Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 2

Awkward construction in lede
The second paragraph needs work. I accept that there is a good faith effort at balance, but let's look at the paragraph (I added sentence numbers):


 * 1) Global-warming sceptics have asserted that the private correspondence shows an effort by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.
 * 2) Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research disputes these assertions, stating that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in e-mails stolen by hackers in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December.

The first sentence is an assertion about the contents, the second sentence is an assertion about the motivation. Both are relevant, but the paragraph is constructed as if they are opposing views. It may well be that Trenbeth disagrees with the assessment of the sceptics, but that's an after thought (in this cite). If we want a construction along the lines of "sceptics assess the contents this way, while others asses it that way" then we should pick a different cite. The Trenberth observation is important and deserves mention, but it in no way serves as a rebuttal to the first sentence.

My suggestion is to might a relevant quote that is a clear rebuttal to the first sentence, and insert it as a second sentence, then leave the Trenberth sentence, except remove the claim that it is acting as a dispute to the first sentence. -- SPhilbrick  T  13:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A possible option for a better second sentence could come from this. Specifically, this paragraph could be used to craft a better rebuttal:
 * The climatologist at the centre of the leaked emails row said today that he "absolutely" stands by his research and that any suggestion that the emails provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate or hide data that do not support the theory of man-made climate change was "complete rubbish".
 * -- SPhilbrick  T  13:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My intention, when I first added a second para to the lede was to present a typical or notable opinion from each of the main players, along with a mention of the police. Many people have tried to add a spin to it since then, and I agree it, and what has now become a third para, seem to have lost their way.
 * I think a quote from a typical sceptic, one from the university, and that one that says it may be related in timing to Copenhagen, as well as the fact of police investigating, is enough. It should be a simple survey of the main players' opinions. --Nigelj (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to it in its innocent infancy: --Nigelj (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If we don't want to make the paragraph any longer, an easy fix would be just to excise "disputes these assertions", as the rest of the sentence does not support those three words. I'm fine with a statement from sceptics about contents, followed by a sentence about motivation, my problem is when the motivation sentence is constructed as if it were a rebuttal. It is not. Do you disagree?-- SPhilbrick  T  14:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. You could fix the link under 'Climate change sceptics' back to 'Climate change skepticism' while you're in there, so as to call a spade a spade. --Nigelj (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the change, didn't see the link issue, but will now look. (have now looked, not following the point, sorry)-- SPhilbrick  T  14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:LDR Citation style
Would anyone object if I converted references to WP:LDR style? I note that one reference (Hickman) is already in that style. It makes it far easier to read the text when editing. However, some people aren't familiar with the style, so it isn't polite to just doing it without consensus.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, you mean putting all the references in one list at a single point in the article? I think that would be an improvement.

As long as they are still in line, I have no issue. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they would all be together, in the Reference section with only in the main text. If someone wants to see a big example, I converted Reelin. For a smaller example, see Women's Basketball Coaches Association. My work day officially ends about 3pm EST today, I'll wait until then, just to give some people some time in case there are objections.--  SPhilbrick  T  15:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and try this now. It should take less than an hour, but if someone tries to add a new reference in the next hour, there may be a minor conflict.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In progress, I've generated one error, I'll finish the cleanup and find it-- SPhilbrick  T  20:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All done, a couple tense moments as I screwed something up while doing it, but I think I cleaned everything up. If anyone sees any errors in refs, particularly the Telegraph and Guardian citations, let me know and I'll fix it.-- SPhilbrick  T  21:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

reassess
Can someone take a look at re-assessing this article? It looks pretty good as far as references go, that generally signals to me that the article might be ready for a C class assessment. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I expect the article to change quite a bit in coming weeks as more magazine coverage comes out and perhaps other developments. It takes a while for some journalists to digest all this, and the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S. may interrupt a bit of it. The long, slow weekend in the U.S. may actually prompt a few more articles on this. The WP:RS media hasn't caught up to some of the coverage in blogs, but we can expect it to. The emails about pressuring academic publications, for one thing, go well beyond what I've seen in the RS media, involving other publications. The emails involving dendrochronology from Siberian trees are another area I expect to see more coverage on. The computer code information has been called more damning than the emails. This will take time to report and it will be difficult to summarize fairly and accurately. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Stylistically, I'd be much happier with the article if we eliminate the in-line attribution of each quote to it's source. The reader can easily do that themselves by checking the footnote. I think would greatly improve readability, and maintain NPOV, by doing so. If there are particular citations that are felt to be POV, then those should be individually reworked or another source found. Ronnotel (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. This would be entirely incompatible with WP:NPOV for controversial theses. Statements without explicit attribution are in the editorial voice, i.e. endorsed by the encyclopedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? The attribution is still there - in the footnote. All we're doing with these is degrading the readability of the article. And what does "endorsed by the encyclopedia" even mean? All I'm saying is that the article reads like an exercise in petty, ideological WP:BATTLEGROUND and therefore it's assessment shouldn't be raised until it's tone can be made less silly. Ronnotel (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "A is"1 is usually understood as an endorsement of A by the writer, who implicitly accepts the authority of the source 1. "B says A is"1 is neutral - we have a source, but we neither endorse nor disclaim it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "It has been asserted that A"1 or "It has been stated that A"1. Seems to me to occupy a middle ground. __meco (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "It has been asserted that" and so on should never, ever be used on this encyclopedia. We attribute sources.  Always.  We don't write about assertions in a way that gives more weight to the opinion than the fact of who said it. --TS 10:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If your only concern is over reasons regarding style, then I would recommend we maintain the inline attributions for the various quotes. This is a fairly controversial debate and we would be doing out readers a disservice by making it difficult to verify the quotes. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Official UEA/CRU reply...
...has been published here. I think this needs to be worked into the reaction section. As far as I can tell, this section currently seems to be organized according to the random monkey juggle principle ;-), so I'd be glad if someone who understands this system better than I do would incorporates it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be worked into, but it should be handled with care. I've read it yesterday and was stunned by some statements. IMHO it's a rather cheap attempt to downplay the affair. Nevertheless, it's the official response by the alleged victims of the incident, so there's no doubt it has to go into the article. I don't think the organization of the reaction-section is that bad tough. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The reaction section has an understandably laundry-list feel to it. Is there a comparable article one could look to for guidance? The Killian documents controversy has some rough parallels. That article now has a short "initial reactions" section, but the rest is more structured. Maybe it will just evolve, meaning maybe it's just ok, to add important reactions for some time, then look at it to discern an improved structure. I'll try looking at the Killian history to see if they went through the same issue.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. I liked this version of the "Reactions in the United States" section (I should, I wrote it up with an alternate account). . I'd wait a bit for more reactions to come out and be added, then organize by whatever themes seem to be there, either by point of view, by type of source (such as scientists, science journalists, newspaper editorials, organizations), by specific topic or some combination of any of these. I'd rely on introductory sentences to describe each group, have maybe two quotes per group and then follow that with very short quotes or almost a list-like mention of a few other prominent sources that readers might want to see. Here's one passage from the Nobel article that groups sources by the topic of why Obama got the prize, and it also offered the POV of those supporting the award for Obama (it lacks an introductory sentence):
 * Support came from The New York Times, which said in an editorial that although Obama was rightly "humble" about the prize, "Certainly, the prize is a (barely) implicit condemnation of Mr. Bush’s presidency. But countering the ill will Mr. Bush created around the world is one of Mr. Obama’s great achievements in less than nine months in office. Mr. Obama’s willingness to respect and work with other nations is another."[25] (Among the those agreeing that the award was a criticism of the Bush administration were the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times,[26] Wall Street Journal[27] and Washington Post,[28] as well as Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times foreign-affairs columnist[29].) Rachel Maddow, a political commentator on MSNBC, suggested that Obama received the award for, amongst other things, his efforts to improve cooperation between nations.[30]
 * The sources within the parentheses said little different from the New York Times on that point (The Wall Street Journal was quoted elsewhere on its other opinions) but readers might be interested to know that these particular sources agreed on that particular point, and it matters that so many large, influential newspapers happened to agree on a particular point (readers can find out more by following the footnotes). Groupings of reactions for this article might include: (a) those who think the information revealed has no effect on the case for AGW; (b) those who think it does; (b) those who criticize the sources in "(a)" for overreacting; (c) those who think the information revealed shows significant problems with the behavior of these AGW advocates. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relevance of the Nobel peace prize to this article being?....1812ahill (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had suggested looking at another article covering breaking news with potential for contention to see how, structurally, the issue of reactions had been handled. I think the Nobel prize issue is a suitable cnadiate (although I haven't yet looked to see how it was handled.)-- SPhilbrick  T  19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ... obvious: How a "Reactions" section may be organized, in response to Sphilbrick's question. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great idea. Ignignot (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any reliable sources on the ultimate fate of Jones and Mann? I have seen a few sources, but none reliable at this time. Comfort &amp; Joy (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil Jones interview at the Guardian, confirms emails appear genuine
Here.

For our article, Jones "confirmed that all of the leaked emails that had provoked heated debate – including the now infamous email from 1999 in which he discussed a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures - appeared to be genuine."

This should be worked into the lede, I think. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hacker or Whistleblower?

 * Hacker a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system


 * whistle-blower one who reveals something covert or who informs against another

Both are correct and true however this article only references the alleged party(s) as a hacker. --Duchamps_comb MFA 00:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in your original research; please don't waste people's time with it. Reliable sources overwhelmingly speak of a hacker and the UEA says it was the victim of an illegal intrusion into its computer system. You are merely whitewashing for overt POV reasons. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whistleblowing is almost always illegal - to be specific, it usually involves theft, trespass, breach of contract, violation of state secrets laws or some or all of the above. "Whistleblowing" isn't something inherently legal, it's a defence against being prosecuted for things that are usually illegal. In exactly the same way as self-defence usually involves acts which would normally be considered assault.
 * Anyway, if these emails are wholly innocent, why are the climate scientists so upset about them being in the open? --86.170.69.253 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ironically in a way, whoever did this can probably use the same defense as these guys . :)  --GoRight (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And The Truth Shall Set You Free!!!

Unused references
A large number of references had been placed into the article simply to support the use of the sensational journalistic term "Climategate" in the first sentence of this encyclopedia article. As they're not being used for any other purpose (possibly for good reason) I've commented them out. Another reference apparently existed solely to support the opinion of a journalist. I've removed that also by commenting out.

We should really be reporting on the facts here, not just writing a report about the news coverage, some of which is sensationalist and should not distort our own reporting. If for instance a statement appears in Wikipedia simply because it is the opinion of a journalist, then we're doing it wrong. If a bit of journalese slang appears in the lead of the article simply because a lot of lazy journalists use it, then again we're doing it wrong. If we downplay the statements of police officers and the considered opinions of scientists, because we want to give "the other side" a go, then we're doing it wrong. I think we're in danger of doing it wrong here, though for now the article isn't too bad. --TS 11:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there little-to-no coverage of the actual contents of the e-mails?
Is there any particular reason why there's little-to-no coverage of what the e-mails actually said? By that, I mean actual quotes from the e-mails? Without that, it's difficult for the reader to understand what exactly all the fuss is about. If it's a question of sourcing, there are plenty:, , , ,.

In particular, I suggest that we work the following into the article. (Note that I'm copying and pasting directly from news articles.)

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Trenberth, the British research center's director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."

In one of the stolen e-mails, Trenberth is quoted as saying "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies -- in particular improved recording of rising sea surface temperatures.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Worthless out of context quotes with your personal spin on them. No thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Genius! A quote is per definition out of context.... 84.72.61.221 (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First, assume good faith. Second, none of that was in my own words.  As I explained, I copied and pasted that from news articles.  We'd obviously have to reword the reporter's words to avoid copyright issues.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you, as will anybody who looks at the mather unbiased. the only thing wortheless was Schulzes own comment. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So what is the source for "In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * you know google, right? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * . BTW, I'm not suggesting that we take the e-mail quotes out of context.  We can provide context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The supplied source does not mention even the term IPCC. It only appears in the user comment section, which are not a reliable source by any definition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is smart to be cautious with respect to actual email contents. While there have been admissions that at least some are genuine, there has been concern that the genuine emails may have been spiked with fake ones. Until that issue is settled, I don't think anyone should directly link to an email. However, as you point out, some of the emails have been quoted in reliable sources, so they may be "fair game". Your first link has been used extensively already.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that emails that were quoted in reliable sources should be quoted in this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For those interested, there's a searchable database of the hacked emails here, and a partial index to interesting topics here. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I don't think either one of those qualify as reliable sources as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines go. In fact, using the first would be WP:OR.  As long as we stick to what major news outlets are saying (minus blogs and op-eds), we should be fine.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a second here, since when is the actual data an unreliable source? Why would you prefer a media outlet's reporting of a fact over the actual data they are reporting on. I do not think that major news outlets should be used as a legitimate source for anything other than something to read over coffee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DubhGlass (talk • contribs) 09:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood your point. I thought you were wondering why the complete text of any of the emails fails to appear in the article. I looked (admittedly quickly) at most of your links. I don't see any example of a full email quoted. Mostly a word or a short phrase. Your number 7 has been extensively quoted. 8 doesn't have a full quote, 9 and 10 are the same, and neither does.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * complete text of any email? hehe, what would that be for? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't mean the complete text of the e-mails. I just meant some excerpts. As a reader, I would want to know what they said that was controversial (whether justly or unjustly). Like I said, we can (and should) provide context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did misunderstand your point. I agree, we seem to have jumped from the description of the leak to the reaction to the leak, while passing over what was in the leak in any detail. The newest section on FOI does have some excerpts, but it feels like we are missing something.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Only that this newest section has been deleted already. :( 84.72.61.221 (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Science Insider article we use for the FOI section quotes an entire email from Jones to Mann here. The first draft of this section included the email, diff. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be a section 'content of the emails' or something like that. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, we shouldn't be using blogs as sources since most don't meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:RS. Blogs can only be used if a) they're subject to the full editorial control of the WP:RS or b) the author is published by a WP:RS in the relevant field but even then, we have a WP:WEIGHT issue: if the information is really worth including, another WP:RS would have covered it.  Given that this is a controversial topic with potential WP:BLP issues, my personal preference would be to avoid blogs altogether. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:RS: "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully." That is, what would traditionally be considered a RS published in a 'blog format' (e.g. no opinion pieces).
 * See, that's one aspect of WP:RS I'm a little unclear about. How do you differentiate between a blog and a column?  Most sites don't seem to have any statement about whether such a posting has been fact-checked or reviewed by an editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an issue. Of particular concern is the blog "Realclimate," which is quoted in the article. There is no fact checking by an editor at this blog. What is worse is that the blog is quoted by a media source, so we are twice removed from the real facts. Alister Kinkaid (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't anymore understand why we are presenting the opinion of RC. IMHO RC's objectivity on this subject may be well disputed. Opinions? --J. Sketter (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * RealClimate is quoted by a reliable secondary source, Computerworld magazine (and the same quote has been run by other reliable secondary sources). It's worth quoting as (1) it represents the opinion of a collective of climate scientists who are prominent public commentators, and (2) it directly addresses the context - i.e. the conspiracy theories - being promoted by the sceptics. We should not quote from blogs but if their views are significant enough to be quoted by reliable secondary sources and sufficiently useful and relevant to this article, their comments are worth including, sourced to those reliable secondary sources. (Note that the Stephen McIntyre quotation is included under the same rationale.) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, in short. Blogs quoted by R2ndS can be quoted only by peer-review considering if it meets (1) and (2). Ignoring the fact that this is a cyclic monopoly and size of the collective aside, this essentially allows monopoly dictatorate on RS. (2) is completely subjective, because if we do quote another 'opinion' it would have to be from the POV of the 'collective'. (1) is not valid because this allows majority rule, which in turn allows majority rule to dictate RS. If we do not stick to a discrete definition of RS, then we subject ourselves to a democratic wiki. At which point, AGW as a theory would be accepted IFF the majority allows it. The majority slice can be futher cherry-picked by the subjective (2). (2) would include Al Gore as an expert on AGW. (1) would include IPCC without requiring empirical evidence. (1) and (2) combined allows for a monopoly on information control.Cflare (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I believe to quote RC as a RS in a topic that sheds a rather dubious light on RC itself is a travesty. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I think the quotebox I inserted should stay. It puts the absurd hand-wringing and melodramatic angst into context. We've seen no denials of the actual content of the emails from the scientists involved, so we can assume it's genuine. The content is actually rather innocuous. Yes, they are trying to suppress junk science. Happens all the time. But it's small beer when you consider the vast conspiracy the denialists have been suggesting for years. ► RATEL ◄ 15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * RC is owned by a PR firm and is run like a PR project. This is no way RealClimate should ever be considered RS for anything other than for the views of the author. That said, it may be reasonable for this article to quote RC to provide the viewpoint of authors. RonCram (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As the OP who started this thread, I want to reiterate that WP:RS says 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." These are established experts.  Their work is in the relevant field.  They have been previously published by reliable third party publications. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * EXCEPT RC is not "published", so it is not subjective to any validity whatsoever. A personal blog website is the equivalent of posting a sign on a light-pole. The extablished expert could even be stolen identity in worse-case scenario. A book, a documentary, a radio segment, etc, all require some passing of a review of sorts. At which point it is the burden of the medium to produce any work on checking facts. We'd have a direction to point a finger if the scientist went mad and started producing junk. That portion of WP:RS when applied to personal or private collective blogs allows for subjective RS.Cflare (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's published electronically. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference to keeping material out of peer-reviewed publications
The description of the content of the email has, at various times included a phrase such as "keeping scientist who have contrary views' research out of peer-review literature". This phrase has been rewritten once or twice, but has been removed. If someone explained why in an edit summary, I missed it.

I agree that citing full emails, is (at present) a copyright issue. I agree that the lone and lame boast about beating the crap out of someone doesn't justify the claim that the emails contain threats of violence. However, multiple reliable sources back up the claim that the emails contain material (more than one lone instance) related to attempts to keep research of some people out of peer-reviewed journals and/or the IPCC. This is not a trivial issue, and bears heavily on the duties of responsible scientists. Equally, it must not be overblown, I've seen no smoking gun that any such efforts have been successful, but the discussion of attempts is clearly there.

I'm going to add back the material with a RS. We can discuss whether it is better as a standalone item or part of the list as before. However, I request that a relevant statement, backed up by a RS, should not be removed again without a clear consensus on this page. -- SPhilbrick  T  14:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. All I have seen is an attempt to keep crappy science (like Soon & Baliunas 2003) out of the IPCC works, and to ensure that proper peer review ensures that such papers are published as rarely as possible. Keeping crap out is the very aim of peer review. This is not filter on results, its a filter on quality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is your opinion--not appropriate for Wikipedia. We state facts here, based on reliable sources. The threats of violence and scientific misconduct are real and need to be included. Alister Kinkaid (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Keeping crap out is the very aim of peer review." Of course. But we as WP editors are not in judgment of what is crap or not (wrt to global warming theories). Our job is to accurately, in a NPOV, report what reliable sources are reporting. It may well be that the people attempting to keep some scientists work out of journals is a legitimate exercise of peer review, and is reliable sources conclude that, we should report that as well. -- SPhilbrick  T  14:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Keeping crap out is the very aim of peer review." Haha, yes of course. But that's the job of the reviewers and certainly not of those being reviewed. I think you suffer a tremendous misconception here. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So find reliable sources who conclude that, or at least notable opinions that can be properly attributed. As for the "threats of violence", see other pertinent threads. In short, there are none, or at least we have no RS that claims there are any. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The WSJ article, "Climate Emails Stoke Debate " by Keith Johnson, contains Mr. Johnson's assesment that, "A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view." Would this constitute an acceptable conclusion? The article is already listed in the Refrerences section (#7), so it must have been deemed reliable at some point. -- KyDave (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The current sentence has a quote "efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." This is factual, and has been backed up by several RS. It may require balance, specifically, that preventing publication is the very purpose of peer review. (crappy wording, but something along this line)-- SPhilbrick  T  14:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) It's not from a WP:RS, observant editors will note that it's posted in the Comment is free section of the website. That is a "collective group web-only blog with contributions from a wide range of commentators from many walks of life."

—Apis (talk ) 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 15:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 17:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is any truth to these accusations there will be plenty of opportunity to include this information, as of now, it is only speculation by sceptics, and likely incorrect. I agree with Stephan Schulz's assessment that they wanted to keep crap science out of the literature, but the quotes are taken out of context from private conversations.
 * I just came back to post that the latest source is an editorial, so it either needs rewriting so it is expressed as an opinion of the writer, or return to one of the reliable sources. It's a well-constructed quote, so I'd prefer to keep the quote, but I'll look into how to go to a reliable source. Optionally, we could have both, but I worry about weight.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We should stick to facts and not speculations, why is this editorial notable? we can't quote every editorial out there who has an opinion about this.
 * I don't see anyone arguing we should quote every editorial writer who has an opinion on this. However, the accusation that scientists are improperly interfering with the peer review process is not a small matter. While I hope the weight of evidence ends up concluding there is no 'there' there, it is a subject of intense interest to scientists, and broadly covered by the media. To not have a single reference to it is a lack of balance. I'm open to discussion abut what source is best, or how best to frame it, but I'm watching people just remove it.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes this persons speculations relevant to this article, wikipedia isn't a op-ed piece, it's not investigative journalism, we stick to the known facts and we cite reliable sources. This is just POV pushing. The fact that it's a serious accusation doesn't make it any better. We need to keep libel out of the article.

I understand why some are not happy with a Fox news citation, even though it is a reliable source, so I found a WSJ and a Guardian cite. Both of those were on opinion pages, which doesn't make them excludable, it simply means they have to support opinion, rather than fact. So I've returned to the Fox cite and changed the sentence to reflect that the emails are discussing ways to keep scientists out of the peer review process. The Fox wording is over the top 'the hacked files clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process" so I've toned it down.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 17:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, we all know it's just speculations and that fox news is unreliable so why do you keep adding it?


 * Everything at this point is speculation, so lets stick with what’s notable. And since the material ni question was noted by a WP:RS, it seems appropriate to include here. WVBluefield (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 17:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, unless it some quote from a person notable in the context of this article we keep the speculation parts out of the article. Not to mention it's a serious (seemingly unfounded) accusation and subject to wp:blp.


 * So you are proposing we only here apologetics from those mentioned in the "alleged" emails? BLP, which marginally applies here, doesn’t mean we exclude all information critical of the subjects on those that cannot be found in reliable sources. And low and behold there’s a multitude of sources that are extremely critical of the conduct of the CRU. WVBluefield (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies everywhere, as far as I know neither George Monbiot, nor fox news (and presumably neither the anonymous fox editor) was mentioned in the emails? "there’s a multitude of sources that are extremely critical " yes, the internet is big, but we stick to reliable sources for what I thought was obvious reasons.

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There was an article about this very issue now from a reliable source, I have elaborated on that, would be nice if someone could remove the dubious fox quote now. See, all we had to do was wait.


 * This ref and quote should help...

Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" --Duchamps_comb MFA 21:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Fox News citation called "fox" because it seemed to exist solely to report the opinion of a single journalist. Similarly I removed a Washington Post citation that seemed to exist solely to report the opinion of a single journalist. While we may rely on journalists to provide factual material, and to some extent this article is about a media event, I think we have to draw the line where we are simply parroting the opinions of individuals who may have little or no knowledge of the issues than the reader. --TS 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues - a reminder
I noticed that an anonymous IP editor just added a link to the leaked files in this edit. Could editors please refrain from doing this. Copyrights specifically states: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. ... Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." Since this material is not only copyrighted but stolen, it should not be linked from this article or any other on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Pentagon Papers were not to be released either, I see Wikipedia quotes them. Will you claim the difference lies in the Pent.Pprs. having been read into the Congressional record?  Or simply in years having passed?  Whistleblowing is legally protected and socially lauded activity, exposing frauds places Wikipedia in a good light. 16:38, 2009/11/22 EST  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.69.27 Tom Perkins(talk) 21:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Apart from your nonsensical misinterpretation of the material, the Pentagon Papers were prepared by the US government and hence are in the public domain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Stephan, there's a difference between "public domain" and "non-private". By definition, all of these emails were created, stored and maintained on workplace -- not personal -- systems. They are not private to the individuals. They are owned by the entities that pay those workers. An email received is subject to the privacy conditions of the recipient. Thus, your assertions are completely incorrect. This material was held by a public institution. It is not private data even if at this point it were not considered public domain. Yes, there is a question of whether the material was released by a whistleblower, was stolen by an intruder, or was accidentally made public by the employees of the organization (as occurred earlier this year!) Those are significantly different acts, of course, but that doesn't change the nature of the materials themselves, nor does it change the nature of the statements and activities brought to light by the disclosure. It is quite clear that some of these scientists have gone to great lengths to bias the scientific process. For this, they are going to be investigated -- the process has already begun. I'm not predicting something, I'm stating a fact about a process already in motion. The longer you and others try to defend their actions, the more it speaks of your own anti-science bias.Mr Pete (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest specificity, which material, what misinterpretation? The Pentagon Papers were Top Secret, discussing them or being in possession of them without authorization was treason--they were emphatically not public domain--yet their release is held to be the sine qua non of whistleblowing.  Whistleblowing is certainly now a legally protected activity.  The CRU emails contain what are now involuntary and inadvertent admissions by proponents of human caused global warming of acts on their part which are illegally avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests for documents and suggestions such documents should be destroyed instead their being released.  Tom Perkins 17:08 2009/11/22 EST
 * Apart from your nonsensical misinterpretation of the material, public domain is a legal concept. Things can be both top secret and in the public domain at the same time. Distributing them may be illegal, but it is not copyright infringement. Moreover, the pentagon papers have been irrevocably published, and hence secrecy considerations do not apply. It's well-established that the government cannot use secrecy claims to prosecute people who spread already available material, even if it originally was obtained illegally by a third party. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "hacked" CRU emails are now irrevocably published, so by that criteria of yours they are now in the public domain. BTW, "Top Secret" and "public domain" are both legal concepts, and yes they are mutually exclusive--unless it has changed from the last time I filed, an aspect of filing for copyright in the US is making public copies available to the Library of Congress.  Obviously, that excludes "Top Secret" info from being copyrighted, hence it cannot be "public domain" in the sense that formerly copyrighted materials are.  I note you have yet to attempt dispose of the "whistleblowing" aspects of this--the release of these emails is clearly such.  Tom Perkins 18:06, 2009/11/22 EST  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.69.27 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I don't know when you last "filed for copyright", but copyright is automatic in the US since 1989, and in most of the world since the 1980s or earlier. It does not require registration or filing of anything, although registration of a work will increase damages in the case of infringement in the US. Works by the US federal government are always automatically in the public domain. Things don't have to be copyrighted to become public domain - where does that misbelief come from? Anyways, existing publication is a defense against claims of secrecy violations (which may or may not have protected the pentagon papers, but does not apply to the CRU emails), but not against copyright infringement (which does not apply to the pentagon papers, but definitely applies to the CRU emails). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the first time was in 1979 when I was 8. The second and so far last time would have been about 1983.  The notion of public domain is that it has been copyrighted and the period has lapsed or the privilege abandoned, or the work predates the modern concept of copyright altogether.  There would also certainly be "fair use" exceptions to quoting a limited fraction of the "hacked" data as being exemplary of criminal activity--copyright protects no crimes.  And you are still ignoring the "whistleblowing" aspects of this.  And of course there is the issue that none of these persons owned the copyright to them in the sense you mean anyway--they were government employees doing government work--if the Pentagon Papers were in any sense in the public domain although Top Secret, then these certainly are also in the public domain by virtue of government employees creating them on government time.  Tom Perkins 19:08, 2009/11/22 EST
 * You may be surprised, but not all countries have the same policies about copyrights. CRU is in the UK, not in the US. What's more, even in the US, only works by the federal government automatically fall into the public domain - and not due to a lapsed period, or abandonment, but simply because that is the law of the land. This does not universally apply to US state governments, and certainly not to universities, even if they are public. So far, the only crime in this has been the illegal hacking and the distribution of private data. And no, most of the people in question are not "government employees doing government work" - most are academics from various countries around the world, working for different research institutes and different universities under different legislative systems, different ownership, and different copyright policies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also note that much of this data was the subject of a FOI UK law request that was subsequently sidestepped by those inside (if you believe the discussions in the emails) and that the University of East Angila is a PUBLIC university. As such, the emails are owned by the public (presuming FOI law in the UK is similar to in the US)Bellis (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Big assumption, and certainly mostly wrong. Many of the emails were not written by employees of CRU, anyways, and hence are not CRUs to divulge in the first place. Also, the UK FOI act only came into force in 2005, so a large amount of the email archive is not covered by it. Moreover, as far as I can tell there has been a lot of noise about FOI, but there is no evidence that a valid request has ever been made. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not such a big assumption apparently, after reviewing FOI for EA University. I work in a college IT dept and can tell you that if someone walked in requesting archives of all of our emails relating to a specific person or subject (or a date range), I would be REQUIRED by law to remit them.  Seems quite similar in the UK: See here: http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi Theoretically anyone could request the entire email archive from CRU.  Universities are generally required to maintain archives of all communication relevant to all operations related to public funds, and those communications are generally subject to FOI retrieval. To be honest, I'm not certain about email in the UK, but in the US, emails are considered correspondence and as such are required to be archived and open to retrieval request. PS I know for a FACT a FOI request has been made, because I made one, and got subsequently ignored. Note, one can google "CRU FOI requests" and find that there were numerous requests filed (probably into the thousands after the initial requests were shot down)  In the AGW community it is common knowledge that there have been requests, and all of them have been subsequently denied or completely ignored.  The likelihood that this is a whistle-blower event instead of a hacking event is also a pretty distinct possibility   Bellis (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you check . Even data released under a FOI scheme remain under copyright by the university. If you made a FOI request and got ignored, I suggest you follow proper procedure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you understand that, yes the copyright is held by UEA, which is a Public institution, hence the publications are in the end owned by the UK public -- much like in the US.Bellis (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The copyright rules are very different from in the US. The mere fact that it is a public institution does not mean that everything it creates is in the public domain, or indeed that the UK public owns its materials. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not even convinced this is the case in the US. I suspect people are still confused about copyrights and right to access data, correspondence etc, which are completely different things. For example, what does 'owned by the UK public' even mean? If Bellis means public domain then he/she should say so because 'owned by the UK public' (the same as 'owned by the US public') sounds like something someone who doesn't understand copyright would say (IANAL and don't pretend to have a lawyer's grasp on copyright but I have enough experience to usually tell when a statement is pretty much meaningless or implies a lack of understanding of copyright). Incidentally in case anyone is not aware, most stuff from the UK government is not in the public domain but rather has Crown copyright and indeed anyone who wants to understand how things work in the UK or a number of other Commonwealth realms need to understand the concept of The Crown. In any case, if Bellis' claim that everything by a US public university is in the public domain is correct, that would imply no US public university can expect much benefit from publishing books, journals etc, since anyone and everyone can legally copy whatever they publish as there is no copyright for their work. This seems rather unlikely. Indeed as others have pointed out, state government material in the US is often not in the public domain yet for some odd reason anything from public universities is? Does the federal government in the US even own any university (not counting military ones)? If not, this mean Bellis is claiming that anything from state government owned universities (which is I presume what Bellis is talking about in such a case) is in the public domain despite the fact actual government published stuff is often not, which seems to me to be unlikely to say the leastr. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Huge red herring. There is a large difference between 'everything' a university produces and email communication archives and archived data from a research institution.  The later two are almost certainly subject to FOI law requests, and if you read the emails (and believe they are real) the admin were working under the assumption that they were required to submit to the FOI requests until CRU convinced someone to basically ignore the law (the denials seem to be classified under the 'vexatious' category).  Colleges are required by law to maintain archives of every email that comes in and out of the institution specifically for FOIA requests.  I know this for a fact, as I help maintain the backups at the institution I work for (in U.S., as I've said before,  from reading the UK FOI laws -- things appear similar there too).Bellis (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're the one discussing irrelevant details. We're discussing copyright exclusively here. FOI doesn't come in to it. Note my reply was to your point 'I suggest you understand that, yes the copyright is held by UEA, which is a Public institution, hence the publications are in the end owned by the UK public -- much like in the US.' where you referred to copyright not the FOI. If you want to discuss the FOI, you should do so, rather then suddenly bringing it into a discussing of copyright after you mentioned copyright and someone replied to the point about copyright. If you don't understand that copyright is a largely distinct concept from the FOI', and in fact just because documents have to be released to the public doesn't mean they are 'owned by the UK public' (whatever that means). As someone who works for a university, I would have hoped you understood the difference between 'copyright' and 'FOI' but I guess not... Stephan Schultz has already pointed out that documents released under the FOI are still copyrighted by the originating institution or person which hardly surprises me since I understand these are different concepts and can easily find more refs, e.g. . Perhaps you can make philosphical arguments that anything copyrighted by a public institution or government is technically owned by the public (although the concept of the crown somewhat complicates this in Commonwealth realms) but this isn't the place for strange philosphical arguments and the fact that you can make such an argument doesn't change the fact that copyrights likely limits what can be done with the documents and how they can be republished, even if they are required to be made available under a FOI request. In a similar vein, UK government documents released under the FOI may still be subject to crown copyright I suspect (confirmed here which says precisely what I was thinking 'The supply of documents under FOI does not give the person who receives the information an automatic right to re-use the documents without obtaining the consent of the copyright holder'), and if you try to argue since some document was released under the FOI you're allowed to license it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL here on wikipedia you're going to be shot down in flames and laughed out of the door. (And yes, this is relevant because it illustrates the precise point that just because something is released under the FOI doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want with it so yes, the issue of copyright violations does come into it even if the documents were release under the FOI, and as well all know however these documents were released, they weren't even released under the FOI anyway.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, we have to go by what reliable secondary sources publish - the Washington Post, CNN, BBC, etc. My own snark aside, there are legitimate questions about context, and maybe authenticity. We may not, and should not, try to analyze a primary source, which this is. We have to wait on the journalists and researchers to do that. As they report, we summarize their reporting, in neutral language -- and to whoever put in "claim" for "say," anyone who has been around here for a while knows better than to play the Smith-claims-but-Jones-notes game, so let's avoid that. Tom Harrison Talk 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it 'ok' to link to news media sources that quote the emails, or is that also considered out of bounds? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230122/How-climate-change-scientists-dodged-sceptics.html Bellis (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see some looming problems with that. But, I wonder how the fact CRU and it's researchers are mostly funded outside the university, by very varied instances, affects to copyrights of documents and emails? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Sketter (talk • contribs) 05:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Quoting excerpts from the emails, as the Washington Post and many others have done, is quite legal under fair use. Since some of these quotes have become (in)famous, and are central to the event and the ensuing public debate, Wikipedia guidelines will undoubtedly compel us to post some of these excerpts. The hack itself is trivial, there are dozens of hacks every day that don't make it into Wikipedia. This one is not about the leak it's about what the leak revealed to the public. Having a Wikipedia article on this event banned from quoting the emails would be like having an article about Christianity banned from quoting the Bible. It would be oddly circuitous. Flegelpuss (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that you actually read the discussion? Nobody claims we cannot quote from the emails under fair use. What is under discussion is an external link to the complete archive, which is forbidden via WP:EL. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Bellis asked above "Is it 'ok' to link to news media sources that quote the emails, or is that also considered out of bounds?". The above is just a response. I think that such links are OK, as long as it results in a quality article. Short quotes are fair use, and if a respectable third party does the quoting, then I think we should trust that decision. Similarly, if some part becomes widely quoted, it may make sense for us to quote it too, if it is a good way to describe the debate. As I see it, the question about quotations is more about being encyclopedic and tasteful than a legal question (which is good, since about those it is not for us to wonder why). -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of the e-mails are related to government agencies such as NASA, and as such, should be made available. Alister Kinkaid (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * NASA is not any part of the UK government. --TS 13:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

tree ring data
From reading round this the key issues all seem to be about tree ring palaeotemperature data. The FOI requests which apparently lead up to the email leak/hack were for tree ring datasets and the most embarassing/ambivalent responses were about tree ring data. If the scandal does have significant potential it is to discredit this method of historical temperature reconstruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy Young (talk • contribs) 13:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How can FOI requests possibly lead up to the hacking of emails? That doesn't make any sense. --TS 13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The CRU has repeatedly refused FOI requests. The best source of this is unfortunately both "unreliable" and currently down (http://www.climateaudit.org).  However, one such refusal is recorded at http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/.  The reason FOI requests are suspected to be linked is circumstantial.  The file is called FOI2009.zip and the leaker used the name FOIA (see http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowjoe17 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FOI? That's kooky talk. If there were any FOI requests the scientists would have answered quickly and fully. Science is all about getting the data out there. In fact, they probably took care to make the data easily accessible on line, so everybody could look at it. No scientist would hide behind technicalities, deliberately make data hard to get, or delete material to avoid releasing it. Right? Tom Harrison Talk 14:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, there's a conspiracy theory doing the rounds that the university was hiding data rather than releasing it under FOI, and that the hacker was attempting to expose all the data that the university was supposedly hiding. The university has denied the claim, stating that the data isn't theirs to release in the first place due to copyright issues. See the Daily Mail story linked above for the details. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Scientists hiding data? Bah, that's like the ridiculous canard that journals were pressured not to publish critical articles. I can't think where people get these goofy ideas. Tom Harrison Talk 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom: How about from the emails themselves(presuming they are legit, and this isn't the only one in the archive that discusses hiding or ignoring FOI requests. Bellis (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, there is that, but it doesn't count because it's stolen, and copyrighted, and taken out of context, and probably made up by global warming deniers conspiring with Big Oil to make the scientists look bad. Plus, it's forbidden to link or quote that on Wikipedia, so it doesn't really exist anyway. So there. Tom Harrison Talk 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Forbidden to link why? Is it not relevant to the discussion to see the actual content of the emails? For anyone interested (and without a link) the relevant emails are 1107454306.txt 1228330629.txt (sorry I missed the sarcasm before) How about linking to a news article that contains the content? Is that also illegal? (Oh, nevermind, the Illuminati are also blacklisting those sites, too!) Bellis (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If we find whoever hacked the emails, any chance we could do a swap with the Yanks for that young Scottish chap who faces a possible 70 years in a federal prison for hacking the Pentagon to find out the truth about Roswell? --TS 15:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice from |from these edits that, based on WP:ENGVAR, it's already been decided that, for the purposes of this article, East Anglia can be considered to be part of the USA. --Nigelj (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I thought it had been determined to be part of Afghanistan... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not to stop on minor things, folks :) I personally would be interested to insert a more recent opinions of, say McIntyre or Michaels into the article, as soon as they give out one. --J. Sketter (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WMC: As a party to this conspiracy against science, I think it's appropriate for you to pipe down. i.e. your name is in the whistle blower files.65.12.145.148 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If for nothing else, to give some face for these mysterious sceptics who claim this and that :) Altho I understand that whatever is the truth, 4,000 files takes some time to leaf trough. --J. Sketter (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But McI had nothing to do with the hacking? Oh anon, I recommend reading my mails in there, you might learn something William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read a lot of those emails, and I have to say I didn't learn a thing, but it confirmed a few things.67.141.235.203 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi For me the following quote from one of the emails has to be included. What do they have to hide? The two MMs [McKitrick, McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Climatechangebullshit (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)climatechangebullshit Account blocked. 

A further note regarding to sources
I've taken quite a strict line on using blogs in this article, of any political complexion. McIntyre presumably posted his comments on his blog, but they are sourced to a reliable secondary source which quotes him; likewise for the RealClimate quote, which comes from a secondary source. If prominent bloggers' comments are quoted by mainstream sources then fair enough, but we shouldn't be going to blogs looking for convenient quotes. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible. Let's be patient. --J. Sketter (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem that should be noted here. If only "mainstream" news sources are trusted by wikipedia, and these sources have a bias to go along with the fellows at CRU and their compatriots without further investigation, wikipedia will be subject to that bias. As well, if a "reliable source" like Reuters provides proof that reuters is reliable, would wikipedia be bound by that assertion? If wikipedia is to be a truly objective source of information, it really needs to grow up about how news is controlled through political means. Epistemology would be nice. Recognize that your politics may be faulty and your worldview shaped by incomplete data.

Secondly, where are the references to Read Me Harry.txt? If ye editors are trying to control this story by promoting the straw men arguments like "tricks" and "hiding the decline" then shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.34 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Climate Model Source Code Comments
I believe that some of the most revealing material may be the programmer comments embedded in the climate models' source code. Here's an example:

printf,1,’IMPORTANT NOTE:’

printf,1,’The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density’

printf,1,’records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer’

printf,1,’temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set’

printf,1,’this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and’

printf,1,’this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring

printf,1,’density variations, but have been modified to look more like the

printf,1,’observed temperatures.’

It's kind of hard to spin that isn't it? FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro from the released docs is the original source. The source code itself was created and maintained using public funding and can thus be presumed to be in the Public Domain.

Is it acceptable to add sections quoting source code from the original ClimateGate docs and if so, would anyone be willing to assist a newbie in doing it properly? GrouchyOldMan (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverts galore...
Two cites and one small quote, and people start coming out of the woodwork to revert the same exact stuff?

Have you guys worked together before? Notice I am not accusing, it's just a simple question that can be answered by looking at edit histories. Sukiari (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to me, I have both agreed with and disagreed with User:William M. Connolley in the past. I do sometimes work in climate change related articles (and to a lesser extent a number of other science related topics) so this isn't surprising since that is an active area for WMC. I also recognise User:Verbal and User:Stephan Schulz from a number of places. I don't specifically recognise User:HaeB. And in case you're wondering, other then anything on wikipedia, I've never communicated with any of them in any way that I'm aware of or recall. The fact that they're here is hardly surprising. This is a hot button topic with many watchers and you were adding one thing which has already been discussed and another (initially anyway) without even bothering to check the source that was used. In any case, this has little to do with improving the article so if you have further "not accusations" I suggest you contact editors directly or discuss it somewhere else where it's appropriate, I won't be replying to this here anymore Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Let's both improve the article.  Why not add content, instead of deleting it?  Sukiari (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it reasonable, since William Connolly is a party to this controversy, that he refrain from comment? It's like G. Gordon Liddy making edits on the Richard Nixon page.65.12.145.148 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would very much appreciate that. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. 76.8.236.106 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not in the habit of making people "refrain from comment." That goes against the entire spirit of collaboration the site is based on. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 03:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny that.... my comments get deleted all the time when I reply to William or Boris.Cflare (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are commenting on William or Boris's page then their entitled to delete them just as you are entitled to delete any comments on your talk page. If you are commenting here, then they should not be deleted if they relate to improving the article. If they don't, particularly if they are an attempt to debate something unrelated to improving the article, then deleting them is probably acceptable no matter who they are in reply to or who made them. Indeed I have seen a few comments from people with similar views to WMC been deleted (can't remember precisely who). And before someone gets the clever idea of deleting this comment, while it doesn't directly related to improve the article, it does relate to what is acceptable on this talk page and by keeping junk off here we can better communicate about ways to improve this article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

George Monbiot
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see]
 * "It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them."

That's quite an admission coming from George. Given the obviously notable and prominent place Geroge holds this should be included, but I agree it shouldn't be cherry picked. What context from his opinion piece should be used to balance this? Opinions? --GoRight (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be included. It is just his personal reaction.  Also, I agree that Fourier is probably responsible for behind the scenes Illuminati plans for the last 200 or so years.  It is all so obvious in retrospect! Ignignot (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's moot. I just noticed that this piece has already been added and I am OK with how it was handled.  --GoRight (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's just one man's personal opinions, they are not relevant here.
 * Ah, I see you have deleted that section. Sorry but this won't stand.  Geroge Monbiot is one of the most widely recognized media voices who regularly champions AGW.  As such his comments on this topic are quite notable in this context.  He is regularly cited throughout wikipedia to attack the claims and personal integrity of skeptics so it is only appropriate that he also be quoted here.  --GoRight (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just restored the quotes from Monbiot, then I saw this discussion. As noted above, Monbiot is a very well known commentator and a strongly activist pro-global-warmer. His opinion counts. GoRight is right. AlfBit (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of well known commentators and activists, you are cherry picking non notable editorials that support your point of view, that is not neutral. Please only include notable and relevant comments. —<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 20:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that Monbiot is either not notable or not relevant? If so, what is your reasoning?  (I thought that GoRight and the WP entry established notability; relevance seems obvious.)   AlfBit (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly support inclusion of the Monbiot opinion. His is a leading voice, and unless we should exclude all comments from not directly involved parties his is one to include. __meco (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the article as it stands may be putting too much weight on George Monbiot's opinion. He is certainly an important commentator on these matters and his opinion should be there, but I suspect we're in danger of going over the top a little simply because some people like George, and some journalists, are doing so.  This is a problem of all current affairs reporting and I assume that all parties will emerge with a more balanced perspective over time, as a result of which this article's content will settle down. --TS 13:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article as it stands now puts enough emphasis on Mondbiot's opinions, because they represent a significant part of the commentary about this, they are articulate and they cover various aspects. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ordering of responses
This is a suspected crime committed against identified parties. In that context, I think it's wrong to place the response of unconnected third parties first. They may want to gloat and so on, but they have to wait behind the victims of the crime. If their opinions are relevant at all, it can only be in suggesting that they might welcome, condone or indeed have perpetrated the crime. I don't see any suggestion of any of that. So why are those opinions being taken as relevant--andnot just that, but placed before the reaction of the victims? --TS 20:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The importance of the subject is primarily about what it may reveal about certain scientists involved in the global-warming controversy. Therefore comments on that aspect are the most important. The importance of the criminal aspect is secondary, at best. News organizations often reveal scandals based on documents that had been obtained and publicized in nefarious ways, but our reliable sources don't emphasize that aspect of it, they emphasize the response of the unconnected third parties who are trying to put the importance of the revealed information in context, which is why readers would turn to our article. This isn't primarily a crime story, as the news coverage shows. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - this would never be in Wikipedia if it was say, shipping information from FedEx. The criminal aspect is secondary to the controversy.  No one is writing editorials about whether stealing data should be legal or not.  They're writing about what that data contains.  Ignignot (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The criminals certsinly pushed the agenda you describe, but in the absence of an assumption that their motive was justified it is difficult to support the notion that the crime is something transparant and we must only look at the comments by marginal individuals, ignoring both the victims and the wider public.


 * News organisations are welcome to make of it what they will. Here we follow the neutral point of view.  We don't give criminals the benefit of the doubt--and we certainly don't make stupid assumptions about major scientific issues that are subject to heavy political pressure. --TS 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * something transparent and we must only look at -- please don't exaggerate. News organizations are currently our only reliable sources, and what they make of it, we make of it if we're to have an article at all. That's our guide to NPOV. I notice that "steal" and "theft" are in some of the article headlines, but that aspect is not emphasized in the first three or so paragraphs of the articles I've seen. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * TS, If you want to be neutral, then stop calling them criminals until conviction. Not doing so could make you look like a hypocrite in some eyes. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether it is a crime has to be shown first. I'm really unhappy with the reordering of the reactions. before was better. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

TS: If there will be no one supporting your view, I kindly ask you to reedit you reorderings in the near future. so far, the consensus is, that the "criminal" aspect is secondary. please respect that. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Under the principle of least astonishment in the Writing better articles guideline, Explain causes before consequences and make sure your logical sequence is clear and sound, especially to the layman. Therefore, when we mention reactions to what climate skeptics say about the revealed documents, that should be done after we mention what opinions those people are reacting to. That also has the advantage of following common sense. So I'll change the order of some of the quotes to reflect that. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * makes perfect sense. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The basic thing here is the theft - that various media sources and opinionators speculate upon the impact is secondary. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Of course we try to explain the various notable opinions. Please bear in mind what the facts here are, and separate these from speculation and opinions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see your point. the theft has its own section, mentioned first. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A good argument could be made that these documents were stolen in the same sense that the pumpkin papers were stolen from the USSR. Openly presenting evidence of a crime using evidence taken without permission of the criminals is something where most prosecutors exercise prosecutorial discretion. If this is a release of an improperly spiked FOI request, there was no theft and if the releaser is identified, there will be no prosecution for the release.


 * It is much too early to be so definite about what crimes have been committed. There are alternate theories. We should not be doing original research and stepping into the role of the prosecutor and definitively stating that this or that crime has been committed. Skeptics are speculating that Phil Jones is going to end up in the slammer for deleting large amounts of raw data to avoid releasing it to MM via FOI. They're also speculating that a great deal of grant money is going to be determined to have been fraudulently given based on fraudulent data. It's too early to say this definitively either.


 * Let's stick with "it could be theft" until some expert makes a determination, like a jury. Let's stick to there could be scientific fraud, until the first papers start to be withdrawn. Until then, we should keep our options open. TMLutas (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's utterly disingenuous to say merely that "it could be a crime." The police are investigating, which is appropriate in view of the extensive prima facie evidence of a crime.

Since I commented last, the "Responses" section had been divided into three sections on an adversarial basis. This is grossly inappropriate--there may be people who condone crime, but simply by virtue of this sad fact they don't get a section to themselves on articles about a given crime. The most authoritative responses should be given most prominence, the less authoritative responses (such as claims of a conspiracy and so on, which appear to have no factual basis at all) should be given less prominence--if they're included at all.

This article currently still suffers from undue weight, giving far more weight to sensational reports in newspapers than they deserve. We have information from the scientists who are the victims of this crime, and the police who are investigating, and the facts they have presented should be given most prominence. The views of the criminals, needless to say, should not be considered. The views of third parties, such as those on the political and scientific fringes who are skeptical of global warming, should be given appropriate prominence and no more. --TS 10:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is nasty POV. They're not to be labeled criminals until convicted. The reactions should be ordered chronologically, not according to someones political agenda. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-neutral introduction
The second paragraph of the three paragraphs which currently constitutes the lead section is dealing with the controversial aspects of this story. As this paragraph currently reads the sentence "Climate change sceptics have asserted that the private correspondence shows a conspiracy by climate scientists to withhold scientific information" is the only indication that the criticism that has been levelled at the CRU researchers may have any merit. The defending camp is being mentioned by name and position. This constitutes a debunking-inclined presentation and the lead section in total does not meet WP:NPOV in my view. __meco (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any indication (other than speculation) that there is any merit to the criticism? We can't write it as if its more than speculation - its too early (see WP:CRYSTAL). Please separate the facts from the speculation please. Fact is that CRU documents have been released by parties unknown in an illegal manner. Opinions as to which implications this will have, or what the documents mean, are simply speculation, and must be treated as such. No matter if you like it or not, the victims in this case have the weight, since they are the only ones with accurate knowledge of the case... They may be lying but that is something that will be determined in the future (and not here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That the release of documents is illegal is not a fact, but an allegation. We do not yet know whether the documents were taken illegally, or left accidentally on an unprotected FTP site. IIRC, it wouldn't be the first time.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a fact. It doesn't matter how the files were taken. The taking of the files was illegal however it was done, as the UEA's statements have made clear - it's unauthorised access to a private server and unauthorised copying of private data, which violates at least three UK statues (the Computer Misuse Act, the Data Protection Act and the Copyright Act). The method by which the files were taken aggravates the illegality. The UEA and RealClimate both say that their servers were hacked, which is a crime in itself on both sides of the Atlantic. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Chris, you do not know that. CRU accidentally left material on a public server in the past IIRC. Some people think it happened again. Neither you nor I know whether that happened, so I don't argue that it should be included, but until you can show me a reliable source excluding that possibility with 100% certainly, it's an allegation that the material was stolen. Why is there a rush to judgment to conclude that material was stolen (in the absence of reliable sources, but a more measurable restraint on whether the code has problems, or whether this information will hurt the reputation of climate scientists. All three are allegations. All three are strongly held by some people. All three may turn out to be true or found to be false. Seems like we should have parallel treatment, and separate facts from allegations.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is now apparent that the lead is being changed in an even more biased direction. Now the balance stands as follows:


 * {| class="wikitable" border="1" ! One side !! The other side


 * border="0" style="background:#f5fffa;;" rowspan="3" | Climate change sceptics have asserted that the private correspondence shows a conspiracy by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.
 * border="0" style="background:#faf5ff;;" | Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, called the charges that the emails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous.
 * border="0" style="background:#faf5ff;;" | Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December.
 * border="0" style="background:#faf5ff;;" | Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign.
 * }
 * __meco (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * }
 * __meco (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the current version is much more balanced than the two previous versions which I have complained about. __meco (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference format
I'm making two gnomish changes to references:
 * 1) Some references have been added, not in  WP:LDR citation style, so I'm converting them
 * 2) I'm trying to adopt a standard reference naming nomenclature

The standard is Where source is a short version of the source, e.g. "Guardian" and date is the day and month. If there is more than one source from a single source on the same day, I'll use "Guardian 2". I don't believe year is needed in the ref name; while sources may be added a year from now, the source name can just be incremented. I'm spelling out month. Wile 11-21 is unambiguous, 12-02 is ambiguous. For example, I just converted "times-1121" to "Times 21 Nov". The use of LDR style has been discussed upthread. If anyone has a better suggestion for a ref naming convention, let me know.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In case you created a reference with a name and can't find it, here's the ones I changed:
 * cw20091125jtj to Computerworld 25 Nov
 * BBC-1120 to BBC 20 Nov
 * WSJ1 to WSJ 23 Nov
 * Eilperin to WaPo 21 Nov
 * Hickman1 to Guardian 24 Nov
 * Revkin to NYTimes 20 Nov
 * AP-2009-11-22 to AP 22 Nov
 * Stringer-AP to AP 21 Nov
 * "hickman" to "Guardian 20 Nov"
 * reuters1 to Reuters 23 Nov

FYI, Nsaa posted to my talk page, preferring a different standard. I hope they will weigh in here so we can reach a consensus if there is a better convention.
 * Look at the second references now. It's broken. Secondly its bad to remove the year and standard formate for giving dates according to ISO 8601 and adding spaces in the refname so you need to use "". Nsaa (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the second reference, but I didn't break it.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding a refname-format on the form SourceDateAuthor sounds like the logical way of doing it. As long as the date is on the format YYYYMMDD it's not possible to misunderstands it, and it sorts correctly. Nsaa (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the full numerical date cannot be misunderstood if people know the convention, and read it very carefully. However, the goal of ref naming is a tension between being succinct, so it doesn't clutter up the page, being unique, and being understandable. We could make it unique by putting the url in as a name, but that would be unbearably ugly.

I think my proposal is a good compromise in an article with quite a few references (for a shorter article, I usually just use source and a number if needed).

In an article this long, I think

"Reuters 23 Nov"

is easier for a human to read than

"reuter20091123"

YMMV

You mentioned sorting. I prefer listing my references in the reference section in the order they (first) appear. I suppose an argument can be made for sorting them alphabetically, but I don't believe that is commonly done.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

More whitewashing, speculation and POV edits
has been making a number of problematic edits. Dealing with them in turn:


 * As I said above in, it's absolutely unacceptable for the description of the data as "stolen" to be deleted. The victims of the crime have said unambiguously that the data was stolen, and there is no dispute in reliable sources that it was obtained illegally - that's why the police have been called in.
 * As discussed above in, the "insider" meme currently being pushed by anti-science bloggers is completely speculative. It appears in reliable sources attributed to one security consultant, whose own blog reveals himself to be a climate change sceptic (and thus hardly neutral), and is based on nothing more than his own personal speculation. Including it in the lede is gross undue weight, and I'm not sure it should even be in the article. (Disclaimer: I added it in the first place; I'm having second thoughts now.)
 * Tony Sidaway has addressed the issue of the multiple redundant references supporting "Climategate" in above. I'm undecided about whether we should refer to "Climategate" - it's POV sensationalism - but it's certainly the case that we don't need seven references to the same term. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "victim" is hardly an acceptable source to determine whether something has been stolen. Furthermore, there are plausible scenarios in which the material could be obtained without stealing. I'm not for a second suggesting that a plausible alternative deserves discussion in the article, simply that alternative means that "stolen" has been alleged, rather than proven. The police are brought in all the time for incidents that turn out not to be a crime. That's why they investigate them. Whether the weight of evidence is in support of a claim that "stolen" is unambiguously correct is the very point of talk page discussion.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pure speculation on your part and nonsensical reasoning to boot. The victim is the reliable source for determining whether something has been stolen, since it's the victim's property that was taken and it's the victim's complaint that initiates the police investigation. "Stolen" is a hard fact, since the UEA's data was taken without permission. That's the very definition of theft. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't use terms like "absolutely unacceptable" because it makes it harder to come to consensus, and consensus will determine what's acceptable and what isn't in this case. The word "stolen" has a special meaning when it comes to the copying of data, and I don't think it's the best word, because it diverts readers' minds to thievery in which someone has a monetary loss and someone else has a monetary gain -- that's the first thing we all think of. In fact, the entire emphasis on the illicit nature of the leak is a diversion from what's really important about the article: the information about what the scientists were saying to each other and how that reflects on their attitudes and actions. These people are influencing how billions of dollars are spent, how laws are made, how the economy may grow. Whether or not to refer to the leak as "stealing" or "theft" is trivial beside the question of whether or not these influential people were misusing their authority and resources. I realize that our sources use the terms "theft" and "stolen", so I can't say I have a problem with this trivial aspect of the subject. More work should go into what's been published and broadcast about the controversial parts of the documents, however, since that's where the importance of the article lies, where the debate is and what will affect the AGW controversy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it has no such special meaning. Google "data theft" some time. We even have an article on the subject. If someone hacked into your bank and downloaded your account details and those of your fellow bank customers, I don't think you'd be denying that it was an act of theft. If you don't believe me, try doing that yourself and tell the court that it wasn't really an act of theft. I'm sure they'll take you seriously - just as seriously as they've taken all the Internet pirates who've made the same argument as you, that illegally downloading other people's data isn't really theft. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove unused references
If we reach a consensus that they will not be used, they can be removed, but consensus has not been reached. Removing references before reaching consensus, as opposed to simply commenting them out, looks like vandalism to me.)-- SPhilbrick  T  16:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If references are not being used but are merely commented out, they're no use to anyone, and they merely add to download times for users. The only references that should be included in the article should be those that there is a consensus to include. If there is no consensus to include them they should not be present in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I'd strongly resent calling it vandalism. Refs are no more or less protected than other content (and can be retrieved via the history). However, I agree that it is a reasonable request to leave in references to reliable, on-topic sources as a comment, as long as the article is in a lot of flux. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that most of the references I removed were actually blogs, which shouldn't be used as sources in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with removing references if consensus has decided not to include them. But in a contentious issue such as this, consensus should evolve over days, not hours. I'm sorry you object to the word vandalism. I assume you are working in GF, I'm telling you how it may look to someone who spent considerable time researching and compiling a number of references.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's policy that blogs shouldn't be used as sources, as you should know. Someone added a slew of unreliable sources in an effort to provide sources for the term "Climategate". (Why seven different sources should be used for the same thing I have no idea.) -- ChrisO (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with and  that  edits are starting to look like vandalism and coming close to 3RR on some edits.


 * for example the use of "Climategate" is well sourced (even from a New Your Times writer). I suggest finding Consensus among editors before making drastic edits. Also is deleting sentences  and orphaning a reference then later deleting the "unused reference" that is bad behavior in my book. --Duchamps_comb MFA 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of text from start of page
It looks like I removed text from the start of page, I can only guess it was due to editing when somebody else did. I have no real opinion on what was removed. I've left it alone as it seems to be under dispute. Bevo74 (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I've restored a version of what you accidentally removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,I seem to be having a problem today with editing,I even had a problem posting above! Bevo74 (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over use of blog Realclimate
Realclimate is a blog and is not a reliable source. Why is it quoted in the text? Institute of Klimatology (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user  Kim D. Petersen (talk)
 * Its comments have been reported by a reliable source, namely Computerworld magazine. It would not be acceptable to quote it directly, but quoting its views second-hand is acceptable. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)B
 * One of the leaked emails from Michael Mann essentially states that RealClimate.com's administration will help Mann's side in discussions at that website. It should not be a source for anything but its own opinions. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And in what reliable source is it stated that Realclimate.com's "administration" (who is that?) will "help Mann's side in discussions"? Or do you mean that realclimate will reflect the scientific opinion of the blog authors? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mann himself said that Schmidt at RealClimate.com would do things in an undherhanded way to favor Mann's side in an upcoming discussion. You haven't read that? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Scroll up. The issue of Realclimate being a WP:RS has been discussed several times.  So far, no one's been able to provide a reason why it's not a WP:RS.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Reaclimate is a blog--it is not fact checked nor peer reviewed. Also, contributors to Realclimate are involved in the scandal. So, it is inappropriate as a primary or secondary source. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user  Kim D. Petersen (talk)


 * Yet again, it's run by Gavin A. Schmidt, an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. He's been published by over 60 peer-reviewed academic journals, including the highly prestigious  Nature journal.  If you want to see how many times he's been published by reliable sources, check his NASA bibliography here.  Also, check his biography here.  The blog itself has been named one of the best science and technology web sites by Scientific American.  Time Magazine has also praised the site. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet again, the Church of Global Warming members defend the use of a blog ONLY when they agree with it. Tell me, If a source is not WP:RS (A Blog like RealClimate)... then why would anyone trust the word of a RS that quotes from a blog?  thats like saying "Well, Billy isn't a Nazi, he just quotes things from Nazi's alot, so what billy says is totally reasonable."  Realclimate is not a blog, it is not fact checked nor peer reviewed.  just because other media outlets are okay with sourcing a sub-standard source, doesn't mean wikipedia should start accepting those who quote those who aren't WP:RSs as acceptable.  I can't believe RealClimate BLOG's validity as a source is even still up for discussion.  Its a blog people.  and a Blog is not a WP:RS--97.92.93.161 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. And what is even worse, RC is involved in this scandal. (and yet again: No, I don't need an RS for that assertion) 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when does BLP apply to institutions?
Claiming BLP applies to institutions seems spurious. The source supports the claim that the institution has refused to share data. Perhaps "resisting" would seem more neutral to you?Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * People at the institution have certainly refused to share information in some circumstances. They've refused FOI requests. That's not a BLP violation if the sourcing is there for it. If the sourcing isn't there, it may be a violation -- I would say in that case it would be a violation. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * BLP applies to people at institutions. Statements such as "so and so at that institution refused to share information" needs the most reliable sources, otherwise they should be deleted. Sourcing to newspaper reports that quote the opinions of others about the matter is not acceptable. LK (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Among other problems, that claim is original research by synthesis - joining two sources to make an unpublished novel argument. Original research specifically prohibits this. The claim of FOI refusals pre-dates by months this hacking incident. One of the citations, to National Review, is an opinion piece, which should not be used to make statements of fact. You can say "National Review argued..." but not state National Review's argument as an undisputed fact. If you want to draw a connection between the apparent FOI refusals and this incident, you need a source that makes that connection. One cannot simply take an old source and present it in support of an unpublished argument. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You should stop reverting sourced text. You've already broken the three revert rule.  There was already a reference in the paragraph connecting the dots, so your claim of synthesis does not hold water.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What reference are you talking about? Both your sources pre-date this incident - one is from August, the second from September. You have no source from November connecting the incident and the FOI refusals. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

New York Times blog ref
The user ChrisO has been objecting to using the NYT blog. Stating that, "the NYT source is (a) a blog and (b) says exactly what Reuters says."

As per WP:BLOGS a personal blog is not to be used, however a reliable/credible one can be. "Are blogs usable as sources in Wikipedia articles? It depends on the blog in question, it depends on the article in question, and it depends on what information is going to be used."
 * 
 * 


 * As above please do not delete references without consensus.--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First, as mentioned ad nauseam in this discussion, we should not be citing blogs in this article unless they are cited by a reliable source. Second, the blog adds nothing. It says that the affair has been "dubbed ClimateGate". Compare this to the Reuters news report, which says that the affair has "already [been] dubbed "Climategate"". Tell me, what does the NYT blog add? It says exactly the same thing as the Reuters report, almost word-for-word, on the issue of what the affair has been dubbed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We should also remove references to the Realclimate blog. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user  Kim D. Petersen (talk)


 * See discussions ad nauseam above. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (After EC) Again, scroll up. The issue of RealClimate being a WP:RS has already been discussed several times.  So far, no one's been able to provide a reason why it's not a WP:RS.


 * It is a non-reliable blog, since it is not fact checked and not peer reviewed. It cannot be used as a source. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user  Kim D. Petersen (talk)


 * For the last time, RealClimate is not being cited directly; the citation is to Computerworld magazine which quotes RealClimate. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't even matter. It's produced by an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.  Institute of Klimatology, stop wasting our time with nonsense.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It does matter--particularly since contributors to the Realclimate blog are involved in the actual scandal. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user  Kim D. Petersen (talk)


 * Yet again, where in WP:RS does it say this? Please cite the specific section or paragraph.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the Wikipedia rules. An RS is need for
 * This aspect is not covered by WP:RS. That is common sense not to cite as a primary source a party involved in a scandal. WP relies on common sense as well (see WP:IAR). Institute of Klimatology (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)  stricken: sockpuppet of banned user  Kim D. Petersen (talk)


 * I think you misunderstand the Wikipedia rules. An RS is need for statements made in a article, not in a discussion about the article. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words you're pulling it out of your backside. Please stop wasting everyone's time with such nonsense. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, they guy is totally right. According to your reasonging I could demand from you a RS that he's waisting your time. that's ridiculous. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If a blog is not a rep. source (which aggreed its not, including a blog from the Church of Global Warming there at RealClimate) then a article that sites a blog as a source for quotes is obviously not a WP:RS. --97.92.93.161 (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is when it's produced by an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by third-party reliable sources. Read the guideline.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

redirect and (disambiguation)
This has been repeatedly deleted. Why?--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Climategate" still exists as a redirect. But you're abusing "Climategate (disambiguation)" to turn it into an effective POV fork of this page. Please see Disambiguation to see how disambiguation is supposed to be used. What you were creating was not a disambiguation page, and there is no disambiguation needed of a term that was only invented a few days ago. It has now been salted to prevent you or anyone else creating it again. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that WP is not a crystal ball however "salting" the page is ridiculous. "Climategate" is a neologism soon to be another Lewinskygate. However a good example of such uses is moneybomb coined in 2007 to describe a grassroots fundraising effort over a brief fixed time period. This word was created in the MSM and is now part of the vernacular.--Duchamps_comb MFA 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To seresin


 * Speedily deleted page recreated already

Climategate (disambiguation) has already been recreated. I've re-nominated it for speedy deletion; could you please salt it this time? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you do not understand the situation. Note that climategate exists, just like Lewinskygate. What has been salted is Climategate (disambiguation) which is as useless as Lewinskygate (disambiguation). If you are still confused, read WP:DAB to understand what disambiguation is and how it works. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

adding the word falsification
I tried to add the word falsification here it was struck down as POV.

here are three references, , and here that use the quote:


 * "About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend." I think with this word falsification should be able to be used.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Newspapers and blogs are not reliable sources for scientific staments. Accusations of scientific fraud do exist here, but it can only be stated as a fact when the scientific journals say so and retract the articles that are based on the data that is now under discusson, as they did in the Jan Hendrik Schön case. Count Iblis (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the input, please took at the first link to the PDF file (press release) by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is not a reliable source for anything other than the views of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "falsification" does seem to be warrated here, based on the reliable sources provided. I supports its inclusion. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user  Kim D. Petersen (talk)


 * Not only is the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition not a reliable source, none of the sources talks about the CRU hack and data at all. Reading seems to be on the way out... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is as reliable as the blog Realclimate. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user  Kim D. Petersen (talk)


 * No, that's nonsense. But its also irrelevant. The NZCSC has not made any statement on the CRU hack. It misrepresents a completely different issue in the sources listed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note, IoK has been indefinitely blocked (I presume as a sock). And I know I should resist but I can't. Anyone who quotes Ian Wishart other then in jest... Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Query
Whose sockpuppet is User:Climatedragon? Does the style ring any bells? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like Scibaby to me. Note that the sock made just enough token edits to other articles to allow him to edit this semi-protected one? He could hardly be a more obvious sock if he tried. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry to disappoint your paranoia, I'm nobody's "sock". Now if you wnat to discuss INDIVIDUAL changes that I made go ahead.

"Stole" means theft. Theft means removing something. Using hyperbolae may suit you personal spin but is not correct for wiki.
 * Technically it was probably computer misuse. Arguing the toss over which statute applies probably doesn't help your defence. --TS 00:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to defend criminality
Attempts to defend criminal acts, particularly by linking this theft to alleged attempts to dodge requests to share data, have entered the article. This is unacceptable. We don't engage in advocacy. In particular, we don't engage in advocacy of crime. --TS 23:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, we do not advocate crime. The text you deleted does not advocate crime.  Exactly where do you think the deleted text advocates a crime?  The deleted text is well sourced and gives relevant background to the Phil Jones quote that follows.  The hacking incident has a context in the FIOA requests and in the prior refusals of the CRU to share data with colleagues.  Wecan reasonably discuss how to present this relevant background and context, but pretending the background does not exist is a violation of NPOV.  How would you suggest the well sourced background of the CRU's refusal to share data and the subsequent FOIA requests be included?Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If we as an encyclopedia make a link between this crime and the allegations that FOI requests have been dodged, we are indeed advocating criminality. If we claim that the crime was caused by dodging FOI requests, then a very good source is needed.   We don't have a good source for that.  The criminals have attempted to defend their crime by reference to such allegations, perhaps.  Well they would, wouldn't they! --TS 00:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that Math.geek3 hasn't bothered to answer my question posted above in, where I pointed out that his sources pre-dated the hacking incident. Using old sources to link FOI to this incident is, of course, pure original research by synthesis. Unfortunately it seems that Math.geek3 has the same view of Wikipedia's basic content policies as a dog has of a lamppost. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course we engage in advocacy. Not only do we engage in it, we wallow in it. What planet do you live on? Been watching any ID articles lately? Been watching this article lately? Ling.Nut (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's funny, but the rampant idiocity on display in this article and its talk page - sockpuppeting, weaselling, outright fabrication, ranting about "the liberals", continual BLP violations, copyright violations and so on - is all coming from one side here. I don't normally edit articles relating to global warming but from the evidence of this article it's obvious that the topic area is being targeted by some shamelessly abusive editors. If this is what the the regular editors of this topic area have to put up with, they have my sympathies. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that that's what it amounts to: that an editor has decided to sketch a line from some FOI requests during the summer to the recent hacking.  Yes obviously that isn't going to work. --TS 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The 20 Nov Guardian article explicitly connected the FOIA requests with the hacking incident, and it was referenced. The position that we cannot possibly describe relevant circumstances and background without advocating the criminal act borders on the absurd. In the article on Lincoln's assassination, does describing Booth's southern sympathies or Lincoln's plan to give blacks the right to vote constitute advocacy for the Lincoln's murder? In what other case would one argue that using verifiable sources to document relevant background consitutes advocacy for a serious crime?Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Recall the issue of FOI was brought up in the emails. Institute of Klimatology (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user  Kim D. Petersen (talk)

It's entirely possible that the conduct that led to the release of the emails may be protected under whistle-blower legislation. It's far too early to be assert that a crime has been committed. Ronnotel (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. We need to be careful about sources which are speculating without any evidence. We can indicate that "sources report theft..." etc. if that is what they say. But to call it criminal without any charges being filed and reported in a RS would make calling this incident "theft" premature. Meltdown36 (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user  Kim D. Petersen (talk)


 * response to the original editor


 * Determining criminality is something that the legal system does. There have been no charges. It is unclear whether there shall ever be charges. To defend criminality one must have a crime. What crime was committed? Do you have a reliable source that can survive the heightened scrutiny of BLP? This unsupported assertion of criminality is POV pushing, playing at being a lawyer, and in general putting the cart before the horse. If you want to assert theft unconditionally, you have to support this just like anything else in Wikipedia.


 * For myself, I am not a lawyer. Specifically, I am not a UK lawyer. I do not know what laws cover the situation. I concede that theft might have happened but there very well could be exceptions in UK law for whistle blowing that apply to this situation. The recent greenpeace protesters who were acquitted of trespass and damaging property used a defense which surprised me but the jury ruled in their favor and thus they did not commit an offense against the laws of the UK. Distributing data that was arguably being criminally withheld might come under the same or another legitimate defense under UK law. Irrespective of whether it was illegal or not, it was the right thing to do. Exposing the crimes against the laws of the UK and against the normal practices of science was a justifiable act in my opinion, given what I know of the situation so far. TMLutas (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since those claiming that the background material advocates criminality have not explained how, nor have they suggested how to include this well-sourced material without advocating criminality, nor have they responded to the real issues at hand, I'll go ahead and give it my best shot without their input, since they have declined my request for their advice. My edits will mention the alleged criminality in a way that is mindful of the views expressed here that there is not yet an overwhelming conclusion of a criminal act.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What "background material" are you referring to here? --TS 12:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-reading User:TMLutas's statement here, he seems to be actively denying that there is prima facie evidence of a crime. He might be surprised to know that the police were called in at an early stage, it's pointless pretending that no crime took place.  Counter-allegations attempting to defend the crime by alleging that it was committed to stop another crime are somewhat disingenuous. --TS 12:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no support in the RS (or on this page) for labeling this a crime - doing so at this point is OR. Ronnotel (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very odd thing to say. Hacking is a crime in the UK and in the US.  One or two people may disagree with the facts but if so they're on their own. --TS 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, hacking is a crime. However, there is also the possibility that whatever happened could be protected under whistle-blower legislation. Determining criminality is a matter for the legal system, not this page. Ronnotel (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Police investigating the matter does not even make it a crime.  If someone falls down a flight of stairs, the police will investigate as well - if they eventually find that the person is just clumsy, there is no crime.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  13:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * However, we know a crime was committed. We do not know if a whistle-blower was involved.  Let's stick with what we know and discard the rest. Viriditas (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? I don't know that at all.  Unless there is a WP:RS to say it for sure, neither do you.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  13:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That almost sounds like an argument from ignorance. Are you saying a crime wasn't committed?  The e-mails hacked themselves?  Viriditas (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Read above - there may be a justification for the released e-mails. It's not a crime until someone says it's a crime.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  13:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence for such justification, only wild speculation. And consider this: If there was a whistle-blower, that would imply wrongdoing.  And since there does not appear to be any wrongdoing, what need is there for a whistle-blower?  The entire incident was staged to distract people from the upcoming climate conference.  A crime was committed in the process. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "The entire incident was staged to distract people from the upcoming climate conference." Now who is engaging in wild speculation?  Again, it is not a crime until someone says it's a crime.  Someone besides you that is.  Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  14:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's standard dirty tricks, right out of the playbook. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

TS: This is absolut nonsense. There is a link between the tho issues, that's not something Wikipedia has made up, to not mention it would therefore be a fault. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the criminals would like us to excuse their crime by drawing an inference, but that doesn't mean the two issues are actually linked. The suggestion that there is such a link has not been taken seriously.  Every opponent of science who resorts to petty crime and smearing wants to justify his acts by depicting himself as a popular hero uncovering serious wrongdoing.  It isn't our job as a neutral encyclopedia either to support or to oppose such attempts.  We should present the facts with due weight.  The facts as known do not support the claims of the criminals.  This could change over time, and then and only then would we be able to write that the criminals acted with justification. --TS 14:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I miss something? As fas as I know, the 'criminals' (not convicted yet) have made no claims aside that the files were too important to keep secret, we dont' even know who did it, do we? So to call them 'opponents of science' is a bold interpretation. Claims have been made by other people (not by the criminals), pointing out, that the files show misuse of scientific methods. Some of these claims are justified, as a look into the files shows. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)