Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 12

The Truth does NOT matter
Meta-discussion has drifted into a duplicate discussion of a topic being discussed productively in at least two locations on this page, including a full-blown RFC.

As much as I hate to have a meta-discussion about the discussion, I keep hearing arguments from both sides about the Truth. I cannot emphasize this enough, the Truth does not matter. The Truth is a matter of opinion and like a@@holes, everyone has one. In an attempt to end the endless arguments about the Truth, years ago Wikipedia set up the rules to avoid this endless bickering. All that matters is what reliable sources say about the topic. If reliable sources say that climate change is real and primarily caused by mankind, then Wikipedia says climate change is real and primarily caused by mankind. If reliable sources say that AGW is the greatest scientific hoax since Piltdown man, then we say that AGW is the greatest scientific hoax since Piltdown man. We are not supposed to engage in any dispute. We are supposed to simply report back what reliable sources say about a topic. And yes, if reliable sources say the Earth is flat, then we say the Earth is flat. Wikipedia is not to be used as a forum for cutting edge research or to promote an agenda. Like it or not, we must defer to reliable sources, not our own personal opinions about the topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a common misunderstanding. We always evaluate sources for authoritativeness, accuracy, neutrality, and currency, among other things.  Reliability is not automatic, nor applicable to every topic.  A reliable source in one topic may not be reliable in another, and popular newspaper and magazine articles written by non-experts are not considered to be as reliable as peer-reviewed or expert-authored reports.  And, straight news reports do not have the same standing as opinion pieces or columns.  So, you have completely avoided the underlying problem.  We do not simply report what a "reliable source" says.  We first must evaluate the source for reliability, and then decide on whether to use it.  This is a necessary and required step. Viriditas (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Step down from the pulpit and practice what you preach. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When haven't I? Over and over again, I've stressed the importance of following reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But, you haven't described the RS guideline here. You've described WP:V.  Keep in mind, RS does not exist in a vacuum, but in a delicate harmony with all the other foundational policies and guidelines.  Viriditas (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, except for neutrality, I don't disagree with anything you said nor do I believe my post disagrees with what you said, but simply elaborates on the idea the truth does not matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple, which is part of the problem. People like pithy sound bites like "truth doesn't matter", but you know that isn't accurate.  Truth of course, matters.  It's why we are here.  But, Truth is a perfect ideal that will not be realized in our lifetime.  What this means is that we strive for everything that can lead us to truth (or as the Buddhists like to say, points to truth), but not truth itself, since that cannot be grasped, or more to the point, it cannot be verbalized or put into words.  Little mouth noises and symbolic language is a poor substitute.  Can you do it with math?  Maybe, I don't know.  So, in this domain, we cannot obtain truth, so it's not on the table.  But we can approximate, get as close to it as possible, and reliable sources gives us one small leg up on it, but it is not the only way.  We have to evaluate the sources, look for contradictions between sources, demand neutral sources, ask for expert sources, etc.  It doesn't end with "reliable sources".  That's only where it begins. Viriditas (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, this personal vision of the nature of truth you have worries me. I agree with User:A Quest For Knowledge - I think we should stick to using Wikipedia policies as a guiding light, rather than our own philosophical position on truth as, if you use a personal definition of truth rather than Wikipedia policy, you might be lead astray (because that personal definition will be subjective and reflect your POV). An example: you say we should demand neutral sources, as that will somehow lead us towards this approximation of perfect idealised Truth that we will not achieve in our lifetime ("Truth" in some Buddhist context). However, Wikipedia's policy on WP:reliable sources does not say that we should demand neutral sources. It says to "mak[e] sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered: see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". WP:Neutral point of view then clarifies and tells us that "all editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article". So, if you are demanding neutral sources then it seems likely to me that you're a) doing so because of a philosophical position on "truth", which I think could lead to POV editing and b) not in line with policy, which tells us there is no such thing as a neutral source and that we deal with that by representing all significant views, rather than by demanding neutral sources. Brumski (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have greatly distorted and twisted the simple words that I have used, and I find your misreading troubling. I have offered no personal vision or philosophical position on truth, but rather the complete opposite, a lack of one.  Those who feel they have the truth or can grasp on to it or can communicate it with language are deluded.  My words were tailored for User:A Quest For Knowledge, a self-described rational skeptic.  You said that I propose using the most neutral sources we can find to lead us to the "perfect idealised Truth that we will not achieve in our lifetime", and then you compare this crazy notion to Buddhists pointing to truth.  Please realize, that this statement is complete nonsense, and you obviously intended it that way.  It's not even close to what I wrote.  All good quality reliable sources are evaluated for accuracy, of which neutrality is a subset.  When RS says that "articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," this is to avoid any gross bias.  The fastest way to evaluate for this criteria is to look at the references used.  If you have two sources, one of which uses sources and one that doesn't, we prefer the one that does, but obviously bad sources can be used to support biased work.  But we can also screen for bias by looking at the author.  That's why RS says "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors." We also look at the editorial policy, to weed out "questionable sources" that have a "poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight."  And finally, we look at the publication itself.  We weed out biased sources at this stage as well, particularly "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."  So, I'm afraid you misunderstand the evaluation process.  We always screen for neutrality, but that term is often used in the form of "accuracy".  We can only point to truth, and we do this by insuring our articles use the best sources we can find.  If we need to represent a significant opinion or idea, we may use biased sources to do that, but keep in mind that we are attributing an opinion or idea that may be biased, we are not asserting it as truth.  Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So we're all agreed that we're aiming towards Wikipedia policies rather than some personal interpretation of Truth; jolly good. I'll answer the rest on your talk page as the provocative language about my intent indicates an argument is likely to ensue, which won't be relevant to improving this article.Brumski (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The key problem here is that on this subject (as on many subjects) reliable sources say different things. We have to sift through the reliable sources, rule out those that are contradicted by experts (for instance, if the Daily Telegraph says evolution is a sham we assume their usually reliable editor is having an off-day), and present the most reliable version we can. Of course we should still present significan opinions, but those of the flat earth (or to give a more pertinent example, creationist) type should not be misrepresented as being mainstream. We could say (assuming we had the data) that public confidence was hit by the revealed documents, but we could not say or imply that the scientific consensus on global warming had been changed by the affair, because it hasn't. --TS 15:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, reliable sources don't disagree with scientific consensus that global warming is real and primarily caused by mankind, so I don't see the dispute that you do. In fact, if you search the talk archives and you'll see that I've called for stronger wording on this point, but it was lost in the all the arguing about the truth.  If we follow what reliable sources say about this topic, I don't think we'll end up with an article that you, ChrisO, etc. will have much to disagree with.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're all agreed on that. I think we're having a disagreement on what the reliable sources are in this case.  The article at present contains the balance of what the most unimpeachably reliable sources are saying, in my opinion, and avoids the mistake that most of the press had made in going for the juiciest tale.  We are not a newspaper, nor a news aggregator.  We do not uncritically parrot the most widely published story. --TS 16:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true that there's some editorial judgment that we can exercise and reliability is not a binary 0/1 switch, but rather a sliding scale. But you're missing the point that WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS were written to resolve the sort of arguments about which side is right or wrong. If you want to add a sentence to the article that says "The leaked e-mails don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.", all you have to do is cite a reliable source such as and the other editors can check your source to verify that it says this, and it should be the end of the discussion.

(Now, personally, I prefer to have corroborating sources to cite, so I would add a couple more sources. I know when I proposed this sentence the last time, I had one or two sources.)

Would you support the removal of the death threats from the lede and replace it with a sentence that puts the controversy in perspective that the leaked e-mails have not undercut the overall scientific consensus that global warming is real and primarily caused by mankind? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No I wouldn't like to do that. Firstly, it is enough that we will refrain from stating, or implying, that climate science has been compromised (but that's obvious, because only a shrill minority of sceptics are saying anything like that).  Secondly, it would be inappropriate to say that in the lead.


 * I don't see the death threats issue as make-or-break, though. I just think it's a very important part of the story, and one that the FBI and the Norfolk police are taking seriously.  I'm really puzzled by manifest attempts to downplay it. But I don't want to sideline this discussion by inviting further comment on it here.  We're still running the death threats RFC, I'm mulling it over, and when I have more to say I will add my opinion there.  I hope you will do so too so that we can keep this discussion focussed on the broader question. --TS 17:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The way you're framing the issue is wrong. You may have noticed that I changed the way it was worded: the focus is on the law enforcement response to the events of the controversy. We document how the various parties involved in this have responded: the CRU, the UEA, the UN, governments, climate scientists in general, politicians and so on. Law enforcement organisations are also responding to the controversy with criminal investigations. That is an important fact which is discussed in the article; since the lead is meant to summarise the article, that information belongs in the lead. Your argument is in effect that either law enforcement involvement should be excluded from the lead, or that it should be included but we shouldn't say what they're investigating - neither of which is a viable position. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If it was important, then you'd see more sources mentioning it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Faulty assumption. See my comments below about sub judice, of which you're evidently unaware. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can come up with a rationale that follows WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, I'll listen. But so far, you don't even have an argument.  Saying "I'm right; you're wrong just because I said so" doesn't cut it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to be a bit more flexible in your approach. Your entire position is based on erroneously entering "death threat" instead of "death threats".  It's time to stop the bickering and admit you made a mistake. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "A Quest for Knowledge" seems to be treating the press and media as the only legitimate reliable sources. This is far from the case.  Two law enforcement agencies have announced investigations into death threats, for instance, and these are unimpeachably reliable sources for their own activities.  To complain that this hasn't got much press is to miss the point--and of Chris Owen is right to point to the sub judice laws that apply to the British press.


 * Law enforcement agencies aren't just some other guys with an opinion, they're major players, determining whether a crime has been committed and is to be investigated. If they say they're investigating a crime related to this affair, that's obviously an important fact, and isn't to be downplayed.   --TS 09:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Of course.  People are never reliable sources.  Only published works are.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Published works are written by people. And the reliability of an author is one criterion for a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. Which third-party reliable sources have been authored by the police?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea what you mean, but having worked in this area on other articles for a while, most police reports are generally classified as primary and secondary sources, depending on how they are used, or what kind of information they contain. Since they are official, they are generally reliable depending on the topic. Viriditas (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if the police say "we're investigating criminal offences" it's pretty certain that they're investigating criminal offences. Otherwise we might as well stop relying on anything anybody says. --TS 21:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I’m not quite sure why this is so hard to understand, but in free societies, the police investigate allegations of criminal actions. In all of these instances, intelligent observers could add a probability that the allegations will turn into criminal convictions. Those probabilities range from close to zero to close to one, but are not one until a judge and/or jury so decrees. Those probabilities are sometimes so close to one that commentators will talk as if they are equal to one, but their sloppiness does not mean we have to be equally sloppy. In my view, the probability of a criminal action is fairly high but not one. Of course, my view isn’t relevant, but anyone who claims there is a certainty that a criminal offense occurred either isn’t paying attention, or misunderstands the meaning of “certainty”. SPhilbrick  T  13:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, it would save everyone a lot of time if you just say what you mean. Are you trying to say that the word "alleged" should appear in front of "theft"?  If so, please make that clear. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the police had mentioned alleged criminal offences, we would of course have covered this fact. They didn't.  Words like "alleged", "possible", "potential", "suspected" are conspicuously absent from the statement of the Norfolk Constabulary. --TS 15:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They would say alleged if it were about a suspect. As it is investigations into criminal offenses does not mean that criminal offenses necessarily occurred. It is an investigation into whether or not they did.  Drolz 09  10:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony has pointed out the plain fact of what the police have stated. Your opinion of what they "meant" is pure unsourced speculation. I note that you're not disputing the lack of qualifying adjectives in the police statement. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, my "opinion of what they 'meant'" is the definite meaning of the words they used. "Investigating criminal offenses" is not the same as "A crime occurred and we are investigating it." Concluding the latter from the former is not possible. The one who is engaging in "pure unsourced speculation" here is you, ChrisO.  Drolz 09  02:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You say "Investigating criminal offenses" is not the same as "A crime occurred and we are investigating it."


 * Well actually, that's exactly what it means. The police are perfectly capable of omitting or qualifying the phrase "criminal offences".  They did not.  --TS 12:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AP review of stolen data
AP have some interesting comments after a full review by 5 reporters of all stolen data ► RATEL ◄  15:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks very impressive--not for the "five reporters" but for the comments of experts in climatology who are regarded as moderates, for the comment of a science policy expert.  The quality of this piece stands out among reporting on this affair.


 * We certainly should cite this piece, though I foresee that gettingg consensus on exactly how to present it may need some discussion. --TS 15:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It has a certain amusing naïvité about it. "The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics".  Stunning?  For private commentary?  And the revelation that the politics of academia is nasty?  That's a revelation?  It's a useful source, but as Tony says, for the comments by experts.  (Which reminds me, of course, of the problem of reporters - why is it that they never get quotes straight, even when they write them down as you speak?.)  Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also co-written by someone whose emails were some of those leaked - Seth Borenstein, although this is not mentioned in the article. Cf Andrew Revkin, who in his articles notes he was mentioned in the emails. 130.95.128.51 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That Yahoo! News link will expire in a few weeks. Here is a more permanent link to the same article at MSNBC. I think this part of the article is especially interesting: "The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total. One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming... It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method." Grundle2600 (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we already have quite a lot of scientists making that point, too, and if that isn't already reflected in the article it should be. On the other hand the CRU has repeatedly pointed out that it doesn't originate raw data, but only aggregates it. --TS 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked, and we have a quote from Von Storch: Climatologist Hans von Storch, who also concurs with the mainstream view on global warming,[68] said that the University of East Anglia (UEA) had "violated a fundamental principle of science" by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They play science as a power game," he said.


 * The AP piece also rsises this as an ethical issue, but seems to have no clear comment on that issue from any of the experts it consulted. --TS 10:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not clear who he means by "other researchers". Are we talking about scientists or the sceptic agitators who've been bombarding the CRU with FOI requests? It also seems to overlook the CRU's statement that it can't share a small percentage of its data because of non-disclosure agreements. Furthermore, Von Storch apparently has a history of conflict with the CRU. I think we need to balance Von Storch's statement carefully against what the CRU says are its operational limitations and the background of his interactions with them - we shouldn't just throw it out there without context or response. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect we're already providing ebough balance, but I'm open to suggestions. --TS 01:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press did an investigation, here. This should probably go in the article but I don't feel qualified to edit the article. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 07:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look above. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to you all that you not be tempted to cherry pick the points from the AP article that support "your" POV on the topic. Instead, I suggest that you list any points from the AP article that aren't mentioned here in this article, or else could be explained better in this article using the AP's perspective. Then, you can ask an admin to briefly unlock the article to add or change the relevant content. Just a suggestion... Cla68 (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have broad agreement already, I think, that the AP article is of most use for the statements of the experts quoted--whatever point of view they happen to express. The view of the reporters is of much less significance; they're just journalists. --TS 12:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I would like to hear more from Cla68 if he has time. Considering his experience and contributions, his input is valuable. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a rather chummy leaked email from Seth Borenstein, the lead author of the AP piece (Source)

On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:

Kevin, Gavin, Mike,

It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?

Seth Seth Borenstein Associated Press Science Writer

-- so his conclusions aren't too surprising. And his failure to disclose his apparent COI troubling. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand the point you're making. That Borenstein asked scientists for their opinion reveals a COI?  I thought that was called "reporting".  Guettarda (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously this chap Borenstein is one of those troublesome pro-science chappies. The article needs to provide equal time to those who are anti-science. Er, no.  Sorry I couldn't resist.  --TS 15:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AP's STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES states "AP employees must avoid behavior or activities – political, social or financial – that create a conflict of interest or compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action." At best, Borenstein has (imo) an appearance of COI, and should have disclosed his prior involvement -- as did (to his credit) Andrew Revkin at NY Times, who also made an appearance in the leaked emails. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anthony Watts (blogger) has a long discussion of this issue here, with more examples of Borenstein's chumminess with the "Hockey Team".

We can't use Watts as a source (even supposing we wanted to), and claiming that a science journalist who does his job by contacting scientists and asking them for comments has any kind of conflict of interest is silly. --TS 20:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're accusing Borstein of unethical behaviour, you need a better source than that - not just for inclusion in the article, but for inclusion on this page. BLP still applies.  Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly this is all part and parcel of the right-wing conspiracy theorising that's taking place concerning science issues in general, not just climate change. The underlying attitude appears to be that scientists are "the enemy" and any attempt to do fact-checking, maintain cordial relations etc is wrong. One suspects that the same people wouldn't have any complaints with the journalists if the e-mails showed that, say, they'd approached energy company lobbyists. It's all about defining one particular group as "the class enemy" and delegitimising any non-hostile contact with them. It's a remarkably Leninist point of view. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, you guys, this AP article is a really good source. It shows the positives and negatives involved with both sides' positions. That said, you all cannot cherry-pick how the source is used. You cannot say, "We can use the scientists' quotes but not the reporter's opinions." Wrong answer. You cannot say, "The AP reporters were colluding with the climate change scientists, I have proof." You'll never get anywhere here with that nonsense. If you don't like what the article says, tough, it's a reliable source and that's what we use around here. The most you can do if you don't like it is say something like, "A December 11 investigation by the Associated Press found that, in the reporter's opinion, yadda yadda yadda." You then allow the readers to make up their up their own minds about the truthfulness, veracity, or credibility of the AP's reporting. Don't try to do it for them. Now, can we please list the points brought up by the AP reporters that should be included or better explained in the article? Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's what I see:
 * The scientists, especially Phil Jones, conspired to withold data and information about their research from others who they perceived as threats. It is unclear if any data was destroyed.
 * The scientists expressed some doubts about the quality and results of some of their measurements and observations
 * The scientists complained about the efforts of skeptics to disrupt or discredit their work and often described them using pejoratives
 * The scientists discussed retaliating against journals which published papers by climate change skeptics
 * The scientists expressed concerns about shaping their message for public consumption
 * Climate change skeptics have quoted the emails out of context or in misleading ways
 * None of the emails rejects or discredits the IPCC's statement on climate change
 * None of the emails state that any data or conclusions were faked
 * Moderate climate change advocates who have examined the emails agree that the emailers were displaying the behavioral strengths and weaknesses normal for human beings who believed they were engaged in private communication


 * Does this about cover it? Cla68 (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your first point, on conspiracy, is one of the claims of some critics. It cannot be taken as fact and indeed has not been treated as fact by many commentators.


 * Your third point is highly contentious. The issue with Climate Research was that its peer review process had been compromised and it published a poorly written paper.  The CRU emails discussing this have been misread as proposing retaliation, by some commentators who discount the fact that the publisher later repudiated the paper on the grounds that it made claims unsupported by the data.


 * The rest of your points are broadly correct, although I think at this stage we should emphasize that the university has commissioned an independent inquiry--which we should be careful not to pre-empt by overplaying exculpatory assessments, from any source (just as we should also avoid overemphasizing the critical opinions). --TS 10:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what I'm doing here, Tony. I'm not summarizing the entire issue, I'm summarizing only the AP article.  Are you stating that the AP article, just that article, is saying something different than what I'm saying? Cla68 (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On my point 1, I think you're basing statement 1 on "One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming." Your interpretation is more definitive and far less cautious than AP's (with which I agree).


 * On my second point I think the writer has completely misread Mann's comment. Other sources correctly interpret Mann's statement. Of course a reputable scientist would not want to submit papers to a journal whose peer review process is compromised.  As I've remarked earlier in this thread, the opinions of the journalists don't matter because they're just journalists.  The opinions of the scientists they cite, and the context they add, is what makes this article valuable. --TS 13:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The opinions of the journalists don't matter because they're just journalists"? Maybe so, or maybe not, but we let our readers decide, we don't decide for them.  Deciding which opinions from a newspaper article that we can use and which ones we can't is way too subjective and is a slippery slope. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't have room in one WP article to quote and discuss every piece of the millions of megabytes of coverage this incident has received in the media worldwide. We have to be selective. We do that by applying our knowledge of the underlying issues (which, believe it or not, collectively between all the WP editors available, is probably greater than that of any single news reporter) and judging which are the best representatives of the most significant views expressed. This is an essential part of the processes of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTABLE. It is not a slippery slope, it is the essential collective judgement that allows us to produce an encyclopedia, as opposed to a news aggregator. --Nigelj (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dammit, why is the notion that Wikipedia's job is merely to provide a media aggregation service so prevalent? We're editors'.  We use our collective judgement to decide what is more worthy of reporting.  A journalist's opinion is worth nothing.  An expert's opinion on his expertise is precisely what we need to build an encyclopedia. --TS 23:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientist Section
There is general agreement that the "Scientist" section is in need of trimming.

Does anyone else think this section could stand to be trimmed down quite a bit? Aside from any concerns about weight, it is essentially unreadable right now--a huge list of individual comments. Seems to me that it could be profitably trimmed such that repetitious comments were removed, and the section itself just listed what scientists are saying instead of what each scientist says. Obviously the refs should be retained in a note section or something to that effect.  Drolz 09  12:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see this proposal as relating to the work already under discussion at . The effect on the scientific community has been quite marked--one might say that a certain "circling of wagons" is evident.  This should be covered in its appropriate place, and relevant quotes from prominent scientists should be used there. --TS 13:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Some of these scientists are speaking on their own behalf, others are giving the view of an institution. So the section needs to be divided on that basis. The director of the IPCC is definitely in a different category from an individual climatologist, no matter how prominent. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As there is already a section for scientific institutions, perhaps the comment of the director of the IPCC should be moved there. --TS 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. Two others need to go there, I think: Wigley, speaking on behalf of the NCAR unless it says "personal capacity", and the UK Met Office and its petition. I would also suggest that the comments by those directly involved should not really be in this section - that includes Jones, Mann, Trenberth and RealClimate, as well as UEA. That leaves the following: Somerville, Reay, Pierrehumbert, Karoly, Pitman, Michaels, Hansen, Curry and von Storch. Nine, so it is too many. I think we need to choose on the basis of a) who is notable, b) who is taking up a notable position, i.e. echoed in the reliable media, perhaps also c) a point that would not otherwise be present. Does that make sense? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If we remove some, what do we do about von Storch? His is very much a minority position among scientists.  Perhaps we would end up pruning his viewpoint according to WP:UNDUE --TS 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Prune is fine. But he is an important figure so he will probably meet any criteria we set. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope so. He is probably the most credible critic of CRU at present. --TS 15:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it seems reasonable to me that we would break it down into who is saying what, so if six scientists say "this is a war against science," or whatever, we could quote one of them and add that these others "make similar statements." That way you get an idea of the relevant ratios, but in a more concise fashion.  Drolz 09  20:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That could work, though as nearly all individual scientists are saying pretty much the same thing it could easily get out of hand.  We can't possibly list all the names. --TS 20:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it should be possible to make it clear that a great many more are saying whatever it is most are saying, than are criticizing CRU, while still including von Storch. Consensus seems to be that he's definitely a notable character, and I think we can easily balance that with the need for RS weight.  Drolz 09  21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"When Science Becomes a Casualty of Politics"
Discussion of the American political landscape--and observations based on American perceptions--is somewhat orthogonal to this event, and not in keeping with Wikipedia's mission of presenting a neutral, global perspective.

Interesting analysis at Reason (magazine) by Cathy Young :

"Virtually every commentator's position on the issue—is this a scandal that exposes global warming as a scientific sham, or a faux scandal stoked by climate-change denial propaganda?—can be predicted by his or her politics. You can look at the byline or the publication, and predict with near-100 percent accuracy what the article will say. It is no surprise that The Wall Street Journal deplores the arrogant and dogmatic mindset of the "warmists," or that The New Republic assails the brazenness of the "deniers." "

--which is certainly true here as well. A cautionary tale. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with what you say, if a lot of it was prefixed with 'US' - US politics, US commentator's, etc. We need to maintain a global outlook and I think what you (and this magazine) say has very little relevance to African, Asian, European, in fact most other countries on earth's, politics. --Nigelj (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Nigelj says. It is also worth noting that political and media commentary is of secondary importance compared to what has actually happened and how it may or may not influence the debate. I'd also challenge the "warmists" label as nonsense, quite frankly. There are those that understand or believe the scientific evidence, and there are those that don't understand or have a vested interest in pretending that the evidence is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Um. I wonder which of Ms. Young's groups you would fall under?  Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for those who think global warming is a partisan issue: Conservative Party (UK): Where We Stand - Environment
 * With some very notable exceptions, acceptance of the science of global warming is universal among mainstream political parties in almost every country. --TS 14:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to see a similar analysis from another area & viewpoint.


 * As for the "notable exceptions", they include almost all of the Newly Industrializing Countries: China, India, Indonesia, etc etc. Would also be interesting to see their perspective. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You imply that the Chinese government is skeptical of the science of global warming. Where do you get your information from?  The current Five Year Plan incorporates a 20% cut in energy intensity by 2010, and China and is actively negotiating at Copenhagen.


 * You imply that the government of India is skeptical of the science of global warming. Where do you get your information from?  At Copenhagen, Jairam Ramesh has pointed out that India is committed to act in a manner that would ensure that global temperatures meet the two degrees centigrade threshold by 2050.


 * You imply that the government of Indonesia is skeptical of the science of global warming. Where do you get your information from? The President of Indonesia--the same country which hosted the Bali Summit a couple of years ago--recently told the delegates at Copenhagen “Remember: We can negotiate about the climate, but we cannot negotiate with the climate. We cannot ask the climate for more time.”


 * But this is probably getting a little off topic. If as an encyclopedia we are misrepresenting the opinions of these recently developed countries on the science of climate change, that should be remedied in the appropriate place. --TS 15:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tony: actions speak louder than words. Please mention any concrete steps any NICs have taken to combat AGW. Also see the magnificent accomplishments of the Kyoto Protocal. But, I agree, we're getting pretty far OT here. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting more and more off topic. Take this elsewhere.  Guettarda (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty weak article. It assumes a position up front, and then remains unconvinced by the facts, even the facts in its own articles.  Even in the US, this dichotomy doesn't exist.  A variety of conservatives - Andrew Sullivan, Charles Johnson (of LGF) - are clearly on the "other" side.  And Monbiot - who she even quotes in the article - has sharply criticised his own "side".  I think the key line in the essay is "I don't have enough knowledge of science or familiarity with the scientific method to be able to come to a truly informed conclusion".  Got that one right.  I've already provided a link to a far better example of this "story" - one from the peer-reviewed literature that actually takes a thoughtful look at the problem.  Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood her point. She's not saying that all conservatives are anti-AGW and all liberals are pro-AGW. What she's saying is that, if people were rational and objective, you would not have any expectation that their opinions on the two following questions would have any correlation:
 * Do you think the information uncovered by the hackers disclose a serious breach of proper scientific process by CRU?
 * Do you think there is significant scientific evidence that human forcings are causing climactic change?
 * And yet people correlate very highly (negatively) in their opinions on these two questions. Hence, one can conclude that very few people are approaching the incident rationally, and are instead just advocating for their "team" in the AGW dispute. I think that's a point worth considering as we strive for NPOV. MarkNau (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * s/people/some American publications/
 * It really is terribly misleading to cast this as a left/right divide. --TS 10:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I understand the point quite well. It's a silly false dichotomy that's not supported by the sources she quotes, let alone by the rest of the world.  One could write the same sort of an article about creationism vs. evolution.  The American right has a long history of doubting science.  But that doesn't mean science is a left-right issue.  Guettarda (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Move references down to the reference section – Jones e-mail of 8 Jul 2004
In the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident section replace

with

and the following added under the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident section

Nsaa (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Or, alternately, get rid of that horrible referencing system and switch to something more normal. Guettarda (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are unfamiliar with wp:LDR? It's a far better referencing scheme than most articles use. Only a few months old, so not everyone is familiar with it, but it cleans up articles nicely. It's really quite an improvement.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's no opposition, it's just wonder at why this is something important enough that it should clutter this already cluttered page. Which clutter, I realise, I am now adding to.  Guettarda (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as this page is fully protected, this is the way of adding material, fixing material etc. If you have problem with that please request a unprotecting of this page unprotect the page. Nsaa (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference 'Clutter' is removed from the text and moved down where it belong (in the reference section), so it's really improve the readability of the text in edit mode. Nsaa (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are there two sections now? Puzzled.  Guettarda (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Two different sections ... Nsaa (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit
Consensus not achieved. Withdrawn by proposer. Please do re-open if you have a concrete proposal related to this.

To extend the first paragraph of the Elected representatives and governments section by one sentence so that, in total, it reads as follows:

The proposed edit is the second sentence in the box above, starting at "However". Brumski (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So basically you're suggesting we add: However, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer conceded that that the emails had damaged the image of global warming research "as a lot of people are sceptical about this issue in any case" but that the science was still solid and thorough, supported by a rigorous review process of some 2,500 scientists.[2]? Could you explain what do you see as the benefit of this addition?  Guettarda (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It does seem to balance the paragraph, from the point of view of the UN, especially since the quote is attributed to the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. If it were the ambassador to the UN from Bulgaria, however, I wouldn't think it would be so topical. jheiv (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, that's correct - sorry, I should have made it clearer that my proposed addition was the second sentence of that paragraph. Do you have any objections to this addition and if so, can you explain what they are? Thanks. Brumski (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not an objection, I was just curious about your rationale. What do you see as the benefit of the addition.  Just looking for a bit more context to help me make up my mind.  Guettarda (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the revision, although an even better idea is to remove the Secretary-General's quote, since another UN official, the head of the IPCC, is already quoted in the article.  The article gives undue weight to UN officials' opinions. Flegelpuss (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This proposed change seems uncontroversial, and does add more contextual information. --TS 09:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The change illustrated in the block comment above has consensus. The change involves the addition of the second sentence, starting "However..." --TS 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm opposed pending an explanation of why this is needed. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify a little: yes, this provides "balance" to Ban's statement. But is it really appropriate for us to add "balance"? Or is it "spin"? It just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that's urgent enough to be worth adding to a protected article. Guettarda (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Let's continue the dialog and take it from there. --TS 12:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 23:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, thank you for vocalizing your objection. There seem to be four components to it - I can respond to one of them (a) but I need more information about the other three to be able to answer them. a) two reasons that it's appropriate to add the proposed text to the article are given above by jheiv and TS. b) You agree it provides balance to Ban's statement but are concerned whether it is appropriate to add balance or not. Can you clarify why it is not appropriate to add balance c) I don't understand the concern about spin. Are you concerned that I am adding spin, that Yvo de Boer is adding spin, that pro or anti climate change people are adding spin or that the source is adding spin? Additionally (and probably more importantly), what exactly do you mean by spin? d) Can you clarify why time and urgency are relevant? Thanks. Brumski (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guettarda seems to have chosen not to respond further, having edited this page several times in the past couple of hours. I think there is adequate consensus for this, while noting Guettarda's objection, and propose we go for an editprotected.  --TS 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am currently opposed to this addition as currently worded. My concern stems from using "conceded that the emails had damaged the image of global warming research," which is a conclusion drawn from the person who wrote the UKPA piece. There is a world of difference between "image damaged" (which remains to be seen) and "a lot of people are skeptical" (which has always been the case). I think the "balancing" view of Yvo de Boer might be useful, but the opinion of the UKPA staff writer is not. I suggest a rewrite. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, would "Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer said that the emails look very bad because a lot of people are sceptical about the issue in any case "And then when they have the feeling ... that scientists are manipulating information in a certain direction then of course it causes concern in a number of people to say 'you see I told you so, this is not a real issue', but that the science was still solid and thorough, supported by a rigorous review process of some 2,500 scientists." be any better? If not, could you have a read of the reference provided and rewrite the sentence in a way that makes it acceptable to you? We can then look at a revised version and see if it helps with regard to any of Guettarda's concerns. Brumski (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, in case you revisit this, there is also a relevant edit by Cla68 below that gives a way of dealing with this objection with respect to opinion. If you believe the views in the news article are opinion (it's worth noting that it's not an opinion piece though, and we should probably treat it the same way we would any other Press Association article; which we don't treat as opinion pieces, and that there are also other articles reporting at the same event; which was a news conference ) then a way of dealing with that would be to use some qualifying text. E.g, "An article by the Press Association stated that, in the reporter's opinion, Yvo de Boer said that yadda yadda yadda...". Brumski (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay - got lost among all the other stuff here, and I didn't notice the replies. To clarify my concern - we included Ban's statement because, as UN Secretary General, his voice is important.  So while adding de Boer's statement does 'provide balance', the question is whether we need to balance Ban's statement.  After all, if we use de Boer to 'balance' Ban, why stop there?  Why not add statements from other MPs in the UK to 'balance' Brown, or other members of the Obama administration to 'balance' Gibbs.  Hence my question about 'rationale'.
 * As for the 'spin' question - what do we achieve by 'balancing' Ban's statement? Are we moving closer to Ban's intent?  Or are we picking statements that move the paragraph closer to what we think is important?  Now, frankly, that isn't necessarily a bad thing - in the end, we need to produce something that mirrors what we believe to be a fair representation of reliable sources, a fair representation of the tenor of, for example, the views of the UN.  But that isn't the way the section is structured.  So we need to clearly figure out why we're doing this.  And if we do, then we re-write the entire section.  IMO, anyway.  Guettarda (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been mulling this one over. Currently I'm on the fence. --TS 15:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll withdraw this proposed edit; I'm dealing with a problem of significant magnitude at the moment such that I can't devote any meaningful or lengthy brainpower to Wikipedia. I think my response was going to be something along the lines of this: there is no spin (it's a misleading word, it has many negative connotations and I don't involve myself with it on Wikipedia as I believe it's contrary to its principles) and there is no attempt to move Ban Ki-moon's statement towards any preconceived notion or even any need to balance his statement. Yvo De Boer's view is significant and important with respect to the article subject because he heads the UN secretariat that deals with climate change: he is what is sometimes referred to as the "climate chief". His view needs to be added to the article by virtue of the fact that it's his view rather than where his view is in relation to Ban Ki-moon's, in a slightly similar manner to the way that MP Ed Miliband's view as cabinet minister in charge of environment/climate change is important and included in this section even though Prime Minister Gordon Brown's is already included. I.e. I don't see this as an edit to do with balancing out Ban Ki-moon but instead as a significant view of it's own (significant as in WP:NPOV) and important (as in due WP:WEIGHT). I mention this not in any attempt to persuade anyone that this particular edit needs to be added but in the hopes you'll honestly and rationally consider it while improving/adding to/rewriting the article. Brumski (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

←Right now, I'm not seeing any value in the Yvo de Boer stuff at all. I think that rather than trying to tease something useful out of it, we might as well just nix it completely. If it were entirely up to me, I'd cut out most of the "reactions" section. Too much yapping from folks who don't know what they're talking about. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate, global warming, and the tree rings divergence problem
Here's a nice, in-depth article from the Christian Science Monitor on the divergence problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good article. Lots of explanation, with very little in the way of opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Christian Science Monitor is consistently superb on science issues, in my experience. A brief scan of this article suggests that it lives up to my high expectations. --TS 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks very straightforward and clear, with no nonsense that I saw. --Nigelj (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting article, thanks. SPhilbrick  T  18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. We should use it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Did we all just agree on something? Somebody pinch me. :)  Seriously, I agree with Bill's suggestion.  Let's incorporate it into the article with a few sentences or so to explain divergence problem.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be an entire section on the divergence problem in this article. Let's completely blow away the nonsense with some real science. --TS 00:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to see a new article on the divergence issue, which then could be linked to this article, if appropriate. While my next phrase may sound snarky, I mean it quite seriously–let's not jumble an inherently political article with real science. -- SPhilbrick  T  13:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, but it's not really an either/or question. An article on the science would be very interesting (though not trivial to write, since it would require a proper survey of the literature).  But a paragraph or two on how the question applies to this issue should be on this end.  I could see a "see main" link from here to there for details of the science, and a "see also" link from there to here for a discussion of the politics.  Guettarda (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any idea as to how best we might fit this into either of the outlines below? Guettarda (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just mention the divergence problem and have a "main" or "seealso" to a relevant article--which could be an existing article on paleoclimatology or the new one SPhilbrick suggests. The CSM article is very helpful in this respect because it provides secondary references to relevant research as well as good outlines from experts in the field. --TS 15:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Later: we do have a very brief section on the divergence problem at Dendroclimatology. Due to its topicality and significance in the field, we could probably now expand that to a stub article. --TS 15:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming that to achieve NPOV, any discussion of the divergence issue will also include the possibility that if X tracks Y for one period of time but fails to do so for a later period of time then perhaps:
 * a) X may not be a good proxy for Y for even earlier periods, and the tracking was a coincidence; or
 * b) Y may have been mismeasured in the later period of time when X does not track Y.

The Christian Science Monitor article achieves this balance through its comments. --Rumping (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We would of course report the opinions of experts in the field on the appropriate handling of divergent data. Suitable opinions are given in the article. Original research will not be included in any article on Wikipedia. --TS 16:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you are not arguing that RealClimate is an NPOV reliable secondary source. I thought that as a representative of of some of those involved (and appearing about 40 times in the emails themselves) it was agreed that it was only reliable for attributed quotes for Michael Mann and his friends.  But NPOV requires such quotations to be balanced by attributed quotations from their critics.  --Rumping (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Any source that supports the theory of AGW can be safely considered to be reliable!  -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Christian Science Monitor article quotes a couple of authorities on the divergence problem, including Rosanne D'Arrigo. None of the writers of RealClimate are, to my knowledge, experts in the highly rarified field of dendroclimatology, so you can relax.  Fortunately for all of us, NPOV does not require that the comments of experts should be balanced by the comments of the ignorant. --TS 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you meant to say that "none of the writers of RealClimate are, to my knowledge, experts in the highly rarified field of dendroclimatology". Are any of them experts in statistics? Or does that not matter? --Rumping (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I said what I meant. They will not be cited as experts in the divergence problem article. --TS 22:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I did try to be nice, but for some reason I am not sure you read what I said. Are you really saying that anybody listed as a member at RealClimate should not be cited in Wikipedia about dendroclimatology? --Rumping (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "NPOV does not require that the comments of experts should be balanced by the comments of the ignorant." Can we get that engraved on brass plates to hang above several articles, please. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that if one side of a dispute condemns everybody else as ignorant then you cannot get an NPOV article. --Rumping (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't misunderstand me. We can and do quote the opinions of qualified experts and not all of those are agreed on any given subject.  The problem with most of the scientific criticisms that people want to insert into this article is that they're levelled against experts by non-experts, on a subject in which the experts are almost universally agreed.  --TS 23:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate on CRU data
An interesting article here by Kevin Wood and Eric Steig of the U of Washington:. Worth mentioning in connection with the state of the science following the hack? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relevant and timely. It may be useful on othe articles, too. --TS 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Delingpole on CRU data

 * It's interesting to note the following about the data used Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming of course the data corresponds then … Nsaa (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * James Delingpole again. Of course we won't be turning Wikipedia into a blog recording his latest personal views. --TS 00:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But using the blog realclimate.org it's ok? (I've not proposed to use the above article in this article, just commenting on the probably bad foundation of the data used in the analysis from realclimate.org reported paper) Nsaa (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The authors of the RealClimate post I cited above are two professional climate scientists whose work has been published in scientific outlets. That falls squarely within the "expert source" exclusion clause of WP:SPS, i.e. "Self-published material 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." I also don't think you have any grounds to claim that the data is likely to be bad just because it comes from RealClimate. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This question keeps coming up. Can someone please add this to the FAQ? (I would do it myself but I don't have a lot of free time right now.)  Please reference the following discussion at the WP:RSN.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's already there in the form of question 3 of the FAQ. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What are Delingpole's qualifications again? English or PPE or something? --TS 11:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Content of the documents – Adding IDL (programming language)?
At this point the source code isn't a significant part of events. This could change in time.

Proposal 1
In the section Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident maybe we should further specify that the code released also contained IDL (programming language)?

Change from

to

and in the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident section

Nsaa (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold on a moment. I've removed the editprotected template because I'm not at all sure that this is a reliable source. It seems to be a highly opinionated op-ed-style piece. It looks like it's self-published in the style of examiner.com articles - the author doesn't even appear to be a professional journalist (see ). Free Software Magazine's "Write for us" page strongly indicates that its content consists of submissions from members of the public (see ). This does not look anything like a reliable outlet. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you oppose adding IDL? Are you serious? Nsaa (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose adding IDL on the basis of it being sourced to a self-published non-reliable source, yes. But if you can find a reliable source (by which I mean a mainstream publication) then we can certainly consider it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite the original code rather than a published source? This seems like it might even be a better source. While you are at it, why not include more than emails, like some actual code analysis since there was a lot of code included in the files. Example: http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.83.16 (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A slightly better source would make all the difference here. It's an uncontroversial statement. I think one of the problems we've had with all references to the source code and comments is that so few reliable sources have covered it that we don't have a decent factual description of it. This may be remedied in time, should the contents of the code prove to be significant, but so far we're seeing very little expert analysis. --TS 14:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2
This proposal meets both opponents on the above proposal on using Open Scienceand climategate: The IPCC/CRU needs to take a leaf out of CERN's Book. Lets use Does the Climategate code produce reliable output? for the "uncontroversial statement" about IDL language and this source is "slightly better source" and will the follow what suggest above. The source has already been used in some other articles, see Special:LinkSearch&target=*.coding-guidelines.com.

In the section Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident maybe we should further specify that the code released also contained IDL (programming language)?

Change from

to

and in the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident section

Nsaa (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's another poor-quality source: an anonymous blog. There's no way that qualifies as a reliable source. As I said, you really need to be looking at the mainstream media, not blogs. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is an uncontroversial adding. Do we at all need at source for it? Nsaa (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we'd need a better source than the ones we've seen so far. Just not a very strong one. --TS 21:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested article outline
I would like to suggest the following outline for the article, but it's up to you guys if you think there's any merit to it:


 * I. Intro
 * II. Background - brief description of Global Warming controversy and the composition and work of the East Anglia university research team
 * III. Hacking incident - details on how the emails were stolen and publicized and resulting police investigation
 * IV. Controversy
 * A. Allegations of scientists conspiring to withold data from skeptics or interested outsiders
 * a. Evidence of, including email quotes
 * b. Rebuttal- scientists felt that many of the information requests were attempts to delay or disrupt their work and data was already available elsewhere
 * B. Scientists express doubts on quality or accuracy of their measurements and observations
 * a. Evidence of, including email quotes
 * b. Rebuttal- emails taken out of context, normal give and take involved with research, tree-ring analysis explanation, etc
 * C. Scientists complain about and insult skeptics
 * a. Evidence of, including email quotes
 * b. Rebuttal- Scientists are humans with feelings and believed they were engaged in private communication
 * D. Scientists discuss retaliating against journals which published papers from skeptics
 * a. Evidence of, including email quotes
 * b. Rebuttal- scientists sincerely thought that peer review process of journal in question had been compromised
 * E. Scientists discuss shaping their message for public consumption
 * a. Evidence of, including email quotes
 * b. Rebuttal- Nothing wrong with carefully planning publicity efforts, etc.


 * V. Fallout
 * A. Use of emails by climate change opponents to discredit IPCC, Copenhagen conference, climate change research, etc.
 * B. Death threats against scientists involved and law enforcement investigation.
 * C. Observers note that none of the emails discredit the IPCC's statement or reveal that any data or conclusions were faked
 * D. Univolved scientists question the motives for not sharing research data per the norm in scientific research circles
 * E. University has initiated an independent inquiry

For what it's worth. Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks very well done, certainly seems like it would portray a more balanced article than the one we have now. jheiv (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per a comment about this on my talk page, I don't advocate naming the subsections, "Evidence" and "Rebuttal". Instead, I suggest having one untitled paragraph with evidence (with one or two, brief email quotes) followed by an untitled paragraph of rebuttal, under each allegation.  This should help avoid any WP:UNDUE problems.  I'm looking for another article which follows this pattern to use as an example, but haven't found one so far. Cla68 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to the structure of the outline itself, but keep in mind that WP:Weight requires that the weight given to particular topics be in proportion to their weight in reliable sources. So, given that most reliable sources give a large weight to the hacking incident itself, that should continue to be a large part of the article. Additionally, we have to make sure to keep the headings NPV, especially as there are BLP issues involved. LK (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of reliable sources are focusing on the e-mails, and not the alleged hack or whistle-blowing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is POV. It intimates a view that the e-mails released reflect on the validity of science.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, if you completely disagree with my outline, please suggest your own. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is very similar to what I would have come up with, I support. The emails do "reflect" on the validity of science, it's just not yet established exactly how.  Drolz 09  04:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as an improvement over the outline I posted a few days ago (and which, it appears, has recently slipped into the archives). It was based on a list of "facts" that Tony came up with, and has been modified to reflect SPhilbrick's suggestions:

I. Lead Summary of the major points of the article

II. Background
 * Why the CRU is significant here, mention of/links to the hockey stick issue, and the FOIA issue (if we can find reliable sources for all of that); context with Copenhagen. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

III. Timeline
 * Theft of the docs; posting to RC and all that. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

IV. Reaction to the release
 * Accusations and death threats. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

V. Analysis of the emails
 * What the critics say they mean, what the authors, etc., say they mean. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

VI. Reaction of the scientific community
 * Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

VII. Investigation into CRU and others
 * Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident

VIII. Investigation of the hacking and the death threats.
 * Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident.

Reasons I think the original proposal is better: Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think that "controversy" sections are very useful to begin with. It's just poor style for an encyclopaedia article.  Similarly, the "charge and rebuttal" form really isn't a very effective communication style.
 * A bigger problem here, and that is the fact that the "controversy" here is very much in the eye of the beholder. We obviously can't decide that one controversy is the "real" one and the other is manufactured.  So that creates real NPOV problems
 * The "Fallout" is a hodgepodge of different issues.
 * A: This is "the other" controversy, not fallout
 * B: I think some of this should be worked into the reaction - the death threats seem to fit in with the broader reaction to the incident, while the investigation fits in with the broader investigation into the hacking.
 * C: This isn't "fallout" - this is part of the analysis of the emails. Several good articles have been written about this, and many more will almost certainly be.
 * D: As phrased, this has serious POV problems. I think a balanced discussion of this belongs either in section V or VI of my outline
 * E: I would make this a stand-alone section, and as SPhilbrick pointed out, there is talk of investigation by groups other than the UEA, such as Penn.
 * I think Guettarda's suggested outline includes everything that was included in mine, just in a different order, so I think it's fine if the editors here decide they prefer it over mine. I made mine more rigidly structured as an attempt to diminish content disputes by strictly defnining what would go in each subsection and controlling the weight given to each. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with Guettarda's in that it puts the death threats in exactly the same section as the criticism. This would be like finding some eco-terrorist and putting his quotes right next to the scientists'. Given the persistent failure to achieve NPOV on this article, I think that a structural solution like Cla68's is called for--that is, establish very clearly where everything goes and make sure it does.  Drolz 09  06:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There should be a reference to the Russian claims of weather station data removed from analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.81.224 (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cla68 has made a very nice attempt at an outline. I had earlier commented positively on Guettarda's effort, and still prefer it, but Cla68 makes a good point that a more detailed outline (if it gains consensus), helps define weights to some extent, and may help alleviate battles over that issue. The way to get value form both is to carry Guettarda's outline one more level down - right now it is major sections containing anything relevant. The timing isn't perfect - I almost wish that protection were ending a few days later. However, if we can generally agree that Guettarda's high level is a good start, perhaps we could add a little more structure to the individual sections. I do want to make one minor point, picking up on Drolz's observation. The current outline mentions death threats in two different sections. I started to say that is overkill, but perhaps that's not a good phrase. Seriously, inclusion in section VIII should be sufficient. (We can separately return tot he debate whether it deserves mention in the lead, but not now).-- SPhilbrick  T  14:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The lede must continue to summarise the article, whatever its structure. If there are death threats in the article, that surely is notable enough for a brief mention in the lede. That's not including it twice, just the normal purpose of the lede. --Nigelj (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not take a shot at adding some detail? I don't think you need to treat the outline as a "signed comment" - just add your initials to your changes, or insert small comments.  Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thought - what do people think about a /rewrite subpage? Guettarda (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any merit in that. The main article is where we should perform edits.  be bold (but not reckless). --TS 14:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that it could provide space to edit an outline. But then I'm probably far too fond of outlines.  Guettarda (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it works for you, go west! Ignignot (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support -- SPhilbrick  T  17:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support and I've put Guettarda's outline here: /outline MarkNau (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think both outlines are substantively equivalent and editors working from either shouldn't have much problem interacting with one another. I like Cla68's decision to incorporate detail and note that he has also changed the presentation of some of the controversy in response to earlier criticism. --TS 14:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion was very productive and support the use of a subpage to flesh-out the final outline that you guys will plan on using for the article. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

General warning
Protection of this article is going to expire tomorrow. Before the scrum resumes, I recommend editors submit their editorial disagreements to mediation, and avoid using edit warring as a tactic for gaining dominance. Should the situation deteriorate when the article is unprotected, I will request arbitration. If anybody has been disrupting, stonewalling, or attempting to own this article or any related page, they may be sanctioned. Hopefully a word to the wise is sufficient. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconding that warning, and agree after a look through the history that getting this article under probation would be a very good idea. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 14:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Woo-hoo! Round up the meatpuppets, register your mother for a Wikipedia account and take bets on how long the article stays unprotected!  Or, to phrase things differently - avoid making changes without first discussing them.  Bear in mind that "consensus" means consensus for a change and that it's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRoopsIjustviolatedthe3rr.  Guettarda (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is arbitration suddenly the fix-all suggestion for everything? ArbCom is already seriously overburdened, and they aren't supposed to accept cases unless all other forms of dispute resolution have failed. Everyone just needs to relax just a bit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that comment. Dispute resolution hasn't even been attempted yet, much less failed. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So. C'mon then if you think you're 'ard enough! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Get a dispute resolution process started then.  The article was protected to give time to work out differences.  If the edit warring resumes, then we have to enforce a solution.  Dispute resolution is only working when people choose to use it.  If people choose to edit war, then we move along to sanctions. Jehochman Talk 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even aware that there was a current dispute. Did I miss something? Apart from the badge of shame slapped onto the article by one of the AGW skeptics, everything seems fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There are actually two distinct RFC processes running on this article: one on the "hacking" question and the other on whether death threats should be mentioned in the lead (the latter was the disagreement that led to the current period of protection). Also as regards interpersonal issues, at least one user has listened to, and agreed to, my suggestion that he take his conduct issues with other editors up in dispute resolution.

In addition, there is an ongoing move request.

To say that those involved in this discussion haven't resorted to the usual dispute resolution methods is incorrect. It might be better if we had more of this, but we're already going through a pretty substantial amount of confidence-building and flame-damping and we're doing our best to involve a broader range of editors in the discussion, through the processes mentioned above. Please give credit to those who are working hard here to resolve and eliminate destructive methods of prosecuting disputes. --TS 16:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony. While I also agree that some incidents have proceeded too quickly without fully exhausting other dispute processes, those example shouldn't color the fact that many aspects have followed appropriate dispute resolution procedures.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Can we make sure the article doesn't become perpetually protected? As long as normal measures are working, we can hold off on arbitration. Jehochman Talk 17:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We should all be on our best behavior. Here's my feeling on the main bones of contention:
 * Naming: this is ongoing and a proposal is in active discussion, with consensus to be reckoned by the Requested moves process. This has a wide range of participants, many of whom are not directly involved in editing the article.  This can continue until any disagreements about the naming are worked out.
 * Hacking: RFC is active, no resolution in sight. Very disappointing (lack of) participation by wider community.  We may need to go to mediation on this.
 * Death threats in lead RFC is active, no resolution in sight. Limited participation by wider community, nothing that is likely to achieve consensus.
 * I don't feel strongly enough about any of these that I want them to get in the way of our current plans for reorganization, as discussed by me, Guettarda and Cla68. I think the latter is the priority and we should put our effort into that. --TS 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Russians Weigh In
Report is about the Met Office, not the CRU - not relevant to this article.

This is interesting:

"The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century." 

How to incorporate? WVBluefield (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Does it belong here?  The article seems to be discussing the British Meteorological Office, not the CRU email hacking.  Guettarda (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that's an error in the report which has been addressed by Tim Lambert (in the blog post mentioned by Chris Owen below). --TS 16:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

An interesting point--which I don't know what we should make of--is that the text of the second and third paragraphs of the section "Russia affected by Climategate" on that page look awfully similar to the text of recent revisions of this very article. I think this unlikely to be a coincidence.

The actual story seems to be based on a press release issued by an unknown Moscow-based outfit that calls itself the "Institute of Economic Analysis". It would be more credible if the owners of the weather station data themselves corroborated this independent claim.

RIA Novosti attributes the report to Kommersant. --TS 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the IEA's website: http://www.iea.ru/

It is not to be confused with a Washington D.C.-based organization with the same name. --TS 15:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The original IEA piece is here: http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf

For non-Russian speakers, it can be translated using an online translator such as Google's language tools. An author's name and an editor's name is given, but there is no other attribution. They're just these guys, you know? --TS 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect the significance of this is (once again) being overstated. The Russian IEA is basically a conservative free-market think-tank, similar to the American Enterprise Institute. The editor is Andrey Illarionov (А.Н.Илларионов), a libertarian economist and former Russian government policy advisor who now works for the Cato Institute as a senior fellow; he has no discernable scientific expertise and a history of outspoken climate change denial (see Andrey Illarionov). I've not been able to find anything about the qualifications of the author, N.A. Pivovarova (Н.А.Пивоварова), but someone of the same name is listed as a co-author on scientific papers in Russian about oil and gas technology. It's not at all clear how significant the IEA actually is. The accuracy of the report's claims is already being questioned - see Tim Lambert's review on Deltoid . The report is undoubtedly going to get some coverage by climate-sceptic bloggers and media; however, I think we need to be cautious about assigning what could be undue weight to a non-expert viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's early. This is potentially quite important, but potentially much ado about not very much. However, I've yet to see the direct link between this claim and Climategate. Obviously, Climategate involves CRU, and so does this claim, but without a direct link, this incident, once verified, is relevant to an existing article such as Global warming controversy or some other article, or maybe a new one on CRU activities in general. But I don't see it belonging in this article without more evidence of a direct link.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another article about this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the link between the two is fairly obvious and stated in the article. No one would have looked into the CRU’s temperature reconstruction had these emails not become public. WVBluefield (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a notable nor reliable source. MarkNau (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems evident from the reporting that this actually has nothing to do with the CRU. The claims are being made against the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the Met Office; the Daily Express report that AQFK cites quotes a Hadley Centre spokesman rebutting the claims. It seems that anti-science activists are trying to advance a sort of grand unified conspiracy theory that "they're all faking it" by sticking the "Climategate" label on any fresh controversy, manufactured or otherwise, involving climate science. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the RS policy is being misinterpreted again. ChrisO, are you saying that because the group is a conservative think tank, their analysis is automatically void? They are obviously a reliable source for verifiability, in that what they say is necessarily what they say, so it seems like you are saying that their alignment nullifies their analysis, and I believe this is a claim that requires considerable support. I also question the selective tagging of sources as "expert." I don't see why one need be a climatologist to comment on the statistical methods of analysis employed by climatologists, and most of the notable skeptic sources do have verifiable backgrounds in statistics or similar disciplines. On this too, I believe a showing of cause is necessary if they are to be deemed unreliable, provided that there is enough support for a reasonable person to conclude that the source is qualified to offer an opinion.  Drolz 09  20:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) Most fundamentally, as I just said, the claims aren't even about the CRU - this entire discussion is off-topic; (2) no, of course it's not automatically void because of its politics; (3) there's actually no evidence that I'm aware of that the author has any relevant expertise, since there seems to be no information about her credentials; (4) knowledge of statistics doesn't qualify a person as either a reliable source or knowledgeable about climate science. Making numbers add up is a very different thing to knowing what the numbers mean. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This harkens back to a discussion that we had earlier and I'm afraid my point was lost. People aren't reliable sources, only published works are.  Of course, the author can be used to determined reliability to a certain extent, but the fact is that this article passed the editorial review process of the publication.  It is therefore reliable for the statement "The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis says that the Met Office ignored data from weather station that did not fit its theory of global warming and only used data that did fit its theory."  Of course, the matter of whether this is even relevant to the Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy is another topic entirely. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an oversimplication. Novosti has passed on the contents of a small newspaper, Kommersant, and (if you look at Novosti's page) disclaims responsibility for the contents.  So it's passed the editorial process of a small Russian newspaper.  And of course just because something has passed an editorial process doesn't mean we treat it as reliable, otherwise we'd be publishing all the gossip from the Sun and the Daily Mirror as "reliable sources", when they're far from that and frequently publish complete rubbish as fact. The notion that a newspaper is an intrinsically reliable source by virtue of having editors is one that doesn't have any support in Wikipedia policy. --TS 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you're honestly trying to say that the Daily Mail can't be trusted for the statement that the IoE said such a thing? You're free to bring up the issue at the WP:RSN, but I don't think that argument is going to fly.
 * Does anyone know if the IoE issued a press release or anything? We could add a primary source to the sentence if you want.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk page formatting suggestion
Please, please, please stop using PRE tags! I absolutely detest horizontal scrollbars. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While we're at it, can we please use Whitespace between posts? Just one blank line should suffice.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With an indentation (as in a reply), leaving whitespace should not be necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not when you're editing. Sorry, that's what I meant.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Media section POV
Consensus was obtained to remove the Media subsection of the "Reactions to the incident" section, without prejudice to the possible relocation of the content in a future revision. The edit was performed by an administrator.

Media section represents only one point of view. It's better to include other opinions too.Sasha best (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or remove the section, merging it with "Other". I can't see the point of it. The media provide space for views to be aired. They're not a source of views. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support removal of "Media" section. Completely pointless, magnet for all sorts of opinion crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we could safely delete the whole "Other Media" subjection from "Reactions". Similarly, I see no point in having a section for "Other" reactions (there is none at present).  The Reactions section aims to contain a spectrum of informed opinion.  Ultimately I'd expect us to phase the whole thing out and use the content as a basis to write a more encyclopedic article. --TS 16:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as I'm not at all fond of the structure of the article (I think we should address things topic-by-topic, not speaker-by-speaker) I see little value in having the section. The content might prove useful, but I don't see the section as especially valuable.  Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am dubious on this because it seems to me that media reactions are a legitimate part of "Climategate" as it stands now. I do think the reaction section in general could stand a lot of cleaning. Have you considered consolidating the "Scientists say" section into something that is semi-readable? "Scientists say that the science is still strong and they are being intimidated, etc." would seem to pretty much sum it up.  Drolz 09  17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most of the opinion spouted by "the media" on this matter can be safely excluded. As soon as a news organ switches from reporting the facts to characterizing the facts (which the British media has a penchant for in particular), the quality and reliability of the work drops precipitously. Also, I have to take gross exception to constructs like "Scientists say that the science is still strong..." for two reasons. It sounds weasely and vague, and "the science is still strong" clearly implies an opposing POV ("Despite incident, the science is still strong" - gives too much credence to the incident). And the science is strong, not "still" strong. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you think in an article about an incident, you shouldn't say "Despite the incident?" Even when scientists are responding to the incident?  Drolz 09  18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sucked into pedantic argument: still means without movement, or "nevertheless" - and you are disagreeing that the science is unmoved by this incident?  Ignignot (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * @Drolz09 - I'm saying that the sentence you suggested implies that the incident caused harm to "the science", which would be your opinion. I know what you mean to say, but the way you are saying it is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * @Ignignot - Absolutely I am disagreeing. The science is completely unharmed by the incident. If anything has changed, it is public opinion about the science or the scientists. The important thing here is that we don't use ambiguous wording that implies something that is either (a) not the case, or (b) unsupported by reliable sources. Drolz09's wording would inject personal opinion (although I am willing to accept that it may have been done unwittingly). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Drolz has acknowledged his POV above, so I'd guess he's in the camp that considers the science to have been tainted or overturned by the incident. That's undoubtedly a fringe view, at least among actual scientists. Fortunately we don't rely on bloggers and op-ed writers to determine the state of scientific knowledge. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about the state of scientific knowledge. And until you realize that the article will never be balanced.  Drolz 09  23:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't argue that it was, but it's worth noting while we're here that the view that the state of scientific knowledge has changed is very much a fringe one and shouldn't have much if any prominence in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a key point. This incident has not changed the science. Even if the work of the CRU was removed from the record entirely, there would still be overwhelming evidence supporting "AGW" from the plethora of other data and research sources. It would be fair to say that public opinion toward AGW and the scientists who study the global climate has been influenced by this incident (and plenty of reliable sources support this), but it is also fair to say that this influence is largely the result of climate skeptics and deniers misrepresenting or misinterpreting the documents in question (and plenty of reliable sources support this too). I am not in favor of seeing this article used as a platform for supporters of the AGW theory to "debunk" the rhetoric and "analysis" from skeptics, but I am equally not in favor of seeing this article used as a platform for skeptics and deniers with all manner of quotes from opinion pieces and other crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Scjessey. This is a key point and should be stated in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with the way you characterize WP:Fringe, ChrisO: Secondly, whether or not the science has changed is not relevant to this article. Imagine this: some totally spurious claim is made by a complete crackpot, and despite the objection of every real scientist, this person completely dispels public belief in global warming. Would you not mention the impact of this person? Sure, they science hasn't changed, but that's not a limiting factor on the scope of this article. And I'm not even saying that you shouldn't mention what scientists are saying about it: of course you should; it's an important part of the article. But equally important is the effect this controversy is having on the public perception of science, and what various groups (scientific and otherwise are saying about it). Scjessey says: "I am not in favor of seeing this article used as a platform for supporters of the AGW theory to "debunk" the rhetoric and "analysis" from skeptics, but I am equally not in favor of seeing this article used as a platform for skeptics and deniers with all manner of quotes from opinion pieces and other crap," and I completely agree with this. I don't want to see a laundry list of skeptics quoted in this article. What I want is a concise description of what exactly they are saying about the emails. What we have now is something like "skeptics say this email shows corruption." I want to see their arguments for why. Conversely, I want to see what scientists are saying, but we don't need to quote 20 of them saying the same thing.
 * "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it.'"
 * "By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy."

Scjessey: do you think that the article is balanced as it stands? Because from where I'm sitting it's nothing but a debunking article. I would like to get it at least to the point where we can see what exactly they are debunking.  Drolz 09  01:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long to respond (sleeping et al). I've just read through the article from top to bottom again. There are a couple of minor things I would change, but mostly it looks pretty much spot on in terms of content and balance. It seems like we have reached a point where everything that has happened thus far has been well-documented and fairly explored. We probably have to wait for the results of various investigations before we can take the article much further. The passage of time will also help us to see what the incident looks like from a historical perspective so that we can adjust things with a view to polishing the article for GA or FA status. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz writes: ''I don't want to see a laundry list of skeptics quoted in this article. What I want is a concise description of what exactly they are saying about the emails...'' That's precisely the problem. If a specific email is about climate science, why would we quote an opinion piece written by someone who doesn't know the science? Take a look at Coatrack, and understand that just because somebody has an opinion about an email, it doesn't mean we should quote them on the validity of climate science or the accuracy of the data. In fact, we can't unless they are experts in that field and their opinion is based on evidence that we can see for ourselves, like the conclusions of police reports or review boards. So, what "they are saying" is not relevant to this article unless it meets a specific set of criteria. The WP:NPOV policy lays out an approach to how to write when you are dealing with competing views. You need to first determine which are the significant views. Then you can focus on how to best represent them in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has a very long way to go before you can start talking about it as a coatrack for anti AGW views. And for the millionth time: this article is not about scientific consensus, etc. (or at least not only about it). The effects Climategate has on the perception of global warming are noteworthy whether or not they are legitimate. A big part of this article is the political fallout of the CRU incident. Why would we quote an opinion piece by someone who doesn't know the science? Well, for one, because some of these people have influence. Some of them have a lot more influence than any of the scientists we have quoted already. (It's also not clear to me that you need scientific expertise to evaluate at least some of these emails.) WPNPOV notes things like impartial tone, etc. (You need to stop linking these things without reading them, incidentally.) The main point is that you need to realize that this is not the Global Warming article. What scientists say is not the end of the story here; it's also a political and public debate.  Drolz 09  02:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Influence" on what? The politicization of science?  You need to identify the significant views and argue for their inclusion.  It's really very simple.  And no, we don't quote non-experts on expert matters, nor do we use opinion pieces when we have better sources at our disposal.  The evaluation of sources implies using the best of what we have.  That's precisely why we evaluate them.  Again, this is not very hard, so I don't understand the frustration.  Pick a significant view that you would like to add/change/delete and provide good sources for your modification.  That's it. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely immune to reason.  Drolz 09  02:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You were warned about personal attacks several times, here and on your user page. What I have explained to you above is how we write articles.  As the FAQ explains, if you need to discuss your interpretation of policy, this is not the place to do it.  We have noticeboards and policy talk pages for that purpose.  Here is where we talk about actively writing an article.  You are on the wrong page. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it premature to suggest that we now have broad consensus to remove the "Media" subsection of the "Responses to the incident" section? It contains a reference to a Nature editorial and a George Monbiot opinion column from The Guardian. I see no arguments in defence of either of those in the above, and their role in the article seems dubious in their current location. They do show the editorializing of two fairly well informed, but not expert, parties, but perhaps at this stage we should continue to narrow focus on the impact on the political and scientific communities, specifically through the responses of scientists, elected politicians, and government spokesmen. --TS 11:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, I think that media reaction is a part of "Climategate." The issue is notable both for its affect on scientists/science, and public perception thereof.  Drolz 09  20:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drolz09, I don't discount your comments (which you've aired above at length). But I'm asking if, taking into account your objections, as a group we have a sense that the inclusion of an unqualified media section is out of keeping with our mission of reporting the major opinions, not of those whose job is simply to report the facts, but of those whose opinions are supposed to matter. That includes scientists, elected representatives, the police, academia, governments and whatnot, but not, I should think, people who simply happen to own blogs or are paid to write their opinion in newspapers. --TS 20:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a question of how you define matter, isn't it? It seems to me that sources matter and are important at least in part because of the impact they have. Whether or not they are actually qualified to say whatever it is they are saying, their saying it can definitely change minds. And because "Climategate" is a scandal as much about public perception of science as science itself, it matters. Also, even though you don't think FoxNews or whatever is credible, it is the most watched news network (pretty sure); that alone makes it a "major opinion."  Drolz 09  21:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Climategate" is not a "scandal", Drolz09. That is just your opinion. You cannot use "because it's a scandal" as an excuse for advocating all sorts of fringe positions and suggestions. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That word isn't doing any work in my post. Gotchas are fun, but not very productive.  Drolz 09  23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? You said "...because "Climategate" is a scandal [...], it matters." Your opinion that the incident is a "scandal" was your justification. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just read it without "a scandal," if you can't deal with that word. It's ridiculous to get so hung up on these points.  Drolz 09  23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the subject of this discussion, I see Drolz09 as the only person objecting. Can we declare consensus for removal of the Media section? --TS 10:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes (since I suggested it). Two comments currently in the section. Nature's view could go in "Scientific organizations". Monbiot's in "Other expert commentary" - he's arguably an expert on environmental policy- or leave out - he's arguably not expert on anything. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think its fine as long as the comments are just relocated.jheiv (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a stretch to describe Nature's editorial team as a "scientific organization", but perhaps it could fit. I'd also feel a little uncomfortable describing Monbiot as an expert, because he has no relevant qualifications of which I am aware.  I think both are marginal and, since there seems to be general agreement that we have too many opinions in there already, I'd just as soon unship them.  --TS 11:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any of this section is worth keeping. In full agreement with Tony here. Like I said before, it's a potential magnet for all sorts of opinion-sourced garbage. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings either way. Would Jheiv like to come back on this? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus to remove the "Media" subsection of the "Reactions to the incident" section. There is no consensus as yet to place the contents elsewhere in the article, although this does not rule out their use in a later version of the article. Although the most significant objector, Drolz09, is currently blocked, he has spoken volubly on the subject and so I don't feel we would be taking advantage of the blocking if we went ahead and, while acknowledging his minority opinion, removed the section. This is not prejudicial to the material itself, but is founded in a feeling that there is rather too much opinion in the article and, until the investigations are completed, too little fact. --TS 13:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes, putting this on hold until Jheiv has a change to respond. --TS 18:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that -- I really wasn't in love with either of the quotes but the Monbiot quote was interesting in that, as someone who is pegged as "having an interest in misrepresenting [global warming]", his suggestion that the emails, if anything, affect only the scientists individually and the group, but not the science behind global warming as a concept. But if that isn't all that compelling to everyone else than I'm find with removing it completely.  Thanks.  jheiv (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I've restored the "editprotected" tag. --TS 11:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just adding my support here. As I've said from the start I think it would be good to reduce that sort of non-expert comments and try focusing more on facts. —Apis (talk ) 21:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

✅ diff. CIreland (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Keep or remove Weart statement in article
"a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." Is this quote historically accurate in light of previous ideological attacks on science? Previous thread can be found here. -- User:Chelydramat This cursed Ograbme! 03:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you support or oppose removal of this quote?

—Apis (talk ) 11:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weart is an expert on the subject. Calling it "entirely new" is, of course, an opinion. but it's an expert opinion.  "No it's not", because of Lysenkoism is also an opinion.  And while you may well be an expert on the history of science, here you're just a Wikipedia editor.  Unless there's something else, I'd have to oppose the removal.  Guettarda (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Guettarda.  Expert seems qualified.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral-it's just one of many in a virtual parade of quotes, and this one is simply filling a slot. They form a set or collection, but are a poor substitute for sourced summations covering the universe of reactions to this story. Quotes don't have to be historically accurate in their content.  We merely expect they be notable irl.  Professor marginalia (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this quote fits this article the way it is currently written, but it probably does fit within the Global warming controversy article. Cla68 (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Guettarda. --ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guettarda. If dozens of experts in the history of science had been consulted and most of them said "this is pretty much routine in science" then Weart's opinion would be marginal.  As it is, just one qualified expert has been consulted, to our knowledge, and this is what he has to say. I think the quotation should remain. --TS 10:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also oppose removal. We don't present it as a fact but rather as a relevant expert opinion.
 * Oppose This quote explains why the story has become notable. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. I think it is a significant and important characterization that speaks to the notability of the incident, and the scope and drama that has surrounded it. For those people pushing for "controversy" in the article title, this goes a long way toward justification. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Weart is definitely notable and is uniquely able to put this controversy in an historic context.--CurtisSwain (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Weart is who, again? I never heard of the man before this very moment, his WP entry is a stub, and he published a book on AGW. His quote seems self-serving. And - just for the record - I seem to recall that the Holy Roman Catholic Church has (from time to time) cast doubt on a scientific community or two. I would say that for an established authority to oppose new ideas is pretty much the norm. Nightmote (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. --GoRight (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion
Anybody wondering aloud who Weart is might do well to read the article Spencer R. Weart. Properly. --TS 16:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a cute little stub. Someday, with love and tender care, and research, it will grow into a *beautiful* fully grown article. But not today. Nightmote (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Timeline discussion
Somewhere above, someone suggested it would be nice to have a timeline. I agree. My intention is to mock one up, and then ask for reactions. However, there are a few questions that deserve debate so I'll list some of them:
 * 1) Does a timeline add value? (answer may depend on the answers to other questions)
 * 2) Should it be a one dimensional timeline, e.g. Timeline of United States history (1930–1949), a two-dimensional timeline, e.g. Timeline of Star Trek or a two-dimensional timeline collased to a  single dimension World_War_I_timeline. My strong preference is a two dimensional timeline
 * 3) If two-dimensional, what should the entries be for the second dimension? (My first cut is to have three columns, one for the hack itself and investigations, a second for reactions, and a third for other related events such as IPCC release or Copenhagen meeting dates.)
 * 4) Should it start with the date of the hack or prior? (I see value in locating the dates of some of the major emails along with the related dates such as IPCC report release)
 * 5) Should it be a section in this article or a standalone article (One possibility it to start as a section here, and if it takes on a life of its own, cleave it to a new article. Alternatively, we might decide to make it a separate article from the start.) --  SPhilbrick  T  15:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more along the lines of prose, rather than list format. If it's spun off on its own, of course, then a list format might be better, although lists still need fairly substantial prose leads.  Guettarda (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to "commented Fortran source code"
(The article is unprotected, but I suggest that anything other than minor changes should be discussed on the talk page before making, to avoid the need to reinvoke protection.) Upthread, someone proposed correcting the reference to source code from Fortran to IDL. The proposal was rejected, because the sources were weak. However, the one reference attached to that sentence makes no reference to "Fortran" so we have no reference supporting what is very possibly wrong. I suggest removing "Fortran", so it simply reads "commented source code", until someone manages to find a reliable source supporting the actual language. Any objections?-- SPhilbrick  T  17:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've make the change myself, since this seems like a no-brainer to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. We're citing this source, right?  I don't even see source code being mentioned.  Am I missing something?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just look at the released documents. Most of the source is Fortran 90, some is Fortran 77, and there is a directory of IDL which looks a lot like Basic. Q Science (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't, read the FAQ. Ignignot (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Russians again
I don't see why that was archived. There didn't seem to be a consensus. And the reason given "Report is about the Met Office, not the CRU - not relevant to this article" is odd. The report is about a Russian analysis of the HadCRUT database, released by the UK Met Office in response to the emails becoming public. "Had" is the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, but "CRU" is the Climatic Research Unit, and "T" is temperature.

Actually, I personally don't think this needs to be mentioned, at least until someone finds a leaked email suggesting CRU or somebody else may have distorted temperatures (rather than tree-rings) in Russia, at which point it would become relevant again. For those that care and read Russian, the primary source is and the key chart is figure 8 near the end where the authors compare a blue line based on their average of HadCRUT gridcells and stations (90 and 121) with a red line covering more cells and stations (152 and 476), with figure 9 showing the difference. RealClimate regard this as a 19th century issue, though I would have thought the two lines converged around 1960.--Rumping (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't understand why it was closed so quickly either. Anyway, it looks like you're found a primary source.  Good work!  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * this link is why I was concerned about jumping to conclusions about the Russians. Looks like less than meets the eye, and it is, at best, tangential to this article.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just a coincidence, but when a Reliable Source says something that might be injurious to the CRU or the Met, it seems we get all sorts of references to blogs and, jeez, he's a libertarian or skeptic or conservative and therefore the Reliable Source is biased and, oh no, we can't use it. To my mind, we need to use Reliable Sources whether or not their viewpoints fit with our preconceived notions.  Can we decide not to use the New York Times or Washinton Post because they're liberal (in the US sense of the term)??
 * There's a whole section called Similar incidents which features the claim that someone attempted to hack Weaver's computer(s). That really really has no bearing on the CRU hack, it has very little in the way of Reliable Sources and is based largely on Weaver's say-so, and yet somehow it made it into this article.
 * This Russian claim is roughly as tangential as Weaver's claim. Like Weaver's claim, it is published in Reliable Sources who link it back to the Climategate controversy.  Either they both should be in or both out.  Madman (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, at this point, I don't think it belongs in the article because of the issue that Sphilbrick brings up, not to mention WP:UNDUE. However, the Daily Express meets WP:RS. BTW, I found two more sources which appear - at first glance - to be WP:RS, but I'm not too familiar with them and haven't done any exhaustive research on them, so I'm not sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Investors' Business Daily source is well written and seems reliable to me, if only because it correctly describes the originating organization and cites a response from the Hadley Centre. I wouldn't object if this issue were covered now because the issue has been addressed (read: taken seriously) by the British Met. Office.  We would of course make clear the distinction between the Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit. --TS 13:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After searching for corroboration of my interpretation of the IBD article I feel less sure. They don't make it clear whether they contacted the Met. Office for comment on the IEA allegations, and the words of the reporter could alternatively be interpreted as interpolating statements by the Met. Office about their data release with later material taken from the IEA report.  This is not at the stage where we can resolve the ambiguities and I'd rather wait until we can do so. --TS 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)