experts on both sides of this issue can be discussed to some degree. The current article is missing discussion about why this whole incident has generated controversy, and numerous reliable individuals have been quoted on the issue. I don't believe that the laundry list approach previously used was the right one, the thing to do is to discuss in proportion the major reactions (ranging from "no big deal" through "problem with openness" and perhaps including "disproves AGW" if sourced enough) with a representative person/quote or two for each. I think a 2-3 paragraph section would do. Without this, I think the current article misses the point in some ways. Oren0 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Write a section here or on a sub page for people to review. Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: revert article rewrite

Per User:Scjessey above. While I applaud the effort of User:Nightmote in this edit, a complete article rewrite without any consensus is almost assuredly a bad idea. There were several good ideas in this rewrite, but I think the right place for this article lies closer to the "before" than to the "after". If we leave this, we're going to have tons of discussions to get all of the things that shouldn't have been removed back in. Instead, let's revert the article back and work on implementing individual fixes from the rewrite with consensus. Even though the original edit didn't have consensus, it may be best to get opinions here on whether the change should be reverted before doing something drastic again. An edit war over the whole article would obviously be unacceptable. Oren0 (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This was a great experiment, but it is forcing us to rehash old debates that didn't need to be dug up. A new WP:BATTLEGROUND has sprung up over what gets added back, and what doesn't. As soon as that started happening, I knew this was doomed to failure. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Where? I don't see it. What do you want put back in, and where is this so called battle? Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I too applaud the effort and I think the re-write gives us a good sense of direction. But the change is too much to digest in one swallow.JPatterson (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This dosen't even present a reason, let alone one I could dispute. This is not a vote. What was removed that should stay? Why? Hipocrite (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason is it is far too great a change to make without consensus. I have objections to the re-write that are too numerous to list here, starting with the fact that it eliminated all of the specific allegations and lacks any cogent RS analysis from critics. The scandal, and it is now a scandal by any feasible definition, is growing in importance, (witness the guardian series, hardly a skeptical hotbed, and the effect it is having on public opinion in the UK). I think the re-write is much improved in terms of composition and flow but minimizes the incident, still puts to much emphasis on the hack, and lacks an adequate framework on which to cover the fall out. JPatterson (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What sections from the old article would you like put back? Hipocrite (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the lead although I would prefer we resurrect to achieve consensus on a re-write, the code section over which hard fought consensus was achieved and the public reaction section per our discussion above. But as SCJ points out, everyone's going to have their own hobby horses and we'll be right back where we started with nothing to show but hard feelings. JPatterson (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you know that everyone is going to want their own pet section in, why not weigh the costs and benefits of fighting for your pet section vs the ability to keep all of the other crap out? If someone would like to propose a rewrite to the lead, go crazy. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The new 2nd para is much more apposite than the old hodge-podge. Times have moved on and so must the article's focus. When the inquiries and police investigations move on, a lot of what we had would have gone anyway. More of what we have now may well survive longer. --Nigelj (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. HC asked what I would like to put back in, to which I responded . The new 2nd paragraph is not comparable to the old 2nd paragraph, which has been eliminated. JPatterson (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• weak oppose. At this point, all the rewrite did was remove the (previously named) "Response" section, which was really bad (issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP).--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Almost every single one of the removed sections made the article worse. I support the rewrite in full, and am willing to defend any specific problem that anyone has with it. If you have a problem with some of the information removed, please present that problem. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You must understand that eventually it will all be put back. It is inevitable. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Examples on request. I've shrunk articles before. Hipocrite (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The remaining text is consensus text - nothing was added. If we revert, we revert back to the edit war version, where everyone on both sides of the (a)isle kept adding "just one more" superfluous quote. I don't own this version. I'm not married to it. But I (humbly) submit that it goes a long way toward avoiding the "he-said-she-said" point-scoring mentality. I strongly support the re-removal of the in-depth email analysis in favor of giving the emails a separate article with a wikilink. If we focus on what happened and avoid the analysis, we'll make a better article and avoid the drama. Nightmote (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

On that, I'm going to boldly insert Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/emails after AQFK's recent edits that I think provide the notations that were necessary. Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Hipocrite. Go for it. That is a much more readable format. --Nigelj (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

While we're simplifying the lede...

How about we shorten the following sentence...

"The Information Commissioner's Office stated that the UEA had breached the Freedom of Information Act by not dealing properly with requests for information related to climate science research made by David Holland, a retired engineer, but as sanctions had to be imposed within six months of the offence it was too late to impose them."

...to...

"The Information Commissioner's Office stated that the UEA had breached the Freedom of Information Act by not dealing properly with requests for information related to climate science research made by David Holland, a retired engineer."

...or even...

"The Information Commissioner's Office stated that the UEA had breached the Freedom of Information Act by not dealing properly with requests for information related to climate science research." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend shelving (:D) this until after the discussion about reverting the massive rewrite. That being said, I prefer the first suggestion but I would also support the second. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out again that the version missing out who made the requests is misleading in suggesting that all requests were included in the ICO's opinion, not just those raised by Holland. An option would be "dealing properly with requests one individual made for information related to climate science research." Note that the crucial request was for emails, relating to private discussions about the research rather than to the research itself. . . dave souza, talk 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I took out the code section again. As I said before: it is broken. It has no RS's, and is laughably wrong to anyone with any familiarity with the area William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was for that to stay, it has a rs as well you know, please self revert --mark nutley (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC's contention that the BBC News is not a reliable source is complete BS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's take another tack: the section in question is irrelevant. Code documentation is good practice, but it is nothing to write home about when code goes undocumented. More than that, the problems with error-handling are universal to all computer programming. What does this have to do with the subject of the article? I say that this section serves absolutely no purpose. Why do those who want to see it stay think it's relevant? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a lengthy section on the emails, but no real discussion of the additional documents. I think this section contributes to the article, by providing further detail on these additional documents. Overall the article suffers from trying to cover both the 'hacking incident' and the 'ensuing controversy' all in one article. This section is highly relevant to the ensuing controversy.00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Thepm (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this section did not really discuss the additional documents at all. From what I understand, these "additional documents" were mostly "attachments" to the e-mails. Simply positing that they were relevant to the ensuing controversy doesn't make them so. I understand that Newsnight paid a commercial programmer to discuss the codes since they couldn't themselves provide any interpretation of them. That's not surprising. But the statements offered by the "expert" were essentially, "these codes had bugs and were poorly documented". How did that contribute to the controversy? What reliable sources indicate that these attachments were controversial in any way? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Its a notable part of the controversy. It goes to process and controls at the CRU which is quite relevant. WMCs contention that its "laughably wrong" is itself laughable. The opinion piece he finds so compelling addresses none of the issues raised by the BBC piece (non-existent documentation, no audit trail, buggy code) and simply knocks down a straw argument the BBC piece didn't make. All that aside, we've been through this, we've reached consensus on language. Non consensus edits like WMCs violate the terms of probation and should be self-reverted immediately. JPatterson (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that just by repeating "we have consensus" you can make it so. You are wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We banged out a section that most editors agreed was a big improvement. This section has been in a long time. The burden for gaining consensus for removal is on your shoulders. Please self-revert. JPatterson (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing, there are a lot of rationales from the people arguing to remove the text and not a lot of rationales from those wanting to keep it. If you care to engage in the discussion and explain why the text is at all relevant, that would go a long way toward explaining why he should revert. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The rationale for removal is "we have one opinion piece from a non-expert (in this case a non-computer science expert) who claims a real expert in the field quoted by a RS is wrong. If you accept this, you will have no choice but to accept it when the skeptics use the exact same rationale to lay waste in the global warming article space. Unless of course hypocrisy sits well with youJPatterson (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, the rationale I provided is that the section is irrelevant. As far as the tit-for-tat proposal you outline, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems to be a much deprecated argument in these parts. Tell you what, you provide a reliable source that explains why this section discussing e-mail attachments is relevant to the controversy and we'll discuss how to include that in this article. Fair? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"It goes to process and controls" -- How? All the sources I've read about this simply indicate that the code was poorly documented (which is de rigeur) and had bugs (which is de rigeur). It's a lot like saying, "this text has spelling errors and lacks a table of contents". Controversial? More like not at all relevant. Anyway, I'd like to see a reliable source which indicates that these codes were somehow relevant to the controversy. That would be great. I'll remind you consensus can change and right now, I'm arguing that it should change in favor of WMC's approach. I challenge anyone to find a source that indicates that this subject is at all relevant beyond people who don't know what they're talking about getting excited (which, if that's the true rationale, could easily be included in a one-liner elsewhere in the article). ScienceApologist (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the spaghetti code?? Have you read the harry_readme which chronicles poor harry's failed attempt to untangle the mess that is "our flagship product". If that's what passes for de rigeur in those circles then that is relevant indeed. JPatterson (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you haven't yet offered a reliable source to back up your contentions, and I think you've strayed away from the purpose of talkpage as you are discussing your poor understanding of the details of the code architecture, which I can tell is a mystery to you. That's okay, but your befuddlement and amazement at how scientific coding happens in practice is hardly something on which to base editing an encyclopedia. If you want to verify that this stuff is unremarkable, go to your local university's physics department, knock on the door of one of the graduate students, and ask for a sample of their code. Then decide if it is spaghetti. It is not only de rigeur in those circles: it is de rigeur in all related circles as well. This includes those circles which, say, discovered exoplanets, decoded the human genome, and solved Fermat's last theorem. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, it's apparent to all that the code has no architecture, that's the point, or rather Dr Graham-Cumming's point, who BTW is an expert on how code should be written and was featured in a story by a reliable source. That's the standard for inclusion. And ss poor harry said, "this place needs a data architect, and now". JPatterson (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Well, first, all code has architecture by definition. Your statement that "the code has no architecture" is like saying, "that building has no three-dimensional form". Sure, you may not like the form and may think that it is in terrible shape and dangerous, but it still exists. This is just illustrative of the problems we have with people who are not familiar with scientific coding trying to make any kind of points about the subject. You're simply embarrassing yourself. Secondly, just because you have a source that doesn't make your trivia relevant the standard of inclusion is much higher than that which again reminds me that you haven't posted any source that discusses the relevance of this section to this subject. Thirdly, cherrypicking quotes is not really making your case any stronger. My offer is still on the table when you're ready to do the actual work of writing a decent encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

@MN: no, there was no consensus for it to stay. Nor was there consensus to remove it. Please don't pretend. There was disagreement both ways. @SA: agree. @AQFK: not exactly civil of you, old fruit. But no: Newsnight is good enough within its own field, but quite out of its depth here, as was its "expert". For the latter, Cumming's blog is interesting : note the number of times he has to go back and say "oops I was wrong" William M. Connolley (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm 100% behind WMC on this. Newsnight was wrong, and we have a reliable source that said they were wrong. They may as well have pulled some random code out of the cloud and analyzed that for all the use it was. If these two sources were matter and antimatter, they would annihilate one another. And that is exactly what should happen here. The section has no value whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since John Graham-Cumming is such an admired expert, we can presumably quote his self-published opinion that "My take on global warming is... unless you can demonstrate to me that it's false I'm going to believe the scientists who've been working on it. Pretty much the same way I do about any other bit of science. That's how science works, unlike politics." . . . dave souza, talk 00:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated reverts

This article is under active development, and recent efforts to focus on coverage of rather than participation in the incident and associated furor are commendable. Locking the article from editing interferes with this effort, but so does this incessant edit warring. Under the auspices of Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation, I am placing this article under a content revert restriction for one month. No revert may be undone within 24 hours absent a strong consensus here that the first edit improved the article. Gaming the system by respecting only the letter of this restriction is disruptive. If you add text and someone else removes it, get consensus here that the article is better with the text; anyone re-adding substantially the same text without such consensus will be blocked for edit warring. If you remove text and someone else replaces it, get consensus here that the article is better without the text; anyone re-removing substantially the same text without such consensus will be blocked for edit warring. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this improves the situation. You have all but made it impossible to make any changes to the article that anyone else disagrees with. It doesn't seem much different than simply having the article be locked. Arzel (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rut Roh Scooby - title may need a change

Looks like they found the guy how may have done it which would mean it was a leak, like security experts and anyone with sense has been saying. The title should obviously be "Climategate" since nobody is going to search for "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" and, failing that, the title shouldn't assume "hacking" (a crime) is involved. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a more reasonable title would be Climatic Research Unit leaked e-mails controversy. But we should wait until it's determined whether they really were leaked or not. Remember, we're not here to right great wrongs. The incident was widely reported as a "hacking" and if it is indeed shown to be a "leak", well, then, we'll deal with that then. Right now we've just got rumors and hunches. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was also reported as being leaked, and when experts in security were interviewed, they put it at a much higher probability that it was a leak not a hack. Your post reminded me of Quantum Leap :). TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If it turns out to be this guy, it changes nothing. He is not from the CRU, but from a separate department of the UEA. "Hacking" may be inaccurate, but we can always change it to "theft". Either way, it certainly isn't "Climategate" and never will be. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Scjessey. "Climategate" is simply sensationalism and not at all WP:NPOV. Birthgate anyone? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so climategate, which everyone uses to look up the incident, is "sensationalist" but "theft" and "hack" is more moderate than "leak?" I'd say that I'm having trouble understanding the reasoning, but unfortunately I think I do. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

TheGoodLocust, why do you keep jumping to conclusions that people are guilty, using sources that don't have such findings? We don't guess the future here. Abwarten und Tee trinken. . . dave souza, talk 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions? Like Scjessey was flat out advocating original research by calling it a "theft" even though the guardian article refers to it as a leak (because they were from the same university)? The point, which Scjessey made for me, is that the current title is biased (and quite likely inaccurate). TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I don't see that that story is little more than a statement that someone who works in the same building as the CRU was interviewed by the police and talks with right-fringe bloggers. Is there more than that, somewhere in there? Hipocrite (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, not every skeptic is "right-wing." TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.)I'm open to a renaming of the article. The "hacking" aspect is only part of the story as far as I can tell anyway. The other part is, of course, that people who aren't very smart have invented all sorts of conspiracy theories about the "implications" of these e-mails. Would you prefer Climatic Research Unit e-mails? That seems pretty straightforward, unassuming, and NPOV to me.ScienceApologist (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate is the best title for the obvious reason that it is the way pretty much the world refers to it. Sirwells (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, but the proposed title it far better than the current title. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I prefer Climatic Research Unit leaked e-mails controversy over just Climatic Research Unit e-mails. Does anyone really think there's no controversy?Sirwells (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference SMH-12-04 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference freesoftware was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference newsnight-code was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference WashTimes1127 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ Cite error: The named reference computerworld was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference McCullagh2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Myles Allen, guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Cite error: The named reference BW 02 Dec was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Cite error: The named reference NaPo 06 Jan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. Cite error: The named reference Angus 15 Dec was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists