Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 5

Breakout into separate pages
Recommend breaking this out into a dozen individual pages, with summaries then brought back to this overall page. Anyone interested in any given topic, go for it. That will break the log jam over this page being frozen.DLH (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Please read and understand WP:POVFORK. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AMS statement
It's already in the article. Therefore archiving. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeclarify.html may be of interest William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to raise that but you beat me to it! It's an important statement, since it addresses the wider question of what effect this has on climate science in general; it definitely needs to be included. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone beat you both to it. It's already in there.  Evensong (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So they did. OK. Sorry to have bothered you. We can delete this section now :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Near as I can figure it only says that CRU was only one of a bunch of places doing studies -- and nothing else. It specifically states that a new statement will eventually be made in 2012, period.  Nor does it say anything about the interaction of scientists at various places. Collect (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The AMS has a conflict of interest on this topic and hence is not a reliable source. If something about this statement, which is no more than a press release, is put in the article, it can be quoted only as a claim. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Gwen, as I've said before, your "conflict of interest ... not a reliable source" claim has no basis whatsoever in policy. You're overlooking WP:NPOV's instruction to "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This is a non-negotiable requirement. The AMS is a leading scientific society and its view is highly relevant. There is absolutely no reason why we should not add to the article a statement along the lines of: "The American Meteorological Society issued a statement that "the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited"." That is perfectly acceptable under WP:PSTS, which permits us to use primary sources to make descriptive claims (i.e. that X said Y) but not interpretive claims (i.e. that X said Y which means Z). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The AMS has a conflict of interest on this topic - I'm puzzled. Why? Or are you asserting that all scientific bodies automatically have COI's? You appear to be stretching your defn so wide that *everyone* would have a COI. For comparison, do you think that McI has a COI? Lindzen? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RS. Even without a conflict of interest, their press release can only support a statement about themselves as an org, not about the topic beyond their own outlook on that topic and this must be straightforwardly framed as such for readers. Moreover, since they have a conflict interest, statements about themselves must be framed with even greater care so as to not mislead readers into thinking they're an "authoritative" source on this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained what their conflict of interest is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Hmm, I think I see what you're getting at (to Kim: the point, I guess, is that the statement at least in part discusses the AMS's own position). However, we use them to say The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change. - that is clearly acceptable - yes, because it is a statement about themselves as an org? And They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small... - that also appears to be acceptable - they aren't commenting about themselves. However, I'd still like GG's answer re McI, or L William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the AMS has no involvement in the affair, the only rationale I can detect in Gwen's position is a POV that all climate-research organisations are tainted by this incident and therefore none of them can be trusted as a source on any matter concerning it. This is about as definitive a misunderstanding of WP:V ("verifiability, not truth") and WP:NPOV ("represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources") as you can get. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, please talk about the subject, not about the editors. It seems to me this is worth including in the "Reactions" section. We want the opinions of the most authoritative and influential groups. I think William Connolley's language (in italics above) is fine and should be added. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. For all the citation of wikipedia guidelines, we're violating WP:BOLD - not doing anything at all in this article and waiting for everything to be perfect strikes me as about as timid as you can get. Ignignot (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:V, RS: No worries in the least about carrying the statement, but it must be framed as a press release, rather than supporting the article narrative in any way. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I concur with Barber, the WMC language seems fine and is appropriate as a reaction. SPhilbrick  T  21:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So the gist of this is that one editor has repeatedly argued conflict of interest and questionable source to disbar the inclusion of position statements by scientific institutions (to put this in context, the American Meteorological Society is in America and the hacked Climate Research Unit is in the UK), but the consensus is against her. Irrespective of that, we may have consensus for adding at least one of these position statements. But of course, there's no hurry. We can take the time to get this article right. --TS 03:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations for allegations of criminality
The citation after "unknown individual stole" cites a CRU press release. Press releases are fine for describing CRU's statements, but secondary sources should be used for all citations describing a living person as engaging in illegal activities. Andjam (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 15:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is no living person involved yet. That may be a problem if the hacker (or someone suspected of having done the hacking) gets caught though. There is no BLP violations in saying "a hacker stole" - while there is a BLP violation in stating that "X stole" (where X is named). Its an fact that the material was appropriated by illegal means (ie. stolen), it is not a fact who did the deed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless it has been ruled out that this leak could also have involved someone on the inside, even the statement that "the material was appropriated by illegal means" is unwarranted conjecture. __meco (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The UEA is the owner of the material in question. Its ownership is undisputed. It has stated unequivocally that the material has been stolen. That is not "conjecture" - it's a statement of fact by the victim of the crime and the owner of the stolen property. You have no source whatsoever to support any claim that the material was not stolen. Furthermore, I can't see any good reason why the opinion of an outside party should outweigh a statement of fact by the UEA. Since the UEA is the owner of the material, it's the only source which is competent to address the question of whether its property rights have been violated. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that "someone", be that an individual or organization, solemnly declares that something has been stolen from them does not guarantee this to be fact. If I worked at the CRU and decided I would want to leak some papers without telling my colleagues or superiors, and that may have been the case here, then obviously noone else would know about that. And, as for your last sentence, no, I have no source to support this. I don't need to. The burden of evidence lies on the party which claims to know what has taken place out of a number of possible scenarios. __meco (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) You can never be entirely certain about anything, it might be the university that's making it all up as a PR-trick as well, who knows? Currently theft appears to be the most likely explanation and since that's what the sources describe it as, it's reasonable to call it that.
 * Certainly. We may take that as a tentative premise until a criminal investigation finds this to be true or false. What we are not justified to do though is to consider it proven just because the UEA asserts it. __meco (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The ownership of the material hasn't been contested, and is irrelevant to the discussion. If I drop my credit card on the ground, and someone else picks it up, it is still owned by me, and they are not guilty of theft. While we don't know if that is what happened (and my guess is that it is not the case) it has not been ruled out.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. __meco (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense. Data-theft is data-theft. If they as you say "just found it", they still didn't have the right to distribute it. In this case we have a clear statement of theft, we have an ongoing criminal investigation - these are facts. Your (and others) speculation as to other reasons or ways this may have happened is just that ... pure speculation without any facts what so ever to base it upon. You (or others) do not have access to the logs, the security parameters or anything other upon which you could base such speculation. Try sticking to facts instead. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To me you look like the one who is unable to distinguish facts and assertions. The fact that UEA has stated that that the documents were stolen does not by necessity equate with the fact that the documents were stolen. This has yet to be confirmed. Your bringing up various potential sources of evidence is absolutely non-sequiturial as these have not been investigated. Noone in the media landscape knows what lies in there. Also you obfuscate the matter when you write in one sentence: "Data-theft is data-theft." Then, completely unrelated to the issue of theft in the next sentence you srite: "If they as you say "just found it", they still didn't have the right to distribute it.". There's no logical connection between the two sentences. __meco (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kim, with all due respect, you are missing the argument. As with my credit card example, I wouldn't argue that anyone finding it has the right to use it. That would be illegal. It may well be that the further dissemination of the material breaks laws. That why we have been careful not to post full copies of the email contents, as it might contravene copyright law. But surely you know that a criminal investigation is hardly proof of criminal action, at least not in a free society. The narrow issue is whether the claim that the data has been stolen is so incontrovertible that it can be stated as a fact, rather than as an allegation.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but UEA has stated quite clearly that there server got hacked, and that material was stolen. They have called in the authorities. They took down their mainserver, and put an alternative online. A criminal investigation to find the hacker in question is running. Anything beside that .... is speculation based on no knowledge of the real facts (logfiles, filesystem,..) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that based on the above you seem to conclude that a server has been hacked and documents stolen off it. __meco (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is fact, until shown wrong. Sorry. If its a lie, then the authorities will most certainly inform us (they have after all been called in), and we will document it then. Everything else here is pure speculation without any form of background knowledge to back it up. That you don't like that this is the only real information we have, it is really not of any consequence. Please remember that we are not on a deadline and that we aren't here to make news. -Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You sir, have a very peculiar understanding of the term fact. __meco (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to - you can call, what i state as fact, "the only assertions based on factual knowledge" in this case. (this certainly applies as fact in your link). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That certainly is moving in the right direction. __meco (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kim, you are not properly stating the appropriate baseline. No one is suggesting that the article should declare it is not a theft, that's speculation. But neither should it be declared that it IS a theft, until some reliable source concludes it was theft. The claim by the CRU is hardly unbiased, and investigation by authorities is investigation, not conclusion. A NPOV would note allegations of theft and hold off factual pronouncements until there are facts supporting the allegation. I peg the odds at 90% that such facts will be found, but 90% isn't 100%. I peg the odds of a sunrise tomorrow quite a bit higher, but were I to post it as a fact in a WP article, it would properly be removed as WP:CRYSTAL.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually if you look over this talk-page, as well as look over the reversions done to this article, the statement "No one is suggesting that the article should declare it is not a theft" is incorrect, since we've had several assertions/edits that consider "there must have been an insider" as factual.
 * Theft is the only correct word (not "alleged") since we know for a fact, that UAH/CRU didn't release the data voluntarily. Even if an insider/whistleblower is involved, it is still theft. Speculations of "it was just lying around" are in fact rather far out, and btw. would in many jurisdictions still be called theft (its not theirs and they took it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, someone thinks it's an inside job. First, that's not proven, and shouldn't be in the article. Second it isn't even a rebuttal to the "theft" claim. However, others making edits without adequate sources is hardly a reason for leaving in an edit that is not supported by facts. Furthermore, you implication that it must be theft is contradicted by recent events at CRU itself. IIRC, McIntyre stumbled on some data left unprotected. AFAIK, no one prosecuted him for it, so it appears to be possible to get data from CRU and not be engaged in theft. Your argument is not only Original Research, it is incorrect. Can we please stick to facts in this article?-- SPhilbrick  T  19:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No it is not "contradicted", those two cases are entirely different. (just a few reasons: no theft, not restricted data (apparently (and certainly not personal data)) and no authorities were called in to investigate). Comparing those cases btw. is OR (more specifically a synthesis). And of course the really big elephant in the room: Most reliable sources, which aren't opinion, state that it was a hacker - and that the data was stolen. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but we know what the basis for those assertions were, viz. the UEA's pronouncement that hackers had stolen their data. And it is quite transparent – no need for synthesis or original research – that at the present time that is the sole basis for concluding hacker and stolen. As a matter of good faith on an issue were most find it uncontroversial to assume that to be the most likely scenario the media has largely adopted the UAE's description of facts. We are an encyclopedia, and we need to be much clearer about essentials and hidden assumptions than what a newspaper may decide to be. In this matter we need to spell out the assumption. It would be blatant intellectual (and factual) dishonesty if we simply recused ourselves of that responsibility hiding behind quotes from "reliable sources" which we know are based on conjecture even though they don't always make that explicit. __meco (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kim, I'll urge you to read Original Research and Synthesis. While it would be problematic if I were proposing to add to the article that it might very well not be theft, I'm not advancing any such argument. I'm trying to explain to you why this is an alleged theft, not a proven theft. Revkin, who no one views as a skeptic, is now taking a more cautious approach, using the phrase "disclosed files". One cite is not sufficient, but cites from CRU itself are hardly unbiased on this issue.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is very simple. The UEA says that the files were stolen. As the owner of the files it is the only source that is competent to make that assessment. No source of any kind - let alone a reliable source - has been cited so far on this talk page that suggests anything different. All we're seeing in this discussion is completely unsourced POV speculation. This discussion will go nowhere unless you and the other editors pushing this POV original research start realising that there are certain standards we have to follow in writing content. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris, please discuss this issue without resorting to tendentious wording like POV pushing. I'm arguing that you are failing to meet the standards of Wikipedia - sourcing a claim of a crime to a victim is not the best possible source, it isn't even obvious it is an acceptable source at all. And that's the only cite for the term. I think those who insist the data was stolen need better sourcing. I don't know if Wikipedia has addressed this issue squarely in the past, but I'll be surprised if the unsupported statement of the alleged victim is considered grounds for stating a crime, as opposed to an alleged crime, has occurred. If it is policy, I'd like to see it, because it is time to improve that policy. Do you know of an example where this has been settled?-- SPhilbrick  T  04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We can't use primary sources to make accusations about third parties. If secondary sources find the accusations credible enough that they publish them, then we cite the secondary sources to say what allegedly happened, and we only cite the primary sources to describe the alleged victim's comments. Andjam (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging by your comments on the BLP noticeboard, you seem to think this is a BLP issue. It's not. No identified third party is named (obviously, since the culprit isn't yet known) so BLP doesn't apply. The fact of the theft is incontrovertible, since the UEA has stated definitively that the files were stolen. No other party is in a position to make that assessment. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your and Kim D. Petersen's (and possibly others) conclusion that "The fact of the theft is incontrovertible, since the UEA has stated definitively that the files were stolen" (bold script applied after carefully concluding that this is the core of the matter) is a blatant fallacy and non-sequitor. I and others have already given reason for why that is the case. Until you relinquish this position we are stuck on this issue. The way forward on this should be that more editors point this out to you and if even that doesn't bring the point home, we need to settle it through some form of conflict resolution (RFC/mediation). __meco (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Your argument is completely tendentious and without any merit whatsoever:
 * You have not cited any source of any kind to support your speculation that a theft did not occur.
 * You have not explained why any third-party source would even be competent to support such a contention.
 * Until you do both of those things your unsupported speculations are a waste of everyone's time. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is mind-boggling. The only possible circumstances in which a crime may not have occurred are if (i) Jones himself released the emails and this is all some perverse attempt to seek publicity or (ii) someone at a very high management level at UEA authorized release of Phil Jones's emails and, somehow, the rest of the UEA administration didn't know about it. And even in these circumstances the legal authority to release the emails is open to question. Circumstance (i) is absurd. Circumstance (ii) is equally weird: why would a high-level UEA administrator authorize release of documents, and then effect the release by uploading the documents to open proxies? Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And on top of everything else, the UEA has reported the theft to the police, who are pursuing a criminal investigation. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To Meco and anyone else making the same arguments - please stop. There is no question that a theft occurred, and there is no reliable source that disputes this state of affairs. If you wish to pursue this line of thought, please take it elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Both you and others asserting the same seem oblivious to the not so fine distinction between (a) the fact that noone in reliable sources is positively questioning whether a theft has occurred, and (b) meriting a theft having occurred a factual occurrence. This is simply stupidity and mushy thinking, and if such editors are going to be allowed to strongarm their position using blatant slander and brute threats, well, Wikipedia would be all the poorer as a consequence. __meco (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Meco, I read what you wrote above, and you are not making any reasonable sense. Data theft occurred, and this has been covered by RS.  That is a fact.  Anything else is speculation and has no place here.  If you don't agree, then I suggest you take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Veridas, I agree with your position, but you are conflating "fact" with "concrete claim".
 * The fact here is that the data was reported stolen by the responsible party. The social norm is to take this on face value to at least the extent that "object reported stolen" can be referenced as "stolen object" without implying a level certainty that doesn't exist.
 * There is presently no concrete claim pertaining to any other mechanism of data leakage (who or when or why). Against the reported theft, we have only vague possibility: no whistleblower note, no disgruntled insider terminated under a cloud, etc.  "Stolen" at this point is the operative fact.
 * Application of the word "alleged" here would be a bit slimy. The press is very careful with the use of alleged to abide by the presumption of innocent-until-proven-guilty.  It's done to protect a person, not a thing.  Things are not presumed unstolen until proven otherwise.
 * Finally, under the conventions of copyright, with no clear public license, this data is floating around in apparent contravention of laws designed to protect property.
 * I'm not aware of any source which claims that releasing the information violates copyright laws. And it's not obvious.  There are exceptions, such as fair dealing in the UK.  Claiming that the release violates copyright laws and is therefore stolen is synthesis. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no synthesis involved. The owner of the stolen material has stated unequivocally that it was stolen. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * English is not a first order predicate language. The word "stolen" here is doing much successful work: as an operative fact uncontested by concrete counter-claim, as a transgression of copyright, as a formal statement by the responsible party.  Even the extremely legalistic interpretation of what this word promises in the context of its use (misguided, IMO) is problematic, since many convicted rapists have since been released&mdash;after serving long sentences&mdash;when genetic analysis contradicted the social verdict (i.e. even convicted is not proven).
 * The appropriate place to draw attention to uncertainty (which always exists, since fact, to the paranoid, is turtles all the way down) is when there are concrete counterclaims on both sides.
 * Until a RS puts forth a concrete counterclaim, the addition of a weasel word will not improve accuracy.
 * When I read the phrase "alleged theft" I'm expecting to soon be informed about a concrete counterclaim; not mere speculation that such a thing could possibly have happened. If this doesn't materialize, the word "alleged" is committing the greater crime.  Note: an "alleged thief" is judged by a different standard of evidence.  &mdash; MaxEnt (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My issue isn´t with the claim (since we operate on verifiability, not truth), but with the sourcing. Please use secondary sources rather than primary sources as far as possible. Andjam (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why I proposed a week of full protection, and what we can do next
I've been following this article, and have contributed to it, for about a week now. I think it's well developed now and gives a good account of the way the story of this hacking incident has developed and the way in which various interested parties have responded, and for the most part this has developed without serious edit warring.

Last night a spat seemed to develop between some editors over what I consider to be a relatively minor question--whether the word "Climategate", used extensively in the gutter press and even in some respectable publications, should be mentioned in the lead section. I think it's probably not encyclopedic to use the term, and I've removed it when it was used giving justification on the talk page. Other editors have a good faith disagreement on that. I wouldn't edit-war over it, and I don't think it's what we should be focusing on. I chose to try to kill the edit war by making a formal application for protection on requests for page protection.

Now we've had some new developments, and I think they should be added. In particular the university plans to announce an inquiry into the affair on Monday. We can certainly prepare and, with consensus agreement, post an alteration to the existing section on call for an inquiry, and to the lede, when the announcement is made. There is no hurry here--even the university itself plans to wait through the weekend, and as we're not a news source we can, in principle, take as long as we need to to get it right. A timely way to deal with this would be to agree an edit to be made by an administrator updating the article by Monday evening, Greenwich Mean Time. --TS 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you that we can take all time in world to write this article, and a slowdown is welcome - as it allows us to spend our time more productively by contributing to less controversial articles. WP is not a blog; if someone will try to read it for news, disappointment is inevitable anyhow. We need for the battle mentality of both camps to subside, so I agree with you on the need to cover the least controversial topics first. If the article remains locked, "Climategate" will quickly become a non-issue, as the word will either swim or sink on its own, and arguing about its inclusion or omission will become easier and faster. Let's not discuss our pet issues on this page in the meantime (in the spirit of full disclosure, I am for inclusion of the "Climategate" reference and my pet issue is a direct link to the archive content). Dimawik (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC


 * There's certainly not going to be any direct linking to the archive content since, as already mentioned, that would be an indisputable copyright violation (see WP:LINKVIO. I'd suggest you find another pet issue since that one's a non-starter. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not worry about minutiae. The important thing is that we agree that this encyclopedia article can take the time to get it right.  Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. --TS 00:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in your link that suggests that news isn't appropriate for wikipedia. On the contrary.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, I don't say news is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I say, rather, and Wikipedia policy has always been, that this encyclopedia isn't a newspaper and writing an encyclopedia article isn't journalism.  That's why you wouldn't want to come to Wikipedia to find out what's in the latest news headlines. --TS 02:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * moving my misslocated sectionDLH (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How about we agree not to use the term "Climategate" in the header of the article. It seems like it wouldn't be that big of a deal to leave it out. Does anyone care about including the term enough to break consensus? If not, let's unprotect/semiprotect this page.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We are permitted to link to a site which presents the leaked emails in a fair use context; this doesn't violate WP:LINKVIO. And while publishing the whole thing may make it harder to meet the amount and substantiality test, it doesn't necessarily prevent it from being fair use.  Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We already link to sources, such as press reports, that quote from the leaked e-mails. But a link to an archive of the e-mails - as some have called for - would indisputably violate WP:LINKVIO, the wording of which is categorical: "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." There's no wriggle room there, nor is there meant to be any. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree and think we should use the term "Climategate" in the article, as:
 * this scandal does not yet have another short name permitting search on Google or twitter. I think with Climategate popularity going up (in Google News, about 200% growth over the weekend, main search is off the charts), an appearance of a new short name is unlikely
 * this is what media calls this scandal for the lack of better word per 1)
 * The subject of this article simply has no other name that an average person can reliably spell, almost everyone seems to be using it, so let's keep it in WP. Dimawik (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Should full-protection of this article be changed to semi-protection?
Should the protection-level of this article be reduced from full-protection to semi-protection? The article was full-protected on November 28, set to be reduced to semi-protection (or completely removed) on December 5. __meco (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 23:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 01:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the RfC process guidelines state that "All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment" I suggest that either this talk page be unprotected, or, the RfC section gets transcluded onto the talk page from an unprotected sub-page. __meco (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed above in, i do not see that anything much has changed, and certainly not to an extent where we cannot wait 4 days for unprotection (which also makes this RfC without purpose - since the running time of an RfC is longer than that period) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with KDP. I'm rather thinking we should extend the full-protection period, I don't see many constructive attempts to solve any content disputes so far.
 * I think there is a bit of confusion here, understandably. The discussion of the reason for full protection does not occur at the section you mention, it occurs here: . The dispute that instigated full protection concerned whether or not to include the word "climategate" in the leader. In that section, and after the appeal was denied on the grounds that the dispute was not resolved, I posted a small comment asking if anyone would be opposed to excluding the word "climategate" from the leader in order to avoid controversy. I can't imagine anyone would be opposed to its exclusion, especially when doing so would yield a compromise. Given that no one has broken consensus on this I think it would be reasonable to go back to semiprotecting the page. But, of course, feel free to comment here if you are yourself opposed to its exclusion.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I'm seeing at present, there have been few constructive developments during discussion, and little sign of consensus even on the broad shape of the article or its primary subject have emerged. I am leaning towards the belief that it would be wise to extend the period of protection.  --TS 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does there have to be "consensus on the broad shape of the article or its primary subject" before non-admin users can edit it? If you really hold to this philosophy then please immediately full protect Interpretation (logic), where I have vocally expressed disagreement about both the broad shape of the article and its primary subject. And while you're at it, let me take this moment to make explicit the fact that I also disagree with users on the broad shape of the article and primary subject of Commensurability (philosophy of science), Sophism and First order logic. Please request that all of these pages are fully protected. I'm serious. I want some consistency, as this is all horribly frustrating.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, of course not, but are there extensive edit wars that prevents any constructive work on these articles? Do you not discuss changes on the talk page with the other editors before making controversial edits? That's the problem here.
 * I generally don't make the edits I feel will lead to an edit war whether I want to make them or not. People here seem to be suggesting that we can only unprotect this page if everyone agrees or we'll reach some imagined "total edit war." This isn't how things work. There is no complete consensus on any article in wikipedia and this does not place wikipedia in a state of edit warfare.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with most of the above. We still have people talking past each other and being barely civil. Certainly the protection should not be lifted early. If anything it should be extended indefinitely until folks decide to play nice. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Full protection extension — one month and in the interim, admins can add in any real, substantive news on the issue. ► RATEL ◄ 01:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion has only been open for two hours and of the comments added there are only two in favor and three against (once you discount Kim Petersen whose sock puppet accounts have been banned from this talkpage before). Please try to use your power responsibly.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I'm sorry. I thought you were an admin.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I've stricken edits by confirmed sockpuppets (by Checkuser), but have never done any sockpuppeteering - nor have i ever been blocked (or banned from any page/topic or anything else). And i'm not an admin either. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to meco's question: Yes. Block edit warriors as needed, but the page is supposed to be able to be edited. Let's get back to normal practice ASAP. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, yes. We should go back to semiprotect. The original dispute was whether to include the word 'climategate' in the leader. I've asked twice and no one seems to be irrevocably opposed to its exclusion.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree with your statements. Nobody simply noticed your "climategate" post on this busy page. I think we should wait. Dimawik (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit warring and POV-pushing before the block was a nightmare, and there is no reason to expect it to magically end if the block is lifted, I agree with keeping the full protection. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let the current protection run its course. No extension required.  --GoRight (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This page has been locked down long enough and efforts to extend the protection are at best misguided, and at worst a transparent attempt to hijack the editing and consensus process. Lift protection and see how it goes. WVBluefield (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can not see why this article is being protected. It's also pretty obvious why its being called "climategate": like everyone else I can't think of a better name! Also, I do wonder what the motives of those who engage in edit warring are! From past experience I have no doubt some will intentionally argue with every point with the intention of getting the article locked. It is far better to unblock the article, let it develop but tackle those who edit war, rather than allow the malicious attempts to stop information reaching the public domain through wikipedia. Isonomia (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At the height of it's vandalism, Sarah Palin was only full-protected for four days. If that page could exist on semi in the run up to an election then I have a hard time seeing why this page needs full. Ronnotel (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The logical response to that would be that this topic is more contentious than the candidacy of Sarah Palin for US Vice President. Now, that conclusion would of course be antithetical and anathemic to the apologist cadre on this page who want to have us think that this whole shebang is completely blown out of all proportions; basically a "storm in a teacup". Now, to corroborate their claim that this is no big matter, they really should let go of their iron grip on this article and let it be edited to reflect this evolving story. Otherwise, they by their frantic insisting that this article is the focus of heretofore untold assaults by POV warriors blatantly belie their own "nothing to see here, move along, folks" spin attempt. __meco (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, Sarah Palin was a rock upon which more than one admin bit nearly foundered in a sea of blinding controversy. In other words, it was quite a bit more spirited than what we're seeing on this page. Ronnotel (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Wikipedia learns from it's mistakes.
 * No reason to maintain protection here. WP runs the risk of being hijacked by those who fear edits. Collect (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - when an article like this is full protected it is a shame. There will be edit wars since there are so many people looking at this, but individual users should be punished for that.  WP has shown time and again that such behavior doesn't win out, so let's get back to work here. Ignignot (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the page should be semi-protected. It is an obviously controversial subject and a tag reminding people of that should be sufficient. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Semi protection would likely be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions from blogs, columns and editorials by people not directly involved in the incident
Although the opinions of some people and organisations are highly relevant, such as those of involved parties like the CRU (obviously) or RealClimate (also targeted by the hacker attack), some of the cited opinions seems less relevant. I think we need to consider carefully what and whose opinions to cite, so as to not introduce bias (by only citing those critical of AGW for example). We need to establish that the notability of the person is relevant to this case and to the opinion expressed. We should also consider weight, so that we do not cite an unreasonable proportion of opinions from one side of the issue. I'm rather sceptical to most of the opinions that have been cited throughout the article history, and I don't think an encyclopaedia article should read like a list of opinions expressed by different commentators. Shouldn't the article primarily try to reflect well established facts, supported by reliable sources (and in these cases blogs and opinion pieces cant be used as RS at all of course). I think this should be kept in mind before citing even more opinion pieces. —Apis (talk ) 01:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 02:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't think an encyclopaedia article should read like a list of opinions expressed by different commentators." - Interesting. If this is the case, Apis, perhaps you could visit Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and see about cleaning that up as well.  It's a mess.  --GoRight (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That appears to be the whole point of the article so it seems reasonable there. I'm not going to put that page up for deletion if that's what you are suggesting. As I (think I) said, some opinions might be relevant, but not every opinion from whoever happens to write an editorial on the subject. It's not what I would expect to find if I where to look up the subject in for example the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
 * That article is about the scientific opinion, and it doesn't list the opinion of individual (cherry picked) scientists. Other articles shouldn't be discussed here, if you have any concerns with another article, you should take it up on that articles talk page.
 * Good point, Apis. The addition of screeds of ill-informed waffle, from both sides of the argument (Monbiot comes to mind), tends to obfuscate rather than illuminate the salient facts. Perhaps all opinions should be relegated to the bottom of the page, signifying minor importance, and facts (just the facts, ma'am) should hold pole position. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 01:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is "relevant", essentially, to everybody on the planet. It isn't only an article about science, it's just as much an article about public policy research. Anything that attracts so much editorial comment from so many obviously should have a representative sample of that comment. We should favor various things in picking that representative sample, and some of the things we should favor are editorials from major newspapers and other highly respected or influential commentators, comment from various points of view and comment from scientists and others particularly knowledgeable. Here's an interesting one:


 * ''The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. [...] Remember that this is not an academic exercise. We contemplate outlays of trillions of dollars to fix this supposed problem. Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot. These people are willing to subvert the very methods--notably, peer review -- that underwrite the integrity of their discipline. Is this really business as usual in science these days? If it is, we should demand higher standards -- at least whenever "the science" calls for a wholesale transformation of the world economy. And maybe some independent oversight to go along with the higher standards. The IPCC process needs to be fixed, as a matter of the greatest urgency. Read David Henderson or the Wegman report to see how. And in the meantime, let's have some independent inquiries into what has been going on.


 * I think this, from one of the blogs at the influential Atlantic magazine, adequately conveys why it's important to get a wide sample of influential, authoritative opinions: A lot is at stake. (and this is from someone who accepts the mainstream view on climate change, although this episode is giving him doubts). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We're writing an encyclopedia article, not a news blog. It will take weeks and possibly months for the dust to settle and for us to begin to see if this will have any lasting effect.  Writing about what people are saying on blog sites and in newspaper editorials won't help the reader to understand the facts.  The news coverage is part of the facts, but a rather small part. --TS 03:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Writing about what people are saying on [influential magazine] blog sites and in newspaper editorials won't help the reader to understand the facts. What a curious statement. What makes you say that? The news coverage is part of the facts, but a rather small part. Are there other third-party sources for us to use besides news coverage? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Straight news coverage is one thing. Partisan editorials and blog bloviations are another. I think we have too little of the former and (much) too much of the latter. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in terms of space, not in terms of references. We should have more references to various opinions but do it in about the same space or somewhat less. I'd prefer to see a longer section delving into what's been revealed in the released documents. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * JohnWBarber: Generally speaking, blogs aren't reliable sources (nor are they appropriate for the external links section). Why do you keep bringing this up?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * AQFK, where did I suggest using a blog not in compliance with WP:RS for facts? And what's that got to do with my point here? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you've done it repeatedly, I'm not sure when you first did it. But the latest example is in this very thread (scroll up) where you argued for inclusion of the blog from Atlantic magazine.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If I've done it repeatedly, you should be able to find examples of it. What makes you think I was suggesting that something from that blog post go anywhere but in the "Reactions" section? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've completely missed/ignored the point about that other third-party, reliable sources are required to cover the opinion to make the opinion notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question. Also, is there a policy or guideline that says reliable sources are required to cover the opinion to make the opinion notable? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you quote the passage there that supports the idea that "reliable sources are required to cover the opinion to make the opinion notable", because I can't find it there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to start excluding partisan blogs and editorials we should exclude RealClimate.org as well.

Allegedly...
I'd like to get rid of the word allegedly in the Hacked and leaked documents section. It's clearly a weasel word (the first one listed!), and is not backed up by the source. -Atmoz (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Curious. It's not alleged that the hack was done, but when/if they find who did it, it would be "allegedly".--  FUNK A MATIC      ~talk   09:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it would still not be alleged, but there would be (until a after a trial) "an alleged hacker"(named) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "allegedly" should certainly be removed--there isn't any doubt on this matter. --TS 11:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This illogical nonsense is being persistently promulgated by a small group of editors, Kim D. Petersen being one of these. They attempt to convince us that because the owners of the data have reported it as stolen via a hack, then that must be axiomatic, i.e. our baseline. To them the possibility that what the owners of the data present is incorrect is what should constitue inapplicable speculation. Of course any intellectually honest or sound mind immediately recognizes that here is our factual baseline: The papers got away of the owners. The owners assert they were stolen in a computer hacking incident. This is now being investigated. __meco (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You ignore the point that the police are pursuing a criminal investigation, which requires a crime to have been committed in the first place. You continue to ignore the point that no party other than the UEA is competent to state whether the files were stolen, and you continue your failure to provide any sources of any kind - let alone reliable ones - to support your position or explain why any such sources would be competent to challenge the UEA's statement. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Police pursue alleged crimes. The existence of a criminal investigation does not necessarily imply a crime was committed, at least not in a free society. This has been addressed before, but Ive seen no coherent rebuttal.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. There have been multiple coherent rebuttals, but you have chosen to ignore them. Big difference. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that you haven't bothered to answer my other points about the lack of sourcing and why any other source would be competent to dispute the UEA. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, yes this is exactly the nonsensical position which I was referring to and which you and Kim are the most vociferous protagonists of. You obviously do not understand that the police investigate a lot of reported crimes that turn out not to be crimes at all. For the police to instigate a criminal investigation they must find it reasonable that a crime has occurred. That's all. __meco (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There obviously isn't a strong enough consensus to merit an edit of the protected article. We'll have to wait until it's unprotected. --TS 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there will ever be a consensus while some editors insist on pushing their unsourced personal opinions into the article. That's an unacceptable situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. On many contentious issues we will get a resolution reasonably quickly by just waiting. Climategate label will either become popular or sink in few weeks, either way it will stop being so controversial. Emails will become matter of public record (and thus linkable) during the very first related lawsuit filed in the US (which is pretty much inevitable). Police will investigate the hacking, and we will have statements on the subject that will feel more trustworthy than that of CRU. Dimawik (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already said (way above in this discussion) that mentioning the "Climategate" nickname in the article is inevitable given its appearance in reliable sources. The article will, however, never be titled "Climategate" since that name would not be compatible with the article naming policy. Copyright policy means that e-mails will not be linkable from Wikipedia unless they are released by the content owners. Your opinion of the trustworthiness of the CRU (or I assume you mean the UEA, since it's the publisher of the statements in question) is irrelevant - as the verifiability policy makes clear, it's a definitive source for its own affairs, whether you like it or not. I shouldn't have to keep repeating this and you shouldn't keep pushing for things that violate Wikipedia's policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear ChrisO, The only thing I "push" here is to keep the protection, so that the issues burn out on their own; this is no reason to get personal. Now comments on your opinion (which, BTW, according to WP rules is only as relevant as mine): 1) Nobody proposes to rename the article, the fight was going about using the word "Climategate" in the first sentence. 2) During the lawsuit in the US (which will inevitably happen), the proceedings will become public records, so we will be able to link to the most juicy emails legally pretty soon (few years) using the court site. 3) Note that I proposed to add to the hacking allegation words "As reported by CRU" - why do you think this is wrong? Now I have a counter-question: what was your basis for accusing me of pushing for things that violate Wikipedia's policies. Please stay within WP:CIV in the future. Dimawik (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is there an article on this topic?
Copied from Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Subpage by - TS 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Wikipedia. You seem to have left out the important part, you know, why there is concern over this horrible, horrible crime of stolen e-mails. OK, since you might not actually know, it's because there was a lot of sexy details involving scientists and lab equipment. Just kidding. No, it's because some of the leading climate scientists were exposed as frauds--definitely scientific frauds, and quite possibly criminal frauds as well. It's hard to take Wikipedia seriously if the first paragraphs of the article say that Climategate is really just a "hacking incident." "Climate change sceptics have asserted that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to withhold scientific information," says the article. Oh, really? Just "climate change sceptics"? This is also a deeply important political event, as you can see from all the political commentary on the political scandal, and you don't get to that until very far down in the article. JusDeFax (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The notion that fraud has been exposed has been used to defend the theft since the first days. No credible instance of fraud has emerged. --TS 11:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's way too early to draw those types of conclusions. More importantly, it isn't the function of WP to draw those conclusions. If reliable sources reach those conclusion, then it can be reported. So far, we have far more heat than light.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually on a climate article the euphemism of reliable sources is used to mean "peer reviewed articles by the very people writing these emails". Sphilbrick, can you assure me that you will allow non CRU peer reviewed sources on this article? Isonomia (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no more power to make such an assurance than you do, but it is not my position that reliable source equates to peer-reviewed by writers of these emails. Roughly speaking all peer-reviewed papers are reliable sources but many reliable sources are not peer-reviewed articles.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are far, far more scientists (and data) involved in climate science than the few who wrote these emails. The scientific basis of man-made global warming is not in any doubt. Also, don't forget that these are named, living people and so under WP:BLP, like everybody else, they are assumed completely innocent of every crime unless they have been charged, tried and convicted of it. That is non-negotiable. --Nigelj (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Times on original data dumped
This should be added to the article. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece This loss (destruction?) of data will make it virtually impossible to check the models of Mann et al. If there is consensus on the addition of this fact, I will propose a new paragraph. If not, its just a waste of time, so I wait for the decision. Northfox (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Meets RS to be sure. And since the NOAA data set has "erroneous" data removed, I suspect this is the tip of the iceberg. Collect (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, its twaddle. And its also irrelevant to this issue William M. Connolley (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * IIRC, it is not for us to claim we "know" something -- and asserting this is "twaddle" therefore it should be left out is not in any guideline I can find. WP is to report what is found in reliable sources, not to assert magic expertise on the part of its editors. See Josh Billings. Collect (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with Collect on the twaddle comment; the sole argument should be about relevance. People unfamiliar with William M. Connolley might wish to browse here.
 * On a different issue the editprotected template seems wildly premature and should be deleted. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh well, if you can't read it well enough to know its twaddle, can you read it well enough to know it is irrelevant? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as borderline. As such a consensus is unlikely to develop around its conclusion.  Hope this helps. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the "dumping" of the original data is irrelevant to this page. I think yuo've just answered "No" to my question above William M. Connolley (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I suspect that WMC is calls it "twaddle" because it is :) The data hasn't been lost, its just not available at CRU (you can find it at NOAA (see discussion here)). CRU has "thrown" away the data that they didn't use. Which is quite normal practice as long as the original is still available. I haven't checked but i would suspect that it is also documented exactly which station data that was discarded as UHI points. Its a journalist gone overboard from knowing too little, and extrapolating beyond that knowledge which is quite common when regular media reports on science. (to be short: It raises a red flag on the reliability of that particular Times article) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We haven't discussed this yet, to my knowledge, so an "editprotected" tag is premature. Actually there are problems with the above Times report.  The author is a journalist, not a scientist, and seems to think that the discarded data is crucial to establishing global warming. --TS 12:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Leake's article is poorly written for our use, however, the information about Roger A. Pielke and his relationship to this incident may be relevant. I also think this might be a good angle to pursue.  If, as the article suggests, Pielke is responsible for discovering the lost records while asking for the raw data, that is significant and can easily be mentioned.  In other words, we stick to the facts of the matter, and avoid the sensationalistic coatracking. This has the added benefit of satisfying both sides.  For balance, we can also mention the opinion of CRU scientists in this regard. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Errrmm, yes, but as I've tried to say above, what exactly is the supposed relation between the "lost" records and the email hacking? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Leakes "news" is "old news" He apparently cherry-picked a quote from Pielke Jr.'s blog and forgot to mention that it was >3 months old. As WMC i'd like to ask what this has to do with the hacking. (which this article is about (ie. its not a coatrack for whatever things someone wants to blame the CRU for (note: that is a general comment not directed at anyone specific)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be a relationship between the dumped data and the leaked e-mails, but the linkage is extremely tenuous, and, more importantly, not for us to make. Someone else needs to make it. Even then, this is not the only article relevant to climate issues, and doesn't purport to, nor should it be a repository for everything on the subject. To the extent that the data dumping is relevant, there surely is an another article where it is more on point.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Nature is good enough William M. Connolley (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've attempted to add a brief summary of this Times article at Climatic Research Unit. Editor Ratel keeps reverting it out. At any rate, that seems the proper place to discuss the issue, and (hopefully) come up with a consensus-acceptable paragraph or two. What's there now is clearly non-consensus. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No. 10 Petition
There have been a number of people asking why there needs to be a wikipedia entry suggesting that it is not notable. It is worth noting that the No 10. website petition on this subject has already received 2000 signatures in the first week - which according to cutrent projections of signature growth would mean that there would be around 24,000 signatures in total.

This should be added to the entry! Isonomia (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect this refers to petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/. Which reliable source makes the "cutrent" (or should that be "CUtrend?") projections and how good is their global climate popolation model? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Stephan very good! And does anyone happen to know at what point does the petition itself become notable enough to warrent an article - presumably it needs news media coverage and not just numbers of mouse click! Isonomia (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When it is adressed by reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's irrelevant really, as the UK government just sacks scientific advisers it doesn't agree with anyway. --Nigelj (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the Current status?
I've been going through the comments (with a view to putting together my own article on the subject) and I can see that the whole subject is a complete mess - and unfortunately, many of the comments may now be out of date. So, perhaps it would be useful to hear what people now think should be in without starting more argument so not saying what should be out (put such comments in another section please). Perhaps if we can agree what we disagree on, it would be a start!

My suggestions Isonomia (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * climategate name
 * The theft of emails
 * the "hiding" of data
 * The "can't explain why temperatures have not risen"
 * Press coverage
 * timing relative to Kopenhagen
 * Police being called (what happened?)
 * Was it a hack or e.g. an internal disclose?
 * Inquiry/petition
 * The apparent attempts to block some people from publication
 * The attempts to withold data from others like McIntyre
 * The suggestions that people intended to prevent FOI requests getting information
 * What was lacking (add your conspiracy here)
 * Quick reactions:
 * * climategate name In
 * * The theft of emails It's e-mails and other data, not just e-mails. It should be alleged theft until such time as theft is certain. 
 * * the "hiding" of data problematic without good sourcing
 * * The "can't explain why temperatures have not risen" agnostic
 * * Press coverage of course, but not as separate section
 * * timing relative to Kopenhagen in
 * * Police being called (what happened?) in
 * *Inquiry/petition Inquiries in, petition, not yet
 * *The apparent attempts to block some people from publication limited see below
 * *The attempts to withold data from others like McIntyre limited see below
 * *The suggestions that people intended to prevent FOI requests getting information In
 * *What was lacking (add your conspiracy here) not following
 * * Was it a hack or e.g. an internal disclose? let's wait until resolved, then cite result
 * By "limited" I mean that there should be a broad survey of the nature of the contents, but to go into details is to rehash the GW debate which belongs elsewhere.
 * -- SPhilbrick  T  16:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By: "What was lacking (add your conspiracy here)" I refer to the quote no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP' [Medieval Warm Period], no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords., admittedly a rather poor attempt to find some pro-warming elements to add to the article. Isonomia (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to "alleged theft" vs. "theft", it should simply be "theft". This is a case where we should generally follow the lead of the mainstream media, and almost no news organizations are using "alleged" with regards to the theft.  Not every potential crime has to be charged and prosecuted to be considered as an essentially undisputed fact.  Accusations about a person responsible can be somewhat different because of the protections given to accused persons (hence "alleged hacker", for example), but we don't need to append caveats to every description of what facts occurred.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Alleged" is entirely the unsourced personal opinion of a few editors here. I've repeatedly challenged them over the last few days to provide any source to support their opinion but they haven't. That, I think, is a pretty clear indication of why the term shouldn't be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need to provide support for "alleged" - it is pretty normal to consider self-reported crimes to be alleged, until there is evidence. A removal of this word, however, requires some proof other than just a statement from the CRU. I would support a more neutral opinion-like "As reported by CRU" if this helps to resolve the conflict. Dimawik (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree re "theft" (This is a change of opinion.) While some sources are taking the more prudent route, many are not. While I think they are wrong, that's not a WP issue. We strive for Verifiability not Truth.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-read what Dragons flight has said above. The fact of the theft is virtually undisputed in the mainstream media. Without any source to support the inclusion of "alleged" there is no valid reason to include it. I must say, though, that it's curious that the people pushing for the weasel wording to be included are so eager to declare allegations against individuals as fact when it suits them. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dragons flight's assessment seems reasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Isonomia, I find it helpful to try to organize things in a small number of broad categories. I don't know if that's useful here, but one way to categorize the items in your list (organize mostly for thinking purposes, maybe indirectly for article purposes): (1) mechanics of revealing the emails & the ethical/legal implications of that; (2) whether or not the emails & documents show misconduct on the part of their authors; (3) how this might affect the overall controversies about global warming (not how it should but how the politics of this are thought to be affected); (4) what others think about this. I think there's broad consensus that all four of these elements are essential parts of the subject, but most of the tension here seems to be over how much emphasis to give these elements (and the items you mention within them). I find #3 is not worth much space at all, and whatever we have in the article will quickly be overrun by events. I also find #1 is one of the least interesting and least important aspects of the subject -- yet it is emphasized the most, both in the lead and in the placement of the section in the article. But #2 and #4 are the elements that involve why this whole subject is important to the vast majority of the readers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For The Record, the use of op-ed pages is valid
After all, the use of Op-ed items is defended by the same users who discredit the use of an Op-Ed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oregon_Petition#Quote_from_unreliable_source

Unless the use of Op-Ed is indeed bad, and needs to be removed from that article. the Church of Global Warming can not have it both ways.--Zeeboid (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough you seem to have missed that the argument then regarding opinion sources was/is exactly the same as here. Opinion sources are reliable to the opinion of the author and nothing more (and it must be clearly attributed "According to X writing in Y Z). That aside your "by the same users" as well as "Church of global warming" is quite bad form - and i suggest that you try communicating in a civil fashion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I saw it above. I do find it intrestering however how you spicifically discount op-eds when it doesn't help you.  And there is no bad-form about the "Church of Global Warming" intended what-so-ever, as I am accepting of all religious views and do not condone anyone for their beliefs.  I would encourage you to be more open-minded, Kim.
 * So let me ask this question: if "Opinion sources are reliable to the opinion of the author and nothing more" is indeed what you say, and your defence of the Todd Shelly op-ed from the hawaiian reporter is pretty clear, then perhaps to qualm any misgivings about including op-eds in this wiki-article, they should be seperated out into a seperate section within the main article?  perhaps one titled "Controversial Email Quotes" or something of the like, as the op-eds in question all seam to be talking about what the emails said?--Zeeboid (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a reactions section where Op-Eds are appropriate. In fact, they're appropriate anywhere where it's approprite to include opinion of others, but it might be too difficult now to incorporate opinions elsewhere in the article. Using language like "Church of Global Warming" is counterproductive to getting consensus on actual improvements to the article, which is our job on this page, so please don't. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it's quite helpful when editors self-identify as cranks. That way we know who to ignore. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Better not to respond that way, for exactly the same reason I mentioned just above. Restraint all around, please. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, if only it were that simple! Unfortunately, since Wikipedia doesn't have moderators, and admins are reluctant to use their power, the cranks have as much right to edit Wikipedia as we do. And it's not just the cranks.  We have a few editors who appear to be going overboard in presenting the majority viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all accounts.--Zeeboid (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

More outcome

 * Inhofe Asks Boxer to Investigate Possible Scientific ‘Conspiracy’ in ‘Climategate’: (cnsnews.com) "...to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming." I think this should go in the lead, as even more reliable than the earlier AP report. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Um I have to ask even more seriously this time, what on earth does that have to do with the topic of this discussion ("Jones stands aside as director of the CRU during investigations") given that it doesn't even mention Phil Jones by name at all? Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jones is one of "the world’s most prominent climatologists" the article is talking about. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And you know that how? Oh wait you mean WP:OR? Note the article also does not talk about anyone, prominent climatologist or whoever standing/stepping aside/down so again I have to ask, the relevance to this discussion is?Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. cnsnews.com (aka Cybercast News Service aka Conservative News Service) is not a reliable source. It's been discussed before and rejected on the reliable sources noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Gwen, did you intend to suggest that this matter be integrated into the page generally, or that it be included into the page as part of the Jone's resignation analysis specifically? Because, as you probably already completely understand, Inhofe's request for an investigation is not part of the investigation at EAU, or Jone's resignation.  Evensong (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This source indeed has everything to do with this topic. From the text: "Inhofe said the recent disclosure of emails between several prominent climatologists reveal 'possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program' and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." This is verifiable, straight news. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case I suggest that it should be grouped with political reactions, of which there've been a few now. It's not directly linked with the UEA announcement - I don't see Inhofe referring to it. But note that you will need to find a better source than CNSnews.com, which is not a reliable source (see above). -- ChrisO (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about the EAU announcement, it's about the wider topic, of which the EAU announcement is but a small slice. Meanwhile as I said, the report is highly verifiable news. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Scientist Steps Down (wsj.com)


 * "...hackers recently stole emails and documents from the East Anglia center that suggested Dr. Jones and other like-minded scientists tried to squelch the views of dissenting researchers and advocated manipulating data."


 * "On Tuesday, Mr. Inhofe sent a letter to the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), that called for hearings on whether any U.S. laws were broken by the scientists, or "any taxpayer-funded research deliberately obscured or manipulated." A spokesman for Ms. Boxer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment."

I think most editors would take the Wall Street Journal as being reliable on this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we update the item already in the article on Inhofe's opinion to refer to the more recent statements. I don't see a problem with that. --TS 02:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just slightly off-topic, but still GW
If you are frustrated that you cannot edit this article, but interested in GW, and interested in contributing with a NPOV, I need help with this problem. (Admin - if it is inappropriate to direct people to another page, please feel free to delete this section.)-- SPhilbrick  T  23:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ordering and weight in Reactions to the incident
So far, the material in this section is very heavily weighted in defense of the scientists implicated in this incident, but what I take issue with is the ordering of the material in it. "Reactions" begins with several paragraphs containing statements about how the leaked emails were "taken out of context", cherry-picked, or otherwise exaggerated, including broadly construed statements calling charges of unethical activity "ludicrous" and part of a "smear campaign." Overall, it begins with a LOT of material haranguing skeptics and defending these scientists against allegations of wrongdoing. However, at this point in the section, the allegations themselves which were leveled by skeptics - the statements that this content is supposed to be responding to - have not been outlined. We've quite clearly put the cart before the horse.

I know the article is in lockdown mode right now, but once it's re-opened for business, wouldn't it be better if we arranged this section as Reaction-Rebuttal instead of Rebuttal-Reaction? Also, wouldn't it make more sense if the "Reactions" section were located after "Content of the documents?" »<b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 00:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree the sections are in the wrong order. The "Content" section is probably the meat of the article and for reasons I don't understand, it's buried at the very end of the article.  Further, the article is confusing to the reader.  We have the reactions to the content before the content.  It makes no sense.  We should the "Contents" section to before the "Reactions" section.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The content section is sparse and doesn't contain much. This could change but probably not a lot.  I don't see that ever being the main part of the article, simply because there isn't a lot to write about.


 * The "reactions" section is full of fluff at the moment and will almost certainly change a lot when we unprotect, simply because most of the early comments were reactions to ridiculously over-the-top statements by a few skeptics pushing a line. Now we're beginning to see a mainstream view we'll want to toss out a lot of stuff and basically rewrite.


 * The notion that the reactions are primarily to the content, rather than the theft, seems to give far too much weight to fringe views. --TS 00:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Content" section is the main reason most readers will be interested in the article and it should be right under the lead. I'd moved up the comments critical of the scientists above the ones defending them and criticizing the critics, but my move was reverted just before the page was protected. It seems to me that the scientists have received more criticism than defense, but I don't think there is a good way to measure this. I think it's difficult to judge WP:WEIGHT on various points of view on this, and I think therefore we should have roughly equal space for various kinds of criticism and defense of them. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * TS: Well, I didn't say anything about the quality of the sections. :) But it is the heart of the controversy. As I already pointed out | here, there are different criticisms. Please don't lump legitimate scientists and other concerned people in with the fringe theorists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're in broad agreement, really. The content section could come first but it will probably always be rather sparse, dealing with one or two of the more controversial items and ignoring the rest.  I don't know why you ask me not to lump legitimate scientists in with other concerned people.  I don't propose that--indeed I mention that we've got lots of mainstream reactions now so the reactions section is likely to change a lot.


 * I still object to idea that the content is "the heart of the controversy." If you look at the coverage there is very, very little about the content.  It's about embarassment.  --TS 01:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yes, the idea that the scientists who wrote the emails were doing some things wrong is hardly a fringe view. It's a view shared by a large number of people in the AGW mainstream. TS, I would have thought by now that you'd stop implying the incendiary, unsupported and unsupportable idea that the non-mainstream view is where almost all the criticism is coming from. Recognize that the criticism has a broader base than among the skeptics. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) TS's statement just above corrects me. Should've read it before posting. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the coverage there is very, very little about the content. It's about embarassment. I think this is becoming something like the standard background paragraph in the news articles I'm seeing (although I'm reading more U.S. coverage and that may be why). It's from the latest NY Times article (numbers in parentheses added): The e-mail exchanges among several prominent American and British climate-change scientists appear to reveal efforts (1) to keep the work of skeptical scientists out of major journals and (2) the possible hoarding and (3) manipulation of data to overstate the case for human-caused climate change.  Those seem to be the three main themes in the "content" area. I think if you look for similar paragraphs in other coverage, you'll find the same three ideas in a great many of them and very little coverage of the content of the documents outside these three areas. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's my 2 cents on the issues. The fringe theorists who claim that global warming is a purely scientific hoax have absolutely no basis in fact.
 * But there does appear to be other questionable scientific conduct:
 * One of the things the pro-AGW crowd keeps hanging over the head of the AGW skeptics is that they never had an article published in a peer-reviewed journal. Now, it appears the reason why is because Jones and other scientists colluded to prevent them being published.  I'm just a layman, but that seems pretty unethical to me.
 * There's also the issue of the fact that Jones tells other scientists to delete e-mails which appears to be a violation of FOI. He might have actually committed a crime, but further investigation is required.
 * Either one of the above could force the resignation of Jones and other scientists.
 * There's also the issue of the lack of transparency. Several respected scientists have talked about this.  Scientists aren't supposed to hoard their data and hide parts of their methodology.
 * To a lesser extent, there's the issue of the lost 5% of data. As an IT professional, I have to wonder who the hell runs their IT dept.  Not only should the raw data have not been deleted, they should have backups, including at least one backup at a separate facility.
 * In any case, these are legitimate issues that need to be discussed in the "Contents" section if they're not already. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Of all the concerns that have been raised, the only one that may hold water is the deleting of FOI-related emails. The rest have no basis in reality. This small group couldn't keep articles from being published -- there are too many competing journals and too many different editors for any one group to be a gatekeeper. The best proof of this is that some of the skeptics have published articles (see articles by Michaels, Douglass, Singer, Soon, Baliunas, etc etc).  Given that skeptics do get published -- and that there even are journal editors who are avowed skeptics -- if someone's work isn't being published the most obvious explanation is that it's not up to snuff. Also no raw data were lost because CRU never had the raw data to begin with. Archival is the responsibility of the national meteorological centers as specified by the WMO. CRU got copies of the obs, processed them, then got rid of the copies when they were done with them. A few journalists have mentioned these points, but nobody really wants to hear it in the middle of a feeding frenzy. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The discarded (not lost) raw data was apparently dumped in the mid-1980s and comprised mostly plots and charts. No information technology issues were involved, at least in the modern sense. The notion that this has anything to do with this theft seems to be a construction of some confused journalists and skeptics. --TS 02:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Without a citation your post is meaningless original research and has no sway here. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What an odd thing to say. Are you denying that the data thrown out in the 1980s was largely plots and charts?  --TS 03:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Without citations your posts are wholly unhelpful soapboxing. Please stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's time, once again, for me to step away from an unproductive exchange with you. --TS 05:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-Write Needed?
The length of this comments page leads me to believe that this article needs to be re-written or deleted.

Here are reasons I believe everyone can agree upon:
 * The actual emails, or at the least the excerpts finding their way in the New York Times, BBC, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and etcetera, or no where in the article. Most wikipedfia article contain excerpts, especially when relevant.
 * The article does not use the word "scandal" once. It does not mean that a party to an incident is guilty if they are involved in a scamdal.  It is obvious to the casual observer that this article significantly downplays the effects of this scandal on careers and the public counciousness.
 * The article uses Real Climate as a source (they are implicated in the scandal).
 * The article runs too long, with "reactions" and explanations. It could be trimmed quite a bit.

When the dust settles major changes will be made. But why wait for it?--Wikilagata  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilagata (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It just needs to be edited in general. Most wikipedia pages improve organically, but this one has been full protected for awhile now...--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I only agree with your first bullet point. The content of the e-mails needs to be moved up.  Many other readers have also mentioned the same thing, but with the page locked down, it's difficult to make changes.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly I'm the only person who has argued that the Content section should be at the bottom. I don't feel that strongly about it so perhaps we should just check we now have agreement  and ask for it to be moved up above "Reactions to the incident". --TS 06:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon (TAMU) on Climategate
There's a very interesting horseback analysis of this topic at the Houston Chronicle by John Nielsen-Gammon, a climatology prof at Texas A&M and the Texas State Climatologist. He appears to be an open-minded fellow with good credentials, so his analysis is worth reading and (perhaps) including here, at least as a link.

Here are some samples -- something for everyone!


 * "Climate Audit comes off rather well in all this. Issues they had flagged and followed for years show up as issues in the leaked e-mails.  If anything, the emails demonstrate that Climate Audit is a reliable site for pointing out problems and issues with a select set of papers. ... Climate Audit is also reliable in the inverse: because the scientific issues in the emails were already known through Climate Audit, it is clear that the errors identified by Climate Audit are not the tip of the iceberg but rather constitute the bulk of the iceberg, as it were."

Re the CRU Climate data-toss:
 * "I know this is going to shock y'all, but there was nothing unethical about CRU throwing away the raw temperature data. This is because CRU IS NOT THE ARCHIVAL SITE FOR THE RAW TEMPERATURE DATA. The individual nations that collected the weather observations are responsible for their archival. If things proceeded as they normally do, CRU wrote to Burundi, say, and requested copies of their climate of their climate observations. Someone in Burundi made them a magnetic tape or Xerox copies of the data and sent it to CRU. CRU processed the data and got it in the form they wanted. Having no need for the copies of the original data anymore, they tossed them. ... In summary, there's no evidence that they destroyed data. They destroyed extra copies of data that they didn't need anymore. The originals, as far as we know, were and are in other hands."

Have a look. I'm pretty sure Dr. Nielsen-Gammon would qualify for the "recognized expert" SPS exemption for this bloggish column -- but what about his replies in the comments, which is what the second quote is? Opinions from the SPS experts here? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "I have said before that I have found nothing shocking or unethical in that portion of the leaked emails that I have read in full. Nor have I found anything particularly surprising." seems like a better quote to summarize the article. -Atmoz (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoted seriously out of context, methinks. But, like I said, something for everyone! Pete Tillman (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Minus the long quote from the WSJ, it's the first two sentences in the article. It's impossible to take them out of context. -Atmoz (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. I'd forgotten this was the "teaser". Still not good without context. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Topic sentence seems like a better description. -Atmoz (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This guy's statements sound very sane and sensible, but much as I'd love to include them I think they're just one guy's opinion and we have far too many individual bits of punditry on this article already. --TS 03:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Phil Jones stepping down over Climategate, this should be included
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120102737_pf.html

agree?--Zeeboid (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See, presently #27, for the current discussion on that matter. Evensong (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Weart interview
I propose that the portion referring to the Washington Times interview of Spencer R. Weart be removed due to its heavy POV. The comparison to tobacco companies only serves to poison the well against AGW skeptics.Chelydramat (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not remove material because someone has a POV disagreement with it. WP:NPOV directs us to "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Wikipedia is not censored and does not exclude significant reliably published views that someone or other dislikes. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want a balancing quote from the recent WaPo interview, by David Freedman (Capitol Weather Gang). Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he's referring to that interview. There was no Moonie Times interview with Weart, as far as I know. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did mean to say the Washington Post.Chelydramat (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of editorial judgement. One could of course say the same of comments by skeptics to the effect that scientists have dishonestly manipulated data (and it has even been seriously argued on this very talk page that we should regard all statements by the University as "questionable" and that scientific bodies as far afield as the US should be considered to have a conflict of interest.  But in the end what do you do?  Everybody has an opinion,and we should continue to discuss our selections to make sure we have the fairest, most reliable representation of the situation.   Facts, including facts about opinions, but always careful to avoid stating opinions. --TS 05:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to Galileo
A Wall St. Journal editorial stated, "The East Anglians' mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming's claims — plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish — evokes the attempt to silence Galileo." Grundle2600 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the time-honored Galileo gambit. Wondered how long that would take. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's an opinion piece by Daniel Henninger. Can we stop posting opinion pieces here, please? Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

more verifiable allegations
Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say (foxnews.com)


 * "They are making scientific progress more difficult now," says Willie Soon, a physicist, astronomer and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "This is a shameful, dark day for science," he said in an interview...


 * Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.


 * Many in the environmental policy community are outraged about the disclosure that the data has been lost. "The scientific process has become so appallingly corrupted," James M. Taylor, senior fellow in environment policy at The Heartland Institute, told FoxNews.com.

WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 03:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC) —<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What you quote is the opinions of Willie Soon, an AGW-sceptic activist who claims "he has been victimized by other "ugly" personal attacks from leading scientists in the global warming world." He's clearly partisan (something you forgot to mention perhaps?) Including this would give undue weight to an individual 'sceptic'. It's reasonable to include the reactions by the sceptics camp of course, but I don't see why Soon should be representing them or how these statements could be included in a neutral way into the article. It's not exactly insightful comments either, so it would add little value to the article, except to illustrate that one of the sceptics is upset.
 * The Heartland Institute quote is just ridiculous.
 * Fox pretends to be a "serious news outlet" but I still don't think we should use them as a source since they have proven to be unreliable and lack journalistic integrity. Simply calling yourself "news" isn't enough.
 * This particular "one of the sceptics" that you want to discount on that basis is "a physicist, astronomer and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics." Find relevant reasons for excluding this information. In the meantime I'd suggest you peruse the encyclopedia for some kind of article detailing the negative PR associated with actively marginalizing the inevitably labeled 'sceptics' that disagree with you. This one should suffice...--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Find relevant reasons for excluding this information. He just did. A 'pedia does not need to quote people with giant axes to grind and funding from Big Oil for some of his work, like Mr Soon. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 15:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP uses WP:RS and WP:V to determine sources. Not editors' opinions on them.  Collect (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Put it this way, since this whole notable topic has to do with widely verifiable allegations that there are those with "axes to grind" in flogging AGW to the world with dodgy science, saying anyone, with whatever outlook, has an "ax to grind" has worn thin. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything we include opinions by Soon, and try to characterize him and balance his comments so the article remains neutral. I'm not convinced he is the appropriate spokesperson for the sceptics camp though. Is that wrong? We can't include the opinion of every outraged sceptic. And we must carefully consider npov and undue weight. I think there should be some motivation on why peoples opinions are relevant before including (unless obvious), and we should limit the reactions to the most notable ones.
 * Sorry, that position just isn’t acceptable. If we can pick and choose which news organization are “serious” then this entire WP is in jeopardy. If any one service reports something that is at variance with reality, then we can count on other organizations providing a different view and we can debate how best to present the subject. But to declare that one organization is not on the list just begs for someone else to propose a different candidate. That would lead to chaos. The approach we have now is working. Furthermore, if you have legitimate reasons for singling out a particular service, this is not the forum for that discussion. SPhilbrick  T  15:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with SPhilbrick that we can't pick and choose. While FOX news often has a slant, it doesn't mean we can't use it.  On the other hand I don't think that Willie Soon's reaction is particularly important. Ignignot (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP decide all the time which news organisations are "serious"? But it's true that it should probably be discussed somewhere else.


 * We obviously don't want to cover stuff that only one source takes seriously. If we mention Heartland--and I'm not opposed to that in principle--we must be careful to characterize that group carefully. They're very much at the apex of denialism on a number of issues including global warming and tobacco. --TS 15:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is more or less a political lobbying group:
 * The Heartland Institute is an American libertarian/conservative free market-oriented public policy think tank [...] advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming [...]
 * How is their opinions regarding the "scientific process" relevant to this case? This is just noise. It seems like some people aspire to include every opinion ever uttered about this case.

UAE now says they threw away original data back in the 80s due to lack of storage (Part II)
First of all, the section which was created just a couple days ago and has activity as recently as yesterday should never have been archived. At the start, we only had one WP:RS that covered this issue:. Since then, a second WP:RS has been added:. Now we have a third WP:RS. Can anyone find any more WP:RS which address this issue? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the most comprehensive I've seen, at a Nature news blog: CRU 'data loss' claims at The Great Beyond, Nature (magazine)'s science news blog, November 30, 2009.


 * I'm wrestling with this at Talk:Climatic Research Unit, which see, and which I still recommend as the place to hash this out. In short, it's not clearcut. I may have a new draft to post there tomorrow. Help welcome! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One advantage of automatic archiving which is largely being used here is that it avoids disputes about improper archiving. I set the archiving time to 1.5 days after gradually reducing it from 3.5 days (actually I had set it to 2 days but someone reverse me and set it at 7 days but I set it back to 3.5 days because it seemed fairly obvious that wasn't going to work and indeed I believe someone set it to 3 days before the actual bot run but it was still too long). This may seem short but I felt as the page which was 365k and had 52 topics at the time of the eventual bot run was still way too unwieldy and long. Such a long page causes obvious problems for modem users, and also is likely to frighten away many people from participating and many discussions are just going to be missed anyway leading to people just starting the same discussion again. Letting old posts fester also means people tend to add mostly pointless replies to existing discussions (and yes I'm sometimes guilty of this) meaning they stay around for longer without anything really useful coming from them. This may be acceptable on a short page but is quite problematic here. As it stands, the page is 237k at the moment with 33 topics and I expect would be 275k++ by the time of the next archive run, in other words still rather long. In any case your claim that there was activity as recently as yesterday is rather dubious. The first post to that section (i.e your post) was made at 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC) and the last post at 05:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC). In other words, nearly a full 48 hours had passed since your post here (at 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)) and the last post to that section, not "yesterday" unless you really, really stretch it. It's true the discussion had been archived in-situ by TS at 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC) which usually has the effect of stopping discussion but people could reversed that if they really felt it necessary, they probably didn't because they agreed with the reasoning that it wasn't a useful discussion to be held here. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Somewhat proving my point on people discussing the same thing in new threads because of unwieldy pages, although the thread you started may have been archived we do have . In other words, all archiving did in this case was ensured we only had one thread discussing the thing for a few hours until you started another one so we had two again Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nil Einne. If something gets incorrectly archived, it's fine to put it back onto the talk page and continue discussion.

The Times says that the deletion was revealed this weekend, and their article is about the email story, so the Times has made the deletion part of the emails story. I think this is old news which the Times is revealing, but the Times isn't saying where it was revealed other than on the CRU web site. And as part of the coverage, Jones said that there were no emails or data deleted. Meanwhile, CRU apparently thinks it's a current event because they deleted the |data availability page which the Times had read (the https copy is also gone but Google still has a cached copy of that one). Both the Times and Jones have woven data deletion into the current email story. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have (at last) posted a second draft of what I'm calling the CRU climate data-discard controversy at Talk:Climatic Research Unit. Please have a look, comment, criticize, markup etc. etc.

There are also some (weak? blogospheric) indications that CRU didn't toss the raw data after all -- see Talk:Climatic Research Unit. Very preliminary, FYI, not RS etc. Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Two articles instead of one
I think it is good to have two articles instead of one, because there are two different issues. One issue is the hostile leakage of emails and data (Leakage of CRU email). The other is the integrity accusations and counter-claims relying on the content of leaked emails and data (also know as Climategate). Two articles should refer to each other in some extent, but they are different issues in my view (as least two subject title means two different things).--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is a good idea. See WP:CFORK. And as the dust settles, we get a much clearer image and a lot of the now hastily added material will turn out to be unnecessary flutter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I hold my request for this momemnt. However, one point I must clarify. My proposal is not a fork. It is not an attempt to allow both side to express the point of view. I just believe that there are two different subject matter and the current merge article is a source of confusion.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See Watergate scandal for a similar situation with side effects beyond the burglary which first revealed a mess. There's been one ouster (Australia), two investigations, and one legal action.  We'll have to see what topics accumulate enough activity to need their own articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you've got a reliable source linking the right wing take-over of the conservative Australian Liberal Party to this hacking incident, please do let us have it. That should go into the article.  --TS 04:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

IPCC chairman comments
Comments by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri: Some of this should probably find its way into the article somehow. —<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 22:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur that this reaction belongs. SPhilbrick  T  14:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by NOAA head and Presidential Science Adviser
NOAA head Jane Lubchenco:

Presidential Science Adviser John Holdren:

Both address the wider context and will be useful sources for high-level reactions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I've already agreed to inclusion of statements by Senator Inhofe, it makes sense to concur with the inclusion of this information. Since Obama's staff will be negotiating at Copenhagen I suggest that moderately high prominence should be given.  Perhaps it isn't too early to consider starting an "Impact on International climate agreements" section. --TS 03:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The first is weak tea. The second has more meat. I concur with the TS suggestion that a section on "Impact on International climate agreements" is appropriate. One minor concern with the section name proposal-IIRC, the Copehagen meeting is not expected to produce any formal agreement. "Impact on International climate agreement process" might be more accurate, but isn’t exaxtly snappy. Maybe if we are clear that we mean “agreement” in a soft sense, just progress on the path as opposed to formal, binding treaties, the shorter term would be fine. SPhilbrick  T  14:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about a wholly neutral Outcome on international climate talks? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "Political reactions", with subsections by continent (Americas, Europe, Asia etc). No one is going to publish, "Those e-mails affected Copenhagen in this way", or "The email about X prevented an agreement about Y at the Z talks", in reliable ways we can use. --Nigelj (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like most of Gwen’s suggestion, except “outcome”. What about ‘’Impact on international climate talks’’? I’m not sure whether I’m parsing Nigelj’s point correctly, so I’ll make my point, which may or may not be in disagreement: We already have an article on the Copenhagen meeting. This article should not become a repository general evetns at that confernce, it should only be for events at that conference that can be traced to this incident. If such linkages are not mentioned in the article, we can’t use them here.  SPhilbrick  T  15:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, outcome only spun up from my own linguistic takes on writing English, also hoping to skirt the "hit" or "blow" metaphor of impact, but having said this, otherwise the latter's no worry at all for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We've probably got enough on political reactions per se (Inhofe, Lilley, etc). The section I propose is more focused, and rather than discussing the inevitable political noisemaking, of which we already had enough in the article over a week ago, it concentrates on actual, concrete effects on policy-making.  If for instance the Senate fails to pass its energy bill, that will be a concret effect.  The Obama administration's response is not "weak tea" by any means as they're one of the main players at Copenhagen.  This is more significant, say, than the actions of a minority Senator, which we already cover.

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC) —<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 00:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I dismiss Inhofe's actions as mere posturing--he has some influence still--but we do need to concentrate on the realpolitik and less on the people queuing up to give their reactions. We're not a newspaper (and even if we were we would be doing a poor job if, unlike the newspapers, we gave the hacking the front seat and relegated Copenhagen to the back seat). --TS 15:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My “weak tea” reference wasn’t commentary on the Obama team response, but on the quality of the article purporting to cover it. The response is quite important, but if you click on the link to learn what they have to say, you’d come away with your understanding not much enhanced. The second link is much better. SPhilbrick  T  16:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obama in Copenhagen will have a global impact, Inhofe's influence is limited to the USA. I think focusing on internal US politics seems a bit odd, shouldn't we have more of a global perspective? and CRU is in the UK if I'm not mistaken. I agree with TS, we should wait and see if there is any concrete effect.
 * My point was, will there ever be many concrete and attributable impacts or outcomes on talks like Copenhagen. Things will go this way or that, but Obama won't say, for example, "I'm not going to agree to that because of what I learned from that CRU e-mail hack", is he? Neither will the representatives from China, India etc. If anybody publishes comments like that, it'll be in politically biassed comment pieces, I guess, that we can't use for much. --Nigelj (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don’t disagree, but so what? If actions taken can’t be attributable to this incident, they don’t belong in this article. Notable actions will occur, and they can be covered in the relevant article. Will there be an attributable actions? Of course. I predict there will be some picketing, and signs related to this incident. They may not pass the notability bar, in which case they don’t belong here. Or they might pass the notability bar, and they can be included. If journalists choose not to ask about this incident in interviews, and notable subjects fail to mention it, then there will be nothing to report, and the section will be quite small.  SPhilbrick  T  19:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously talking of a "notability bar" with respect to the statements by the President's science adviser isn't appropriate. If the White House is saying something about this incident on the eve of the Copenhagen talks, then it's quite probably the most important statement of intent arising from the incident.  We write it up,and I suggest we do so in a new section about the effect on international discussions.  Failing that, it goes very near the top of the reactions section.  --TS 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "How about "Political reactions", with subsections by continent (Americas, Europe, Asia etc)." I think that would be very difficult to achieve properly. I'm not against it if there are reliable sources. In Europe for example, we would have to comment on different European countries internal political debates and significant opinions... I have no idea how to do with, for example, China... etc. I think it would be very difficult to keep such a section neutral and avoid original research. (But maybe that was the point being made?)
 * In my opinion it makes more sense to stick to major political "concrete effects". If it's mentioned by the participants of the Copenhagen meeting for example. Or if there is some kind of policy change e.g. regarding transparency of scientific works motivated with any of this etc. But we shouldn't try to second guess anyone.

Professor Andrew Watson, a long-term colleague of the researchers at the CRU
This is a great quote to include in the article:

"If this is the most evidence they can come up with of a conspiracy after looking through thousands of e-mails where researchers thought they were talking in private - well, it's pretty pathetic."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8377465.stm A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's from a column, and is Prof. Andrew Watson is notable enough? As I've said before, I don't think we should include every random persons opinion, they have to be notable (eg. their opinion with regard to the incident needs to be notable somehow).


 * I vote to include. Any scientist with the courage to stick his or her neck out in such a firm manner deserves to be memorialized in this article.  Evensong (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? In what way does defending your colleagues constitute “sticking your neck out”? SPhilbrick  T  19:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh2. How bold of Prof. Watson, to echo Gavin Schmidt! Unneeded here, imo. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Recall that this is an attack on scientists, an attack primarily political in nature, though crime was also involved. Of course the opinion of fellow scientists is material.  --TS 21:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this quote, but the article has grown quite a bit, we're near that supposed ideal of about 35K length and we don't need to repeat the same thing over and over again. One quote on the idea that this doesn't disprove global warming should be sufficient, followed probably by a list of the most authoritative people or organizations we can find who have said the same thing -- and not a huge, boring list, and that should be enough. We should also add that various sources have said the reason that the global warming mainstream belief has not been disproven by this is that there is evidence independent of anything involved in these emails and documents. Look at what we already have and think about at what point the reader would start to be bored by coming across the same idea over and over:
 * ''The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change. They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."[35]


 * ''The Union of Concerned Scientists was strongly critical of climate change sceptics using the stolen e-mails to attack climate science, commenting: "Unfortunately for these conspiracy theorists, what the e-mails show are simply scientists at work, grappling with key issues, and displaying the full range of emotions and motivations characteristic of any urgent endeavor. Any suggestions that these e-mails will affect public and policymakers' understanding of climate science give far too much credence to blog chatter and boastful spin from groups opposed to addressing climate change."[36]


 * ''Climatologist James Hansen said that the controversy has "no effect on the science" and that while some of the e-mails reflect poor judgement, the evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming.[37]

After this, what does the Watson quote add that we didn't have before, other than some vitriol? I'm actually not opposed to quotes with vitriol, because they reflect the heat of the debate over this on both sides, and it helps the reader to know that that heat exists. Let's pick and choose and only add quotes that actually provide more insight than we didn't have before, or replace one quote with another. If the vitriol is the value of the Watson quote, is that reason enough to add it? (And there's a bit of vitriol in the UCS quote's "conspiracy theorists".) I'm neutral on that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The solidification of the opinions of scientists in the wake of the affair is rather important. One way or another, it shows that they are lining up and taking a position. --TS 00:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think John makes a valid point. Parts of the article read like a list, not a coherent article.  BTW, a list of quotes might a good idea for Wikiquote (but I don't have anything to do with that part of the Wikiverse, so I really don't know). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: move Content back up above Reactions section
I'd just like to check that we have consensus for this and then I'll ask for the edit to be done.

I seem to recall that I'm the only person who has argued for the status quo situation, where the Content section is last. A number of people have put reasonable arguments for the Content section to go back above the "Reactions" section. As I don't feel that strongly about it, I propose that if there are no objections we ask an admin to do just that. --TS 06:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with TS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Why was it moved below reactions?  That makes no sense. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be done. The reason is simple. I am a Chinese who cannot watch UK or US TV except BBC or CNN. It really help people (who have less exposure to UK/US media) to understand the matter subject in a logic order: a) What is the leakage, b) How the leakage issue being viewed (response to issue), c) What is the comment over the leaked matter (Climategate), d) What is the counter-claim against Climategate. I think part c) and d) should be put into another article, but if it has to be the same article, this is the order I have proposed. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per everyone. SPhilbrick  T  14:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support makes no logical sense to have it the way it is at the moment. Smartse (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As there is obviously strong support for this, I now ask an admin to perform the edit. Move the section "Content of the documents" (including its two subsections) between the sections "Hacked and leaked documents" and "Reactions to the incident", so that in the contents list it appears as the second section. --TS 15:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this talk page semi-protected?
I was looking at this article while logged out, and was surprised to notice that this talk page is semi-protected. I was under the impression that protecting talk pages is something we should do very rarely: as it says on WP:SEMI, 'Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents anonymous and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time.' I can only presume this is due to vandalism, but is the level of vandalism really so high in this case that semi-protection is necessary? Especially with the main article fully protected as well, it looks a bit extreme - like we're actively trying to stop people editing Wikipedia, which I hope isn't the case. Robofish (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This talk page has been heavily targeted by sockpuppets of banned users, which have caused significant disruption. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history of the talkpage you'll notice that where these sockpuppets were identified their comments were deleted. It obviously didn't ruin the talkpage.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Patrick Michaels
Dr. Patrick Michaels is not a global warming skeptic or a climate change denier as his alarmist partisans paint him. This article calls him a "global warming skeptic." Dr. Michaels believe global warming is real - though not present at the time - and that humans are contributing to the warming. He downplays the threat of global warming finding that the actual warming will be at the lower end of current predictions. He also questions the reliability of current models. This does not make him a global warming skeptic.

It is really unfortunate that this issue has become so partisans (especially as alarmists circle the wagons on Wikipedia) that scientists can’t even question the data without being attacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LVAustrian (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true. »<b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, maybe you should be taking up your issue with the New York Times, not verbally attacking your imaginary 'alarmists' here at Wikipedia. The statement is sourced to them, and the source says, "Some skeptics asserted Friday that ... “...” said Patrick J. Michaels, ... who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming ..." That seems pretty clear to me. --Nigelj (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Patrick Michaels is not a global warming skeptic? Are you kidding?  He's made a career out of it.  Have you read his book Meltdown?  He's a skeptic if there ever was one.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Michaels is listed at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I don't see why there should be a problem calling him a skeptic. And LVAustrian, please just avoid hot-button terms like "alarmists" because it doesn't help us come to a consenus on anything here, which is the purpose of this page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Under the section, "Believe global warming will not be significantly negative". So he does believe in global warming.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The wording in the article describes Michaels as "a global warming skeptic", and that phrase is linked to global warming controversy. The article Patrick Michaels identifies him as "a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute". I suggest that we replace "global warming skeptic" with "Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute." This is more descriptive and should be acceptable to all. --TS 21:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, we should also report his former position as a state climatologist. --TS 22:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But surely, that is your personal synthesis. We're not writing his life story, but introducing a quote from the NYT, which uses the quote as an example of the response that came from 'skeptics'. If we put all that stuff in about his employment history and present job, then both of those will need separate referencing too. We already have his name as a link, does what started as quoting one thing from the NYT need to become a mini-CV for the man quoted, over and above what the NYT said at the time? --Nigelj (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Serious question: Are there any non-skeptic fellows at the Cato Institute? I would appreciate an answer on this.  As far as I can tell, they are all AGW skeptics at Cato.  Am I wrong? Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: rename article to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
This incident is similar in some ways to the Killian documents controversy, in that bloggers on the Internet seem to be doing the majority of the work sifting through the data, and mainstream news organizations are picking up their analysis and running with it. While the content of the emails which were leaked in this breach has captured a good deal of media attention, another major component is source code for climate models which was also leaked. With lovely little tidbits like this scattered throughout the documentation and other issues with the code and datasets themselves, the validity of the results produced by these climate models is being called into question as well:

(I don't really care to get wiped for copyvio, so I've only cited two small paragraphs. Believe me, they're no prettier when seen in full context. Google the file - it's easy enough to find copies.)

From HARRY_READ_ME.txt:
 * Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)

Later in the file:
 * OH [expletive omitted] THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

I propose that we remove the qualifier "e-mail" from the article title. This controversy ranges far beyond emails alone. »<b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 18:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hacking is an imprecise term, as well. From the context of the documents, it has been suggested that the documents were part of a response to an FOIA request. If that's true, I think the mostly likely scenario is that someone involved in the preparation of that response leaked the documents themselves when the response was denied. In contrast, an external hacker would have to i) somehow learn of the existence of the document cache and ii) devise an exploit against the EAU/CRU infrastructure. Documents of this sensitivity would surely be given a high level of protection, making a successful exploit difficult. All we know for sure is that there was an unauthorized release of documents. If we are really going to change the title to something in line with Killian documents controversy, I suggest (as above) Climate Research Unit science controversy. Ronnotel (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support a change in name, because the reference to “e-mail” is incomplete. However, I don’t support the notion that the title should refer to “science”. I’ve seen almost nothing on the science itself. There are discussions about the conduct of science, about the process of science, but virtually nothing related to the science per se. SPhilbrick  T  19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I oppose until the article's content shifts away from a focus on a external email thief. At the moment most sources are referring to the event as an email hack or stolen emails.  Either more facts (such as a whistleblower explaining the situation) or a shift in focus (for example, if Australia's government resigns en masse, or a journal publishes an interesting code or data review) will require a change in name.  I do recognize that 'e-mail' and 'hacking' are both not precisely correct, but that's what it is being called.  -- SEWilco (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a more ambiguous title like "Climatic Research Unit data leak incident" or "controversy" would be more appropriate? The real problem I have is the inclusion of "e-mail" in the article title since e-mails were only one type of data that was released. Really, the nature of the data leak/hack/breach and its surrounding issues and the implications of the contents of the leaked data are two entirely separate topics, but for better or for worse, they're lumped together in this article for the time being. »<b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 20:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Depending on how important this becomes, when the article is more mature it might warrant a split or rename or what have you, but for now it is too early to say. For all we know it might be known as 'Mickey's Baboon Scandal' in a few months. Ignignot (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is, why are we specifying "E-mail" in the title? That isn't the only kind of data that was released or is relevant to the controversy. »<b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because most of the discussion, and supporting sources, are discussing the emails. We're at a point in time similar to when the police were holding some intruders at Watergate, but a victim had not arrived to confirm that a burglary had happened.  The news coverage maybe talking about a "Watergate breakin" or "Watergate intruders", and only later would the phrasing shift to Watergate burglary and related matters.  If a dead body was discovered or it was realized the intruders were authorized to do what they were doing, then the description would be different.  We have to wait to see what happens.  If the next thing is that reliable sources discuss the data or programs, then we'll see what terminology is being used.  If a newspaper publishes a note from a whistleblower then the terminology will change in a different way.  Wait several days and see.  -- SEWilco (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The victims have indeed confirmed that hacking occurred. Both the Unit and the RealClimate blog have reported hacking. --TS 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have the victims confirmed that an external attacker took the material? I'm only aware that they confirmed that the material is from the CRU.  They've confirmed that something of theirs was taken, but have they shown how it was taken?  The method or intent affects how it is described. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary (and this is in the article) both CRU and RealClimate have independently confirmed that incidents of criminal hacking took place. --TS 02:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please define "hack".  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 23:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the word "e-mail" should be removed from the title, resulting in "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident." Not all the material hacked was in email.  I don't think there any serious grounds for objecting to this have been suggested.  --TS 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What TS said. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer "Climatic Research Unit data theft" which brings us close to standard with crimes naming conventions. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if the 'e-mail' part goes since more than e-mails where stolen. I like Viriditas suggestion most though; 'hacking' is a bit vague.
 * I'd prefer to avoid the "hacking isn't necessarily theft" arguments in discussing this simple change to reflect the inclusion of other documents in the hacked zip file. --TS 23:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * An article must be named what the public expect it to be named not what some people here would like it to be named in order to remove the sense that there is any scandal ... and afterall if there isn't a scandal, or at least a belief in the scandal, then there would be no article. I've yet to see a single article that leads on the hacking everyone is leading on the allegations of a scandal, and to pretend that this article is about anything other than a perceived or alledged scandal is completely POV pushing. Can we please stop being rediculous, the article should say what it is about, and what it is about is the alledged (not necessarily actual) scandal revealed in the emails. As written the article suggests that the article is about a security breach: a breach that has not been mentioned beyond the word "hack", it is not part of the article, the hack is totally coincidental. We would have had the same article if the emails had been left on a PC on a bus, or if the emails had been released by a disgruntled employee. Isonomia (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The title hardly matters at this point. "Climategate" redirects to the article. There is no universally acknowledged name, on the order of Watergate or Profumo Affair. "Climategate" itself has a POV tinge at this stage. In time, perhaps it will be referred to as "Climategate" by people on all sides of the issue or on no side (there doesn't seem to be another candidate for a name), but that hasn't happened so far. It's a pretty small point, not really worth arguing over. More important would be improving the "Contents" and "Reactions" sections, and by "improving", I mean finding even better sources and rewriting. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually see it the opposite. By referring to it as data theft instead of hacking, we avoid the arguments that maybe hacking wasn't involved but instead there was an insider leak. We may not avoid the 'accidental release' arguments but hey, it's some progress Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You say: "I've yet to see a single article that leads on the hacking " Well that may be the problem.  You have been selective in your reading.  The hackers themselves announced the hacking.  UEA confirmed it and numerous external sources have written about it. If you want this article to be about something else then you have to make the case. Don't engage in accusations, give me facts. --TS 01:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 01:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) If you haven't seen "a single article that leads on the hacking" you haven't been looking very closely. A lot of articles say 'theft' or 'stolen' as well.
 * "if there isn't a scandal, or at least a belief in the scandal, then there would be no article." Not true. That would imply there has been politically motivated theft in order to discredit climate science just a few weeks before the Copenhagen meeting. It would definitely be notable.

How about Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Misses out the hacking and emphasizes just one part of the hacked material. --TS 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

But it's my feeling that we cannot even agree on renaming the article. In that case I think not renaming is best. It will cause the least amount of disruption. --TS 01:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But the majority of focus is on the e-mails, not the initial hacking. Anyway, you're probably right in that we won't get agreement.  BTW, I don't really care too much about the title.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Climatic Research Unit hacking controversy. Addresses the illegal hacking and the controversy surrounding the contents of the hacked data. A little bit for everyone. That's the best I've got. :) »<b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 02:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem there. I think I like that one best. --TS 03:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Define hacking. What is being claimed?  Maybe there's a better term to use.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)