Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 7

BBC: CRU's programming 'way below expected standards'
link Grundle2600 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe at some point more material on the non-e-mail files should be added to the article. As usual, we will need to source it and should offer counterbalancing or explanatory material.  Care to post a proposal to this thread??  Madman (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * BBC News is definitely a WP:RS. Do we have any other reliable sources we can use for this content? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * -- SEWilco (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SEWilco. The first looks good, but the second appears to be an opinion piece.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur that we need to add coverage of the non e-mail contents. The first cite is best in terms of coverage, but as a video, not preferred. The NYT cite is professionally done, but only tangentially mentions the point. The Sun piece is very on point, but a hastily thrown together opinion piece. I'm honestly torn which of the three would be best. Maybe there will be something better soon.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The third item is similar to a movie review which includes the reviewer's opinion. I included the third one because the author is labeled as a columnist, thus is being labeled has having an ongoing relationship with the paper.  This is confirmed by our Toronto Sun article which states that Lorrie Goldstein used to be the editor of the paper and is now "Senior Associate Editor, columnist".  So it's an opinion by a senior staffer who used to be head editor and knows the requirements for news.  This is labeled as being a column, so it includes the author's opinions.  It is not labeled as being an official editorial so we can't refer to it as being the paper's official position.  -- SEWilco (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

interesting additions:
..university researchers may also find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.’s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law...

..Stephen McIntyre, a retired industry consultant who runs Climate Audit, speculated on his site that an insider may have leaked the documents and could be protected by whistle-blower law..

''..The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails. ..''

i see IPs tried to add some of this info with non-exact wording, but were reverted. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The first article is weak on a number of grounds.
 * It's ancient, in the Climategate time frame
 * The main point is a redundancy - it's illegal to break the law
 * The "smoking gun" isn't smoking - it's a request to delete, not an admission of deletion
 * It isn't clear that the proposed deletion is covered by the FOI request, while it seems likely, it isn't a slam dunk
 * The deletion is specifically denied


 * The second link is much more relevant, but I see it has already been added.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Graham / insider quote
Some old material was inserted here and removed here. I see no consensus here regarding the inclusion of this speculation regarding insider involvement. As this article is currently highly contentious, it would be nice if it could be edited on a strict consensus-before-any-addition model. Can anyone point to such a consensus? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for inclusion, and it's another example of more edit warring by GoRight. Tom Harrison said it was going to block anyone edit warring in a disruptive manner on sight, but GoRight has not been blocked.  Why not? Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Tom harrison last edited before GoRight started editing. Also while I agree GoRight has had past problems and the (two) edits were inapproriate, as he/she has stopped I don't think there's any need to discuss blocking unless the edit warring continues Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The material was placed in the article before the protection, so the person who removed it after protection (ChrisO) did so without consensus or discussion. GoRight and others were merely reverting the non-consensus removal of the material.
 * Regarding the materieal itself, there certainly have been discussions all over the web that it could be an insider but I could find no Reliable Sources other than the security expert listed earlier, so I am content to leave it out unless further information or Reliable Sources become known. Madman (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like the 5 Dec removal was by Atmoz, not Chris. Can I politely remind people, especially in a contentious situation, that removing cited material, leaving no relevant edit summary, and calling it a minor edit, is not desirable. --  SPhilbrick  T  15:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't notice that. In that case I agree with your assessment Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that we have a wealth of news articles which discuss this topic, I'm leaning towards the position that if we can't find any other sources, then maybe it shouldn't be in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that there never has been a consensus for the inclusion of Graham (see: Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive_2), it was re-inserted around 1 hour before protection --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said last time this was discussed, it's undue weight on one non-involved individual's personal opinion, particularly as it's strongly contradicted by a wealth of reliable sources speaking of a hack; the source also has something of a conflict of interest given that, as his blog shows, he's an activist climate change sceptic. This is not a neutral or disinterested source and there is no indication that his personal opinion has any basis in reality. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a natural enough tendency on the part of editors who follow the skeptical and conspiracy theory line to try to exonerate the hackers. In the absence of concrete evidence supporting an inside job by a whistle-blower, however, it's really not on.  There is apparently some evidence emerging that the Russian FSB may have been involved, which also tends to argue against speculation on an inside job. --TS 10:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Muir Russell in the lede
I propose that the final sentence of the lede, "The review will be headed up by Sir Muir Russell, chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland." be removed from the lede. It's already mentioned in the body of the article itself. Since the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, this seems more like a detail not significant enough to be mentioned in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Too much detail. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as well. I am the one who added it there.  It seems a non-contentious removal.  I'll remove it now.  Madman (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support bit late but pile on in case there's any dispute Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I'm outnumbered but as this is one of the few known facts in the case I would have preferred a brief statement left in. --TS 10:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A few more suggestions for the lede
Currently, the lede only has one sentence that addresses what the criticisms are. Further, this single sentence only mentions one of the criticisms (withholding of data):

"Critics have asserted that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to withhold scientific information."

Fringe theorests have also claimed that the e-mails show an actual conspiracy by scientists to manipulate data. This is wholly different than not sharing data. A lot of reliable sources have focused on this aspect of the story so I think that it's important enough to warrant mention in the lede.

I also would like to see some stronger wording regarding the fact that these e-mails have not changed the scientific consensus that global warming is real and primarily man-made.

To keep the lede from getting too big, I suggest we remove the sentence "Professor Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, confirmed that the leaked e-mails that had provoked heated debate appeared to be genuine." It's mentioned in the body of the article, and since there doesn't seem to be any serious dispute over their genuineness, it doesn't seem important enough to mention in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Which sources about the consensus can be used? I think the White House mentioned something; has No. 10 issued a statement?  If CRU issued a statement, can it be used?  I do agree the lede mention of genuiness is redundant, and looks like the "Content of the documents" sentence would go better as the start of the following paragraph because then both CRU descriptions of the content would be mentioned together.  -- SEWilco (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's the article from Scientific American: "In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus—which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists—that climate change is happening and humans are the cause." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding the removal of the quote verifying that the e-mails are genuine - it was a legitimate question early on, but no longer important enough to deserve mention in the lede. As noted, it is covered.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Myron Ebell
I'm re-inserting my comments about Myron Ebell.

@Nil Einne:It is not correct to state that references need to be on this page -- facts mentioned are on the CEI page and appropriately referenced there. It's rich to state edits are inappropriate without prior discussion while simultanously reverting a good faith edit without any discussion whatsoever.Dduff442 (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

re to edit summary: i don't see why this is liable to be controversial? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we just say that he is of the CEI? Have the arguments about how evil the CEI is over there William M. Connolley (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)`


 * This is twice I've had my good faith edit reverted. You know well that reversion without *prior* discussion is against the rules.


 * This is from the Washington Post article cited re the Ebell comments:


 * ''But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.


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


 * It is inappropriate to censor the good-faith edits of others in what is fundamentally a cooperative endeavour. I can't think of a good reason why anyone would want to hide relevant information from readers. Please make an effort to adhere to Wiki policy.Dduff442 (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're confused how things work here. Firstly WMC who reverted your second edit did partake in the discussion. Secondly it is your responsibility to get Consensus for any disputed change particularly on a contentious page. WP:Edit warring to add disputed edits is as I've already a rather bad idea and something likely to be seen as WP:disruptive and therefore get you blocked. When in doubt, reverting to the stable version is the norm, regardless of whether you agree with the stable version (except in a few cases like WP:BLP). This doesn't of course mean others don't have to partake in the discussion. Since no one has accused you of acting in bad faith, the issue of good faith edits doesn't come in to it. Good faith edits can be problematic too and when they are very problematic, reverting them is fine if you explain why. Finally bringing censorship into it is doesn't help anything and simply serves to poison the well. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take a read of WP:Verifiability. If you are going to make a claim about something, you should be providing references in this article to support the claim. You should not be telling people to go find them somewhere else be it on wikipedia or elsewhere. My edit summary was sufficient to explain why I made the reversion, I did not feel any need to further explain why I made the reversion as adding unreferenced claims is a particularly bad idea on a contentious page and several admins have threatened to block anyone who makes controversial undiscussed changes. In terms of why this is liable to be controversial, adding claims about something to a subsequent article without establishing why it's relevant almost always is. The issue of funding comes up in a lot of discussions. The obvious question is why don't you mention they're funded by Coca Cola or Pfizer or the Earhart Foundation or whatecer else? You may feel those specific funding sources are relevant because those parties have an interest in avoiding action over climate change but that's solely an editor's POV, something likely to be disputed and in any case always best avoided. If you have WP:RS which specifically mention the CEI's funding sources in relation to their statement here then you may have justification to include it in this article but I agree with WMC that really it's best just to leave it at the CEI article. Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The info was (i) already linked to in the CEI page and (ii) already mentioned in the Wash Post article cited. It is not 'solely an editor's POV' to think that the source of Ebell's funding is relevant to the article. Both Ebell and Exxon have a major conflict of interest here. The Post found this worth mentioning and so do I.Dduff442 (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, it DOES NOT matter if the info is in the CEI page. It needs to be SOURCED HERE. If all that means you copy the sources here so be it (although as I've explained I don't think that's a good idea either but at least you'll actually be sourcing what you're adding then). Sorry for yelling but I'm sick of repeating the same thing again. Secondly the WP particle does not say that the CEI is funded by ExxonMobil and Ford. It does say they are funded by energy companies, but if you don't understand there's a difference between the two then you probably shouldn't be editing wikipedia since verifiability is a cornerstone policy and per WP:Verifiability, references need to actually say what you say they're saying, not something else that doesn't mean the same thing. I should add Ford isn't even an energy company by most definitions regardless of whether they have a COI. Now as to your new edit, I'm fine with letting that stand since it is directly supported by the reference relating to the statement, in other words, we have a reliable source directly establishing the relevance, unlike the earlier edits which were supported by no reference in this article (or at least inline to the sentence, I obviously haven't read all 50 current references) and for all we know may not have any sources establishing the relevance. And one final time to make sure I get through it DOES NOT matter if the info is in the CEI page, it needs to be sourced here Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It was never stated that Ford was an energy company and your remarks regarding this are fatuous.


 * WP:Verifiability does not support your claim about the ref needing to be on the same page. The link was in the same sentence and was mentioned in my edit summary (and noted in yours). The revert was without any justification in these circumstances as you already knew the info was sourced. I refer you to WP:ROWN. Dduff442 (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To quote Mr Connolley, "Can we just say that he is of the CEI? Have the arguments about how evil the CEI is over there." As it stands now, it's blatant POV pushing ("Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think-tank funded in part by Energy companies, said" . . .) and really needs to be removed.  Madman (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Explain how it constitutes a POV push, let alone a 'blatant' one. The information is of value in interpreting Ebell's statements. You'll note the edit only aligned the article with the editorial line taken by the Post, the source cited.


 * That ExxonMobil etc. pay Ebell's wages is widely acknowledged fact, not POV. You have a job ahead of you in showing why this information should be kept from readers.Dduff442 (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you must include CEI's funding sources, then you must must include the funding source for every source in this article, which really would drive this article off topic. Besides, there's already a link for the CEI in that sentence.Chelydramat (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A sourced comment gets deleted three times in one day without prior discussion in any case. Wow. The Washinton Post -- the cited source in this instance -- did not find the comment 'extraneous'. The remark was taken verbatim from the source precisely in order to avoid this kind of discussion.


 * The source of funding (i.e. employer) is given of many of the persons named in the article, as is background information on their prior stances on climate issues (as with Von Storch immediately below). You are certainly free to add more, so please be my guest in detailing the funding of any other sources you wish. You are not free to censor relevant, sourced information.


 * Discussion & consensus-building should precede deletion of material. We're headed for dispute resolution if this continues.Dduff442 (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That bit you added was not taken verbatem from the article and you know it. Did you think that nobody would actually go to the refferenced page?  The Competitive Enterprise Institute page has plenty of uncensored information about it if anybody wishes to look into it.  You've had two far more experienced users explain that to you already WP:NOTSOAPBOX .Chelydramat (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The exact phrase deleted was from the Washinton Post article cited:"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."


 * Care to reconsider your remarks? Care to justify the remarks *exclusion* from the article in the light of any framework of journalistic or scholarly ethics?Dduff442 (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Though I missed that while skimming the article, that still doesn't change the fact that 1.) you're using this article as a soapbox and are verging on being disruptive 2.) Information about the CEI is readily available, therefore it's inclusion in this article is unwarranted.Chelydramat (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) Discussion & consensus-building should precede deletion of material if it's deletion of existing material from a stable version. If you are adding a contentious change to an article, particularly one as problematic as this which was only recently unprotected and where admins have even warned against such behaviour, then reversion of this change is appropriate until it's established it belongs. If you genuinely believe WP:Verifiability and companion guidelines like WP:Citing sources do not require you cite claims in the articles you are making the claims in, then you have a serious lack of understanding of policy and given as I've often repeated this is a cornerstone policy and a extremely basic rule of wikipedia, I suggest you seek clarification elsewhere like WP:VPP or WP:Help Desk first since it's obvious no one here is getting thorough to you. Also your original two additions were not the exact phrase used in the Washington Post article, as you well know. The article does not mention any specific companies, and you included Ford which isn't even implied by the article as it is not an energy company. While you did later revert to using the WP wording, your comment above seems to imply that all 3 times the reversion was of you adding a verbatim claim from the WP which is clearly not true. (There have been 2 times now of course.) Incidentally I will not be taking further part in this discussion as I don't feel anything productive is going to come from it although I think it's well proven my point that the change was obviously contentious, even more so the version I reverted which wasn't sourced and had far more problematic wording. Nil Einne (talk)


 * You've already stated you were 'fine' with its inclusion. Ford was mentioned as a source of funding in the CEI article and I neither stated nor implied it was an energy company. I only claimed the second edit was verbatim, not the first. As you pointed out, the phrasing was altered to reflect the source exactly.


 * The material is not contentious -- nobody has disputed its factual accuracy. What has (subsequently) proven contentious is its inclusion -- an inclusion I justify on grounds of integrity as the material was already in the article and nobody voiced any objection to the Post article prior to my edits.Dduff442 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(<- outdent) Discussion and consensus-building should precede insertion of potentially WP:BLP-violating material. My reasoning is as follows: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The only reason for including the information is the implication that energy companies determine the reports from the think tank.
 * 2) That implication would be a BLP violation against the actual report authors if stated.


 * The WP:BLP objection is transparently without foundation. I made no statement about Ebell. I quoted a remark from a newspaper article already published and already cited about Ebell's employer. Even if I had remarked about Ebell, it is not possible to libel somebody by quoting the contents of a published newspaper. Dduff442 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You made the implication, not me. The Post quote was scrupulously NPOV. I am not of the opinion that the public should be protected from facts.


 * I'm putting in an RfC on this to get a wider spectrum of opinion, particularly from media experts.Dduff442 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

'Source Code and Programmer Notes' section
If we are going to discuss these docs then a few groundrules may be useful.
 * 1) Don't source statements in the article to blogs (WP:RS)
 * 2) Can we first of all establish from a reliable source that these code files actually were used in the preparation of published results, and if so, exactly which published papers.

Re 2: I have a suspicion that these snippets of source code have become available because they were sent as attachments to the emails that were stolen. If this is the case, then they are unlikely to be part of the major code-base used at CRU. It is more likely that they were personal experiments by individuals to see how various types of analysis could be applied to the temp record database. Don't forget, UEA is a university, CRU is part of UEA, people go to university to learn, to teach and to do research. For all we know these might have been students' projects getting analysed here. --Nigelj (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * huh. wp:or. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Asking for reliable sources is original research? How do you come to that conclusion, then? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Like the email contents, if the code/programming is being discussed by Reliable Sources, then we should mention that in this article. We can put disclaimers around our mention, but we can't just ignore what Reliable Sources are saying about the non-email files, whether or not the RSs establish "that these code files actually were used in the preparation of published results, and if so, exactly which published papers". Madman (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ChrisO, I suspect the wp:or mention was to Nigelj's suspicion that the source code were attachments to emails. I doubt that HARRY_READ_ME.txt would have been attached to these emails.  Nigelj can entertain the suspicion further by searching the emails for mention of the program and data files, but the results would be WP:OR.  There have been diagrams produced which show communication relationships between the participants, but has an RS published known relationships between code and other items, including published material?  That's more likely to appear later, after requests for records related to these files are completed.  I haven't seen mention of such, but when using FOIA it is common to use one document to find related documents.  So someone will ask for records related to a program and any published works.  As with much of the story, we can't add it until it appears.  -- SEWilco (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It has become all to common to make the blanket statement that blogs are not reliable sources. However, it isn't true. See WP:BLOGS.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * please don't cite essays when trying to make a wp:rs point. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an oversimplification to say blogs are never reliable sources, however, considering WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, for practical intents and purposes, most blogs aren't acceptable for this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Blogs are largely not acceptable (see WP:V), with one major exception: Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control (ibid., follow the footnote). Thus, the newspaper blogs can be squeezed in, while the Realclimate should be (largely) out. This is, of course, precisely the inverse of what is being quoted as the policy by the Team WMC. Dimawik (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you refer to as "Team WMC?" That sounds like a personal slur.


 * Secondly, why would you want to include poorly informed writers on newspaper opinion blogs, and exclude expert opinion from a scientific blog? That makes no sense at all in terms of our policy on reliable sources. --TS 18:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dimawik, the other exception to blogs is if they're produced by an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been previously published by third-party, reliable sources - which is why RealClimate is in. In any case, we have in-text attribution.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing personally aimed at anybody here: just a general thought... There's more to writing good articles for Wikipedia than finding on-line texts at random and paraphrasing them. You get nowhere if you first of all don't actually understand the subject matter. With that as a grounding basis, then you can work out what the article needs to say to summarise the whole topic in a sound and encyclopedic way and then look to the best reliable, verifiable sources to support the statements, and point the inquisitive reader to good quality further reading (by that stage these and other references will be well-known to you anyway, so its easy to pick and choose). If no such sources yet exist, then you know to hang fire until they do. I'm sorry if this sounds elitist, but really, people who have no idea what the topic is about, beyond what their morning newspaper has just told them, would never get an authorship contract with Britannica, so why should they expect editorial control here? 'Anyone can edit', yes, but not anyone can plan, design, and execute a good balanced article on a topic unless they have more than a passing acquaintance with the issues, and the underlying issues. --Nigelj (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * shall we try to put that in a new policy? joking of course. anyhow, that is why we have you here, to guide us in designing and executing this article. although, i must say that a visitor with a passing acquaintance with the issue can often make better observations with an unbiased mind than some editors deeply involved with the topic. in conclusion, i disagree with the second half of your thought -- rarely ever here anyone writes the whole article, but most users add bits and pieces. regards. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's all always a to-and-fro collaborative effort with everybody bringing their own knowledge, skills and background. People who know nothing at all about the topic still make valuable fixes to style, grammar, layout etc once there's something to look at. It's just when we get, "I found a mention in a blog or on Fox News, so now I want to write a whole new section"... --Nigelj (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From Nigelj's comments one might assume that the editors working on this article are all experts in computer security, law, and software :-) Since this is clearly not always the case, I'd say that contributions from editors that are not professionals in the climate science shall be also welcome. This is not an article about the climate change, after all. Dimawik (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Counter-Argument to the "trick" explanation
Part of the wiki article quotes the explanation for the "trick". It is accurate, refers to the tree rings, and is commonly used. However, that doesn't mean there wasn't an intent to manipulate the data. I think it's fair to present the counter-argument to the counter-argument.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

Written by Marc Sheppard -- relation to this section specifically

"The first step was taken in the 1995 Second Assessment Report, when the above Figure 7c was replaced with a 1993 reconstruction from RS Bradley and Phil Jones himself that used 1400 AD as its base – effectively wiping the MWP off the radar-screen.

But it wasn’t until the 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) that the MWP simply vanished. This multi-proxy reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies appeared in chapter 2, page 134, of the Working Group 1 (WG1) report.

Of course, the first thing you’ll notice is that both the MWP and LIA have indeed disappeared. In fact, temperatures appear to trend downward throughout the millennium until a sharp jump upward last century. But if you look closer, you’ll also notice that the “reconstructed” series terminate in 1980. What forms the dramatic blade to the hockey stick shape (yes, this is indeed the famous “Hockey-Stick” graph) is instead the distal segment of the 1902 to 1999 instrumental data series.

Mann has recently claimed that the available proxy data ended in 1980, but even his coconspirators at RealClimate admit that’s nonsense. The truth is that the proxy data was scrapped because unlike those measured, reconstructed temperatures showed a marked decline after 1980. And, as the chart plotted temperature anomalies against what the plotters selected as the “normal” period and temperatures of 1961 to 1990, the reconstruction would have been quite unremarkable otherwise. So at the 1980 mark, the actual post-1980 measurements were actually attached to the truncated proxy series to create the illusion they were one.

The figure below, found on the same page of the WG1 report reveals this trick more clearly. This chart plots the original 4 reconstructions used: 2 from Mann et al, 1 from Jones et al and 1 from Briffa et al. Notice how all but the first series continue to trend downward around 1960 while instrumental readings begin to trend upward? And even that series ends abruptly in 1980."

See original link for images and PDF files attached to the explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshzd (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick with mainstream sources as the article so far has done. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're interested, wiki already has an article dealing with some of this, Description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

cbs report
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/06/climategate-finally-reported-cbs-climate-change-hoax use as reference? --Pevos (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean CBS or Newsbusters? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Newsbusters is not a reliable source, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean CBS. --Pevos (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of news organizations are producing some extremely sloppy journalism on this subject, treating unfounded allegations by skeptics as if they were fact. We have to be careful, as an encyclopedia, to distance ourselves from  poorly researched press pieces, and to not fall into the trap of covering the news coverage rather than the facts. --08:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot in "Reactions"
I just looked and the "Reactions" section led with the opinion of, of all people, the journalist and activist George Monbiot, coming before the opinions of the UEA, several scientific organizations and several qualified scientists. As Monbiot has no scientific credentials of which I'm aware in this field, I've moved his opinion a good way down. To place his opinion first gives undue weight to lay opinion. --TS 01:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's not how things work around here. Weight is determined by its prominence in reliable sources, not on our own personal opinions.  Monbiot's opinion has been cited by numerous reliable sources.  Please keep in mind, TS, that WP:NPOV cuts both ways.  You can't e-emphasize an opinion just because you don't like it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well weight is a matter of editorial judgement. Number of reports is a very crude way to measure importance, and obviously Monbiot's opinion counts for a lot less than those whose opinions are above his after my edit. And with the best will in the world, I find it hard to conceive that Monbiot's opinion has been reported in more reliable sources than that of, say, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, James Hansen and so on. --TS 04:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the new format in which reactions are divided up into the sections labelled "Climatologists", "Mainstream science organizations", "Newspapers and other media" and "Think tanks and elected officials". On balance I'd prefer the "Newspapers etc" section to be last but this is acceptable.  Within each section we should seek appropriate balance but should take care not to get into an adversarial dialog structure. --TS 10:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the division into sections is useful, but both the categories and what is included in them need further thought. "Thinktanks and elected officials" is a nonsense. If Ed Miliband says something, then that is the view of the UK government. Neither that nor the view of a US senator should be put on a par with comments from people who run thinktanks. The comments currently in the category "media" are confused too. The report from the DT is not a media view but a report of how others have responded. It is to be taken as a reliable report and should be in the appropriate category, and not attributed to the DT. The Computerworld quote is not the view of Computerworld but a reliable report of the views of others. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bring in some of the more thoughtful analysis of the politics and sociology?
We're starting to see some more thoughtful analysis of the politics and sociology of this. For example, Mike Hulme, "The Science and Politics of Climate Change," The Wall Street Journal Online, December 4, 2009. Granted, what we see now will be commentary rather than sociological research, but some of it is pretty good and the commentators are getting enough perspective that they're beginning to think through how it may have all happened and what the implications are. It would be important to stick to newspapers of record, clearly identify who the commentators are, and make sure we include a mix that includes all sides, but it could turn the article into something more useful than "he said . . . she said." EastTN (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really politics (at least not political science analysis) and not sociology. I'm sure there will be sociologists of science poring over this but they won't publish for another six months at least. We're going to have a large number of people invited by good quality media sources to comment - for example Jonathon Porritt was on BBC radio this morning - and have to decide how to deal with all of them. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I grant that it's not the kind of research that a political science professor would do in an academic setting, but there's a great deal of good political reporting and analysis that's provided by newspapers of record and leading magazines. Those can be as useful for articles on politics as the more academic sources.  I think this is similar situation.  I recognize how difficult it may be.  My personal rule of thumb would be that we'd want to look for reports and commentary in leading newspapers and reputable magazines, articles that are focused on analyzing the debate rather than participating in the debate, and we'd want to bend over backwards to try and report all perspectives in a neutral way. I don't know if we could get to consensus, but if we could I do think it would result in a better article.  As an aside, what did Porritt have to say?  Was it useful, and is it something we can find in text form somewhere? EastTN (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should start a "Reaction to the Reaction" section!
 * All joking aside, The NYT Freakonomics Blog also has a pretty broad look at the reactions and analysis. Ignignot (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - that's a nice one. I didn't mention it because it was a blog, but perhaps it could make the cut since it's essentially a standing column sponsored by the NYT.  This one might be a possibility as well: Bryan Walsh, "As Climate Summit Nears, Skeptics Gain Traction," Time, December 2, 2009.  It will be tricky to get to a consensus on sources, but I do think that we're starting to see some analysis that could strengthen the article if it's handled well. EastTN (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another one that, while not quite as much focused on the political and sociological analysis, is pretty interesting in the way it tries to handle things: Peter Kelemen, "What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change," Popular Mechanics, December 1, 2009. EastTN (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I recall, Porritt just said that the global warming scientific consensus held. It was on the radio, therefore ephemeral, and really just an example of how much here-today-gone-tomorrow commentary is out there. The BBC News website is where to look for the main developments and commentary. An article in Time should in principle be notable comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the BBC site. If you get a chance, take a look at the WSJ article by Hulme ("The Science and Politics of Climate Change"); I thought it was quite good, and it's what got me thinking about this. EastTN (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's another from the Christian Science Monitor: Peter N. Spotts, "‘Climategate’: leaked emails push scientists toward transparency," Christian Science Monitor, December 4, 2009 EastTN (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another interesting analysis of how the emails are playing out: David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin, "In e-mails, science of warming is hot debate," The Washington Post, December 5, 2009.EastTN (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Specific E-mail copyright violation
Isn't posting the text of the E-mails a copyright violation, without the permission of the copyright holder (probably the authors, but possibly the authors' employers)? Perhaps not, for the purpose of commentary, but we may need to be careful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * nope, it was published by news sources. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because it's Fair use for them, it doesn't mean it's WP:Fair use for us. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * shall we consult an Intelectual Property lawyer? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * i see there's no need. Fair_use 93.86.205.97 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding of copyright is that in general the copyright belongs to that person who introduces the "creative step" in the work. That should mean that the email writer owns copyright in their own emails. However, employment contracts may claim to assign copyright to the employer. I'm not sure of US law, but in the UK we have the human rights act which allows freedom of speech (reportedly) particularly for journalistic actions. This should allow "free reporting" where there is a compelling need for journalistic purposes. Obviously, details that don't add to the "sum of human knowledge" ... specific email addresses, personal information that isn't pertinent to the story, should be omitted, but from a more practical note, the big newspapers have good lawyers, and it is safe to say that if several reputable newspapers in various countries have quoted certain sections - and continue to do so without action - then Wikipedia is safe to quote these sections - basically just use common sense and certainly don't pander to those trying to hide publicly available emails by falsely claiming that they can't be included due to copyright. Isonomia (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

it is my assumption that since emails should be available to others in england because of freedom of information law, it is a Public_domain there, and since british news sources published, it became public domain elsewhere as well. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * These e-mail are now in the public domain. Glocax (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in Freedom of Information Act 2000 which affects copyright. Having a copy of something doesn't mean it is in the public domain.  Maybe you're confusing public domain with something being in the public record (not the UK legal definition of governmental "public record").  -- SEWilco (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes this has been discussed before multiple times with links provided to various websites which make it clear things released under the FOI may still be subject to copyright. (There was some suggestion things are different in the US but I never saw any evidence for that although I didn't take part extensively.) I suggest anyone who doesn't understand the difference between copyright and other matters like requirements for release under freedom of information acts and the like read the various articles and multiple discussions if they are still confused. As SEWilco said, public domain is a term usually used exclusively to refer to copyright and if you aren't aware of that I would also suggest you read the various articles. In terms of the quotes, I don't think a discussion relating to copyright is particularly useful. We should make sure they aren't over used/excessivelly long but for reasons primarily unrelated to copyright. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Short excerpts are acceptable, under fair use doctrine. Also, e-mail on government/taxpayers funded servers are subject to different rules. Glocax (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No evidence has ever been provided for your second claim when it comes to copyright except for the well established and known fact that US federal government work is in the public domain which is irrelevant here. Instead as I mentioned above, evidence has been provided to the contrary. If you have some actual evidence you're welcome to provide it, if not repeating the claim ad nauseum is not going anywhere. Also as has been discussed before and mentioned below, bringing FOI acts into it is even more dubious given that these were not even released under the FOI and yes that may matter even if they were supposed to be. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If some of the emails were sent by U.S. Government employees then those emails may fall under the public domain. The entire collection is not public domain.  -- SEWilco (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Correcting myself... this material was not released under the FOI so that doesn't apply until someone gets a copy of the same material through an FOI request. -- SEWilco (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a WP:CV. Perhaps we should ask the editors there? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have some personal and professional knowledge of the situation here, since I've been involved with the UK FOI Act on both sides of the equation - as a requester and as a releaser - and also with administering copyright and trademark issues. The bottom line is that FOI only affects access to documents. It does not affect copyrights held by the Crown or third parties. For instance, I could (in principle) request a copy of submissions made to the Government by Exxon-Mobil, but the copyright of those submissions would still remain with Exxon-Mobil. Copyright also subsists in documents produced by the Government. In contrast to the situation in the US, where government documents are non-copyrightable, UK Government documents are Crown Copyright. The Crown Copyright regime is administered by OPSI, the Office for Public Sector Information. The relationship between FOI and Crown Copyright is explained by OPSI in the Guidance - Freedom of Information Publication Schemes. This states, in para 2: "The supply of documents under FOI does not give the person who receives the information an automatic right to re-use the documents without obtaining the consent of the copyright holder. Permission to re-use copyright information is generally granted in the form of a licence." So in this instance, even if the stolen data had been obtained legally under FOI, the requesters could not legally have republished it without the permission of the copyright holder, the UEA. This does not affect their "fair dealing" rights (which is significantly different from "fair use" in the US) but fair dealing would not have permitted the wholesale reproduction we've seen of the stolen files. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, there is a useful discussion of this issue in today's New York Times by their Public Editor: "The [New York Times] lawyer, George Freeman, told me that there is a large legal distinction between government documents like the Pentagon Papers, which The Times published over the objections of the Nixon administration, and e-mail between private individuals, even if they may receive some government money for their work. He said the Constitution protects the publication of leaked government information, as long as it is newsworthy and the media did not obtain it illegally. But the purloined e-mail, he said, was covered by copyright law in the United States and Britain." -- ChrisO (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever the Public Editor says, the New York Times' political blog has a link to the Sarah Palin emails on Wikileaks, and our Sarah Palin email hack article also links to those emails. There seems to be no difficulty with links to copyrighted material. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know the exact circumstances of that case, but I was under the impression that material produced by public officials in the course of their work is covered by US FOIA legislation or the state equivalents. But that's a bit of a red herring as far as this particular case is concerned - the status of the material is quite clear and so is Wikipedia's linking policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FOIA is only a red herring if someone tries to invoke it. The above New York Times quote does not mention the NYT considering FOIA.  As for the Palin emails, U.S. FOIA applies to U.S. Government work, not state workers.  These documents were not acquired through any FOI (UK) nor FOIA (USA) process.  If someone files FOI or FOIA (or the Alaskan equivalent for Palin files) and gets a copy of the same email through the formal procedure then the status of that copy will be different than these files, and the Palin files.  -- SEWilco (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the CRU files were not released through FOI, and many of them would not have been subject to FOI in the first place, FOI is irrelevant in this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

likely insiders?
I've never edited a news article but i do believe the first sentence in the body shouldn't have the words "likely insiders" in it, neither of the articles, BBC or Time, mention the hackers as most likely insiders. If there is another article someone has seen as mentioning "likely insiders" it should be used to cite. MikelZap (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. It's an opinion attributed to Robert Graham, not a fact as it is deceptively portrayed in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing deceptive about it. It is stated as a fact in the source that it comes from:
 * Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider," he said.
 * Note that "the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community" is written as a statement of fact and is NOT in quotes. This is a statement being made by the journalist based on their investigation.  The security expert's quote indicates an 80% probability that this is the case, hence the word "likely" is used rather than leaving it as an absolute statement of fact.  --GoRight (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate. The statement is an opinion paraphrased from Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security, just like the article says.  There is nothing factual about it.  All opinions, no matter if they are paraphrased or quoted, must be attributed to their authors.  If you don't understand how this works, then I invite you to read the NPOV policy.  There is no "absolute statement of fact" here at all.  All opinions require attribution, no exceptions. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It won't take terribly long to publicize who did this. Then it will be known if it was an insider or not. So just wait. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thr r svrl srcs sng thr th trm "whstlblwr" r "nsd jb". thr f ths trms r spprtd b mltpl rlbl srcs Comfort &amp; Joy (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC) stricken: sockpuppet of banned user  Kim D. Petersen (talk)
 * I am not well-versed in this controversy. I would like to make a suggestion to bring us closer to consensus. In the lede, it states: "The unknown hacker, likely either an insider or someone inside the climate community, anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents." What if we just wrote: "The unknown hacker(s) anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents?" I say this because the first section also points out the hacker is "likely either an insider or someone inside the climate community" I'm not here to argue if the hacker(s) were insiders, though, one would assume they had some kind of inside presence. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've cut it back to this again. Graham's argument is a statistical one, in 80% of the cases it is insiders, but there is no means for us to tell whether this case is one of the 20% or the 80%. Since Graham has no inside information to the case, but is simply speculating it shouldn't be used, except as "X stated that in 80% of such hacker cases it is insiders" or something like that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2009

Kim, if your wife was killed & the perp was not Mirandized (or similar in non-US countries), should he be let go? Relevance: even thought these emails might have been gathered under less than ideal conditions, it shows how proAGWers fabricate & "want" catastrophe. rndhyd68.180.38.25 (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
 * It also appears from Graham's website that he's an activist climate change sceptic, which casts some doubt on his objectivity on this issue; he's not just speaking as a security expert. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thr r nmrs srcs nd xprts tht ndct ths s n nsd jb. W shld rspct ths rlbl srcs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Institute of Klimatology (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Account blocked.

I retrieved this discussion from the archive. GoRight is again trying to add this. I'll just add my support for not having it in the article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the above discussion, I'd say you were right to remove the material from the article. Guettarda (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. The 80% quote is clearly an off-the-cuff generic reaction, not a measured, statistical analysis of the present situation. Even if correct, it’s highly likely that we will know whether the actual incident is in the 80 or the 20 soon. If for some reason, it remains murky, then it might be relevant to incorporate some expert’s opinion, but I’d like to see a more measured reaction reflecting the actual situation, not just a shoot-from-the-hip value. SPhilbrick  T  19:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity
I think this statement should go into the article. The AAAS is a relevant organisation regarding all things science so their opinion matters. I also think we should start pruning out the comments by some of the less notable individual scientists. —Apis (talk ) 22:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. On the current dispute going on over the word "theft", not that they say: "AAAS expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia..." Guettarda (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Confused about BLP tag
Sorry if I'm ignorant, but I don't understand why this talk page has a "biographies of living persons" tag. Is that tag used for current events as well as actual biographies? Just curious. MMagdalene722 talk to me  17:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any article that includes the activities of living persons technically falls under the auspices of WP:BLP for their protection. This article refers to certain individuals in relation to a criminal investigation, for example, and for suggestions of impropriety. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for the explanation.   MMagdalene722  talk to me  18:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiding the decline/data "trick"
Changed ''data' to decline/data as hiding the decline is the primary quote. (Data has also been hidden, but that is little known.) DLH (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Recommend a section on Hiding the data ''trick" as a major issue arising from these CRU emails. See How “The Trick” was pulled offDLH (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, that's a reliable source for sure. We'll get right on it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But "any eco-related scare for which the prescription would result in a massive transfer of power to the political class is bogus" applied to AGW is at least doubly wrong, hence right! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the widespread MSM discussion of "Mike's Nature trick," it's odd that the only discussion of that "trick" in the Wikipedia article is drawn verbatim from the RealClimate site's damage control effort. If the publications of right-wing pundits and the "denier" blogs (many of them created and maintained by credentialed climatologists who had been frozen out of the referee'd professional journals by way of the CRU correspondents' co-option of the peer review process) are not "reliable sources," how is it that the CRU correspondents' own principal advocacy site has become acceptably "reliable"? 71.125.155.89 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article eventually needs such a section, but I think it is premature at the moment. I gather that the "trick" is a reference to the need to conjoin instrument based temperature records with dendrology based temperature records. This is a legitimate need, and it is plausible that the mechanism for doing so is both appropriate and described as a "trick". However, it would be nice to see reliable sources discussing this in a NPOV before adding the material. The blogs I've read so far are breathless and biased, and "conclusive" without even a pretense of examining all issues.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve McIntyre was the IPCC reviewer who explicitly warned the IPCC “don’t cover up the divergence”. See the IPCC documentation: Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18) Boris - if you have a better site showing the graphs before / after please provide it. This issue of "hiding the decline" is iconic, core to both the scientific and political controversy, and is most widely known. It needs a major section to describe the development from Brifa 2000 which was cited in the caption to IPCC Fig 2.21, to Jone's email, and the subsequent recent disclosure of the full data that Brifa had deleted in his 2000 figure, and the programmer's commenting dealing with such deletion after 1960 - in the Harry Readme file. Obviously there would be quotes from protagonists, antagonists, and reviewers. The link I gave has the best graphics I have found.DLH (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What specific data were contained in ESR's plot? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Watts forgets to mention that the divergence is described in specifics at page 472-473 in Chapter 6 of the AR4 WG1 report. They also specifically note the 1960 cut-off-point. I find it very very hard to call something a "cover-up" when it is described in detail in both the report (and of course also in Briffa et al.(2001), which the AR4 cites) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mann claimed: “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, grafted the thermometer record onto any reconstruction.” In “A good way to deal with a problem” McIntyre notes: “However, although the “real” Briffa reconstruction goes down after 1960, the series in the diagram attributed to “Briffa (1999)” goes up. The decline in the Briffa reconstruction is not shown; it is hidden.” However, in: How “The Trick” was pulled off McIntyre notes: “There is no mention in the IPCC report of the deletion of Briffa reconstruction data after 1960. Nor is there any mention of the deletion in the IPCC reference (Briffa 2000) nor, for that matter, in the article cited by Gavin Schmidt (Briffa et al 1998). These articles report the divergence, but do not delete it. (Briffa et al 2001 does delete the post-1960 values.)”DLH (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the statement by McI that "There is no mention in the IPCC report of the deletion of Briffa reconstruction data after 1960" is quite simply wrong, please check page 473 like i asked...(i quote (emph. mine)):
 * Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a).
 * A thing like this is one reason amongst others that blog postings aren't reliable sources on Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Right! Blogs are not acceptable, neither are ad hominems--rndhyd.68.180.38.25 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that does not fly. You would then have to delete ALL RealClimate references. The whole CRU emails explosion was led by WattsUpWithThat, with a 350% increase in traffic, followed by a 500% increase at climateaudit.org and similar tripling at realclimate.org and climatedepot.com. MSM came in very late. McIntyre was an IPCC reviewer and his objections were documented at IPCC. etc.DLH (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note McIntyre explicitly distinguishes in his comments between (Brifa 1999), (Bifra 2000) and Bifra(2001). See the original posts.DLH (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Boris - Thanks for the ref. "hiding the decline" is a direct quote from Jone's email, not whether we think it is hidden or not. As you note, the IPCC WG1 Ch 6 p 472-473 states: ““Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades”. . . “In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’was a uniquely recent phenomenon” That IPCC statement vs McIntyre is the heart of the statistical or scientific issue -(i.e. is this cherry picking or legitimate?) These are statements that need to be quoted or summarized together with select graphs.DLH (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See above: IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence” IPCC Reviewer McIntyre statement.DLH (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All of this is original research, and none of it is covered in reliable sources. Therefore it doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't understand how you read that. All the material is published/posted by others, none of my posts. I was listing materials to summarize.DLH (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are blogs acceptable or unacceptable sources of information for Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LVAustrian (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that the skeptical spin on "Mike's nature trick" and "Hide the decline" aren't really making much serious talk. And if you're arguing that we should take them seriously because, despite this, some blogs mention them, well this isn't going to work. If on the other hand you had a reputable blog giving an opinion of a blog owner whose opinion independently would merit comment, then it might end up in Wikipedia. --TS 02:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the real "problem" is that "the heart of the statistical or scientific issue" isn't relevant to this article; all that is relevant is what the words refer to, not various parties' views about the referent, and no reliable source questions that those words refer to what climate scientists say they refer to. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

-
 * Our section on "Hide the decline" presently ends with the RC rebuttal, arguably a WP:primary source. I propose to rebut this with Climate Audit's “A good way to deal with a problem” (quoting Gavin Schmidt), and "Still hiding the decline" the best rebuttals I've seen online.

Samples: "While they’ve [Phil Jones & CRU] used the actual Briffa reconstruction after 1960 in making their smooth, even now, they deleted values after 1960 so that the full measure of the decline of the Briffa reconstruction is hidden." (2nd CA source)

"The decline in the Briffa reconstruction is not shown; it is hidden. Gavin Schmidt of real climate says that this is “a good way to deal with a problem”. I disagree (and recorded this disagreement in a related context in connection with IPCC AR4 as discussed elsewhere.) (1st CA source)

Perhaps we should quote McIntyre's IPCC review remarks (and Briffa's comments rejecting same) as well -- public records.

Ordinarily we prefer citing secondary sources. However, it seems to me that rebutting a primary (RC) with another primary (CA) would be appropriate. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a secondary source (Michael Mann reported in a US newspaper) for the claim that the "decline" discussed concerned a decline in tree ring metrics. --TS 04:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Or why not cut to the chase and and demand that all sources are "peer reviewed by the scientists" - the "scientists" being the small group of politicos writing the emails. And what is more, realclimate is simply the mouth piece for these self-reviewing "climate scientists", so when it comes down to it, their views are only the veiws of yet another bunch of bloggers anyway - the only difference is they get paid to produce their blogs! So, can we please stop this crap about who is saying what (remember wikipedia is only really another blog!) and use the normal criteria of whether enough people are reporting something to make it notable. Isonomia (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mu. --TS 10:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Protected page edit request
(awaiting consensus from discussion below before submitting)

Proposed edit
Please could you insert the following (minus the quote box)as the third paragraph in the Reactions to the incident section - i.e. as a new paragraph after the text "talks at the December, 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit." and before the text "The American Association for the Advancement of Science has". If inserting it near the top of that section (warranted, I believe, as an investigation by the United Nations seems more noteworthy than reactions from most other bodies) isn't acceptable please place it at the bottom of that section instead. It's unlikely to be controversial as it's a factual statement that mirrors the text used in multiple references. Brumski (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
—Apis (talk ) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The references lead to something called www.ft.com? but I agree that reactions from the UN should go into the article, as discussed before. Before requesting that the page be modified it's better to wait a little so others have a chance to comment to see if there is consensus.


 * Sorry, I had linked both references to the same Financial Times story. I've corrected the Mail on Sunday reference so that it now links to the correct article on their site and added another reference from The Guardian. I've placed the editprotected template back as it only suggests discussion "If the proposed edit might be controversial". Given that the proposed edit is a simple factual statement, is a direct mirror of the phrasing used in multiple highly respected mainstream news sources and that you and others agree it should be in the article it seems impossible for the proposed addition to be controversial. In addition, the reviewing admin will assess it's controversy value before adding it and will refuse to add it if it is or can be controversial. Allow them to reject the proposed edit if you think it isn't warranted. Brumski (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please gain consensus before using the edit protected template. Restore when consensus exists on exact wording. -Atmoz (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you both (and anyone else) please state what is controversial about the requested edit, what your objections to it are and what needs changing to accommodate those objections? Brumski (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See the discussion under "stagnation" above. Adding what RP said is fine; adding the FT's misrepresentation of it isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I see the controversy now, thanks for that. The 4 well known WP:RS that I provided and an additional 2 that I have added say the following - is that not sufficient? "The UN panel on climate change is to investigate claims that UK scientists manipulated global warming data to support a theory that it is man-made" Mail On Sunday. "The head of the UN's climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated" BBC. "The United Nations climate change panel is to investigate claims that scientists at the University of East Anglia in the UK manipulated data to support the case that human activity is driving global warming" Financial Times. "Claims that scientists at the University of East Anglia manipulated global warming data to support a theory of man-made climate change will be investigated by a United Nations panel, the university chairman said today" The Guardian. Also "The United Nations panel on climate change has promised to investigate claims that scientists at a British university deliberately manipulated data to support the theory of man-made global warming" The Times and "The United Nations panel on climate change is to investigate claims that scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit manipulated global warming data " The Telegraph. Brumski (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeating the same wrong words just won't help. You need to engage with the objections already raised William M. Connolley (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I quoted the words to demonstrate that the proposed edit directly reflects the articles in 9 WP:RS. I believe I have engaged with the objections raised previously - although there was a lot of text there were only two objections raised by two people. 1) One was Apis who mentioned "I generally agree that we should alow for the dust to settle a little so we get more than one news source to compare from". There are now 9 sources instead of one, so there is more than one news source so that objection doesn't seem valid any more. 2) The other objection was from you and was "The BBC seems to have got it wrong" (supported by an assertion that the BBC routinely gets things wrong, with an example) and that "We are not, however, obliged to repeat their mistakes" and that by allowing the story to settle we will avoid repeating the BBC's mistake. So, your objection seems to be essentially that the BBC is wrong. To help with that objection (which I didn't know about when I compiled the text - i.e. I did not use the BBC as a source) I have provided 8 additional well respected WP:RS sources. There are 9 sources now included in the proposed text and that proposed text directly mirrors what they say: it's a strictly factual statement that reflects the sources and there is no POV to it. Is that a correct assessment of the objections and if not, can you restate or re-summarize them? If you have any additional objections can you state them as well. Thanks.Brumski (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally would leave out rather problematic words "...to favour the conclusion that human activity is driving global warming". To me it seems these are header/lead words added by media, however RS's. I short, the words are: imho not needed, as header text not worthy material to wiki and, just creating needless debate here. With simpler facts we should add this and also UEA own investigation announcement into article. Just my 2 eurocents. --J. Sketter (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I'd consider adding the reasons for these 2 investigations being done (credibility & reputition of these institutions). --J. Sketter (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to find the actual interview online, it apears to be made by this radio program: The Report but it won't be available online until 20:00 Thursday 10 December 2009... Ah, but now I found a snippet on the BBC News Briefing 4 December 2009. As far as I can tell he says:
 * "We certainly will go into the whole lot and then as I said we will take a position on it. We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet [unclear] swept under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we certainly will look into it in detail"

The BBC News article quotes him as:
 * ''"We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it," he said.
 * "We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail."

Well, what can you say, crap journalists can't even get their quotes right. It looks like the IPCC has only made the following official statements so far: BBC might have 'overstated' what he said. If we want to include this now, I suggest we write something like:
 * Statement by the IPCC Chairman
 * Further elaboration by IPCC Working Group I

Any thoughts? —Apis (talk ) 06:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree this is an important distinction people often miss (not just here, there was a similar issue in the Swiss Minaret controversy article for example). There's a difference between an official statement from the IPCC or another organisation, a statement made by an individual on behalf of the organisation/representing the organisation and a personal statement from someone high up in an organisation but who isn't claiming everything he's saying is the official view of the organisation. An official statement would usually be clearly identified as being an official statement. Something someone says on radio is unlikely to be an official statement but could be made on behalf of the organisation or could simply be personal comments. We need to clearly differentiate the three when writing Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added an additional reference from the Wall Street Journal to my proposed edit above. I don't think there is a basis in policy for deciding that 11 reliable secondary sources are wrong and that, because of that, 1 primary source should be interpreted by Wikipedia editors and used in place of those sources. Additionally, asserting that the BBC has made a mistake and that 10 reliable secondary sources have copied that mistake is original research and unsupported, except by a rhetorical argument that journalists are crap, based on something as weak as the difference between "as I said" and "he said". Could you include the text "The chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" at the start, and "he wants them investigated"  somewhere in the text and adjust your current quote to "we certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet". Brumski (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The UN IPCC statement is obviously important and deserves inclusion. While it is a reaction, I beleive it belongs more appropriately in the call for inquiries section, as it is a call for an inquity. I suggest a level 3 subsection 3.2. I'm struggling with the exact placement. Chronologically, it occurred after the evetns summarized int he "East Anglia response" subsection, so belongs after. In terms of layout, it might be better to have the discussion of various calls for inquiry, followed at the end by a response section. In the interest of addressing this in small increments, I propose a small subsection after the response section, then, once East Anglia responds to the UN call, the response section can be moved to the end.

I note that Brumski added quite a few references. I interpret that number as attempting to insure that this was getting broad coverage. However, I don't think we should clutter the article with that many references, even though Brunski obviously went to some effort.

My proposal is to include two references, the BBC reference for the main point, and the Times for a quote (although the most relevant quote is in both references, there's some value to showing this is not a one-off article.)

Picking up on the point that this isn't an official UN announcement, I'll modify my proposal as follows, although still believing it belongs as a subsection under inquiries:

Why is this quote not included in the article?
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, stated:

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

Why is this quote not included in the article?

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 00:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My own opinion is that this sounds like an idle boast, not connected to any specific event. While there are concerns that some information is missing, the relatively recent admissions of loss of data relate to time frames predating his statement. Further, the known losses of information in the 80's appear to be related to storage requirements, rather than attempts to hide data. (Not saying the decisions were good, just that the rationale seems to be unrelated to the quote.) If an investigation confirms that he did delete files without adequate cause, the statement may come back to bite him, but I think we need more to make it anything other than unfortunate wording. Finally, he refers to a "file" but without more specificity, it isn't clear what he is talking about.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is supposed to be about facts, not your opinion. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think that something regarding the how the e-mail authors discuss the Freedom of Information Act inquiries should be added at some point to the E-mail section. This is certainly one of the hot topics and Muir Russell will be investigating how the CRU responded to FOIA requests.  Any such addition or quote would need to come from a WP:Reliable Source (Fox is OK but the NY Times or a British source would be best methinks) and we would want to add some sort of balancing here's-one-way-to-think-about-it-quote from the authors or other reputable sources.  Madman (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It's not neutral to cherry-pick quotes from the emails to imply some ones guilt. If there is more to write about, like a court case, then we might be able to elaborate.
 * I'm not suggesting that we cherry-pick quotes, and we certainly shouldn't go into the archives outselves, but several of these e-mails (maybe 1%, if that's several) have been widely discussed in the press and the article should mention those particular e-mails. There're 3 e-mails highlighted in the artcle now and I bet we'll have 5 or 6 eventually.  Madman (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy about the email quotes. There is still just speculation and accusations, and these are stolen emails. Still there might be some justification for trying to illustrate what some of the accusations are about. But simply adding the quotes without context or at least some response from the author isn't neutral. It's difficult to give a fair representation when selecting 1 quote from 1 private email out of more than 1000 from a period of over 10 years. Also worth to keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't investigative journalism, our goal isn't to expose some injustice, or present up to date news. To me it makes more sense to wait and see if there is something more to these accusations.


 * The entire reaction section is filled with cherry-picked quotes, most of which diminish the severity of this scandal, and the lies by the scientists in question. The quote should be included 03:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.136.29 (talk)


 * We should cover this as reliable sources do. If we can find some reliable sources which cover this quote, then it should be included.  If Jones or someone else has explained or provided context regarding it, that belongs in here as well.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are a few reliable sources that we can use: A climate scandal, or is it just hot air?, Climate emails hacked, published, Who's to blame for Climategate?, U.K. Climate Scientist Steps Down After E-Mail Flap. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, the first article I listed above from the New Zealand Herald is particularly good at examining the content of the e-mails. I would prefer a little more depth, but it's one of the best articles about the e-mail content I've read so far.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * is probably a better link to the NZ Herald article since it doesn't open a print window on many browsers Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I fixed the URL in my previous post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because there's no way to make it look like it's no big deal, which unfortunately is what this article is trying to do when it comes to this whole issue. Counteraction (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Destruction of files seems to be one of the more commonly reported things in this whole affair; if there's some specific email that is being singled out in the mainstream press we should include it. Evercat (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I came to this talk page specifically to look for the reason for non inclusion of FOI. This particular issue has been widely reported and discussed by media. Non inclusion of this issue would give an appearance of censorship against sceptic side. Vapour (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, articles don't write themselves; someone needs to seize the initiative and add it. Evercat (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So, even though the whole corpus of stolen material was cherry picked by the "sceptic side" and from that a few extra-juicy (and easy to misrepresent) quotes were selected and repeatedly broadcast by "the sceptic side", not including all of their picks gives the appearance of "censorship" of the "sceptic side". Got it. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, the FOI (and other) concerns should be mentioned in the article. What I don't like is the inclusion of quotes from the e-mails unless there is some very good reason for doing so. In my opinion it adds nothing to the article. It neither proves or disproves innocence, and it's arguably unethical. —Apis (talk ) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the links everyone. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Added notes on source code and harry_read_me.txt
I added info on these, because they have been subject to controversy. If there is any bias, I'd appreciate editing. I write this in good faith because this subject is relevant to the topic, and I hope that we are not too agenda driven and can include a discussion of it. Much thanks!-WikilAGATA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilagata (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 December 2009
 * I think a mention of leaked/stolen program code is appropriate. The emails were the immediate source of controversy, but the programmer comments and other areas of the source code have been generated just as much controversy - it had just taken longer for the public to digest.Static623 (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
I'm deleting the following from the article in accordance with WP:PSTS:

"According to the RealClimate website, in their response to the CRU hack, the "decline" being mentioned is a decline in tree ring sizes, not temperature. RealClimate characterizes the e-mail excerpt as follows:

"The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens." "

I doubt this is very controversial, but I've been surprised before, so I figure I should mention it here. --Heyitspeter (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've restored that lucid, scientific explanation, and also cited a Philadelphia Inquirer story that quotes Mann saying exactly the same thing. Given the amount of nonsense we've got in the article from people who nothing about the science, it's very unwise to remove what few good scientific sources we have. --TS 02:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that we have the secondary source, can we remove the primary source? Again, this is in accordance with WP:PSTS.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to remove anything, and I'm afraid you are misinterpreting the policies/guidelines again. Because there continues to be confusion on these issues from you, please use the talk page before making these edits in the future. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I am, and I fail to understand why you think this is a case of misinterpreting the policies/guidelines "again." Please be civil and engage with me rationally. If we have a secondary source that says "exactly the same thing" as the primary, and if primary sources are contentious in this case, let's go with the secondary. This shouldn't be a difficult decision to make.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If we removed the clear RealClimate explanation we'd have to replace it with something else that does the same excellent job. We've got our secondary source, so there is no longer an issue.  People come to this encyclopedia for an explanation of the issues, and RealClimate is a good source on this subject. --TS 04:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The key point here I think is similar that do when primary sources came up before, e.g. with the CRU-UEA response & investigation. It's best to avoid solely using a primary source as the source. If however we have a secondary source which says the same thing or even quotes the primary source, then using the primary source to back up the secondary source is useful for readers to get more information that may not be provided in the secondary source. Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The POV issue with quoting the RealClimate explanation is that critics are not saying thet the "trick" was simply truncating tree-ring data after 1960, but that it involved turning the trend line upwards by incorporating later temperature data into the smoothed series, even though the tree-ring data was declining from 1940 to 1960 (in line with temperature) and after 1960 (diverging from temperature). A UEA press release illustrates the different visual effect between splicing and truncating in two charts; note that it does not show how the tree-ring data continued after 1960. NPOV could require also quoting from critics such as --Rumping (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added some secondary sources that the "trick" involved splicing together (not just plotting) tree ring and thermometer data, plus relevant links to UEA and RealClimate on the same point. --Rumping (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate -- or CRUgate
Since Wikipedia is in the middle of writing history at exactly the same time as History is out there busy writing itself, could I request of both Wikipedia and History that we try to do something about this awful new word that is in serious danger of coming into existence, viz. "Climategate". It raises so many questions that should never, ever be raised -- and certainly not anywhere near an encyclopaedia. For instance, should we capitalise the 'G' (CamelCase) or run it all into a single word (Climategate)? Could we break it up into two words? Um, hypthenate (Climate-Gate)? Argh. And beside, who exactly is guilty here: The hacker, the leaker, or the climate? A number of sensible writers have, to mitigate against such a looming linguistic catastrophe, opted for CRUgate, e.g. http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/?p=4156, http://www.crikey.com.au/topic/crugate/, http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/cru-gate-climate-conspiracy-or-much-ado.html, http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/in-the-wake-of-crugate-letters/, http://www.Free Republic.com/focus/news/2392001/posts. I say, we help them out, we help history out, and we add to the text the words, "... or CRUgate". Any support for this? (I'm serious). Alex Harvey (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just googled and there are now 2,580,000 hits for the word "Climategate" (around a million more than the last time I looked at the number). Regarding how it will be worded when the article changes its title, I would suggest the word everyone is using: "Climategate". And to be quite frank, it should be pretty obvious why its being called climategate: no one out there can think of a better name and you can see them struggling with the thought of "University of East Anglia, which is a little known University in England, from which some emails, may or may not have been stolen/leaked, and which may or may not be evidence of ... oh hell, why don't we just call it climategate". The analogy with watergate is obvious and was explicitly made in the papers today: Information was obtained illicitly (it is suggested) which some suggest is evidence that some people were being "economical with the truth". (Unfortunately, if I were to believe some editors, just by writing the above I will get myself banned from Wikipedia - but to hell with such censorship - so, so long and thanks for all the fish!) 88.109.63.241 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry the censors need to know who to ban! Isonomia (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Dancing around what to call it isn't getting anywhere, the page is going to stay as its current name and climategate will redirect and be a significant "Also Known As".  This has been discussed extensively on this talk page already. Ignignot (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. The controversy has almost nothing to do with how the emails came into the public sphere, and pretty much everything to do with what the emails contained. The "CRU Hacking Incident" will be dealth with by the IT firewall crew at the University. "Climategate" will be discussed by the leaders and scientists of the free world. "Climategate" may be a nothing more than a tempest in a teapot, but the current name is misleading and suggests that the *real* issue here is data security at East Anglia. Under this premise, the Pentagon Papers would have been called "Bob's Unlocked Desk Problem".Nightmote (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Climategate: Results 1 - 100 of about 30,400,000 for climategate. (0.28 seconds)

Google: "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident": Results 1 - 100 of about 37,600 for "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident". (1.22 seconds)

Google CRUgate: Results 1 - 100 of about 6,450 for CRUgate. (0.68 seconds)

The above in order of number of hits. Frankly, Climategate wins hands down. Wikipedia can play games all it wants to -- but people that come here will type "Climategate" into the wiki search and come to this page. It appears pointless to keep the current name. But whatever. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "CRUgate" is a completely fringe name. I've also seen "Hackgate" and "Deniergate", but I hardly think it's worth noting every name made up by some bloviating blogger somewhere. -- ChrisO (talk)
 * You're misusing WP:FRINGE, similar to how a lot of people misuse WP:BLP. -Atmoz (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. Check Google News - six hits for the term, five of them blogs. This alternative term has negligible representation in reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

'Climategate' at centre stage as Copenhagen opens
"The 'Climategate' row immediately took centre stage at the Copenhagen climate summit today when one of the opening speakers went out of his way to defend the scientific consensus on global warming from the attacks of climate change sceptics. "

Due to the insiduous censorship here, I can't say anything more. Isonomia (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * XXX link XX brok XXXXXX weird. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "According to a report in the Times, UN officials have compared the climate change E-Mail theft with the Watergate scandal. In that the hackers who stole the data were probably paid for by climate change sceptics intent on wrecking the Copenhagen climate change talks."


 * Again, I'm unable to make any comment due to personal threats (except thanks stephan!). Isonomia (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stephan, if you're referring to my broken Free XXXX Republic XXXXXXXX link, I wasn't able to save the page with it intact because that nefarious site is on Wikipedia's spam filter (and I think you already know what this proves). ;-o Alex Harvey (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * and the surrounding history should be enlightening. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Saudia Arabia told global warming talks on Monday that trust in climate science had been "shaken" by leaked emails among experts and called for an international probe,... The IPCC, which is the authority accused, is not going to be able to conduct the investigation," he said, referring to the Nobel-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Isonomia (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we know for sure that Saudi Arabia would have no vested in interest in trying to prevent a reduction in worldwide carbon emissions. --Nigelj (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to manipulate the peer review process
I'm going to add the following:

Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, claims that the leaked emails reveal an attempt by Climatologists to disrupt the peer review process by threatening editors of peer reviewed journals with removal from their function if they decide to accept critic's papers for publication, which could have implications for the common argument that there is a consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

If you think it shouldn't be on there and people shouldn't hear about the attempt to keep "skeptics" from publishing their articles to scientific journals by threatening the editors of these journals with removal, please come up with a good argument here. Damage control is not a good argument.

Counteraction (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please give people more than 2 minutes to consider your prosed text additions in future. I've removed the text for now William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also note that you've added this text before and it was removed  with an indication that you should seek consensus on the talk page first. That was good advice William M. Connolley (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While the article is worth reading, the author is not an expert, so I would leave it out. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fact is, as it stands, this Wikipedia article doesn't mention anywhere that the e-mails revealed an attempt to get people removed from their positions as editors of journals if they published articles that disputed the "consensus". Seems to me such an event deserves a mention on this encyclopedia, but it keeps getting removed. Imagine if the Tobacco companies tried to destroy people's careers for merely publishing a study showing that cigarettes cause cancer. Does an e-mail first need an official explanation from Realclimate or something before we are allowed to add it here? Counteraction (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Counteraction, sorry, don't you know the policy. Only sources peer reviewed by the climate "scientists" are allowed on wikipedia climate articles. That is the rule that the "overwhelming consensus" of editors has determined and unfortunately, unless you can find one of these scientists in the emails who has published an article in a peer reviewed journal regarding climategate, then you are completely wasting your time. 88.109.63.241 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the source you're quoting does not say anything about "threatening editors of peer reviewed journals with removal", nor does it say that there was an "attempt by Climatologists to disrupt the peer review". It does accuse them of hubris and an "implicit attack on the basis of peer review".  That is, of course, the nature of private correspondence.  It's one thing to say "X should be fired" when venting.  It's quite another to actually try to get them fired.  But that's beside the point - the summary does not accurately represent what Kelemen says in the article.  And that's a problem.  Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not true. It does mention it. Look at this:


 * It was even more troubling for me to read messages in which, in at least two instances, scientists discussed how to get associate editors removed from journals that published papers critical of their work. The theory seemed to be that the papers were so seriously flawed on scientific grounds that they should not have been published. (This is a common view among authors whose work is criticized.) Personally—having looked at the paper that generated the most complaint, by Soon & Baliunas in the journal Climate Research in 2003—I agree that the paper is scientifically incorrect. Still, incorrect papers make it through peer review all the time, generally because reviewers are not sufficiently vigilant. Despite this, it is very unusual to try to get editors fired as a result.


 * If anyone here can explain to me why it shouldn't be mentioned, don't hesitate. As it stands I'm just having my edits reverted and told that I'm making stuff up. Counteraction (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the article says nothing about "threatening editors of peer reviewed journals with removal" or "attempt by Climatologists to disrupt the peer review". No mention of threats.  No mention of any "attempts to disrupt peer review".  Nothing in the article to suggest that there was any action associated with the comments.  Guettarda (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again:


 * It was even more troubling for me to read messages in which, in at least two instances, scientists discussed how to get associate editors removed from journals that published papers critical of their work.


 * Doesn't this constitute disrupting the peer review process? Counteraction (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, of course it doesn't. Private discussion ≠ action.  Quite frankly, if you believe that an associate editor isn't doing her/his job properly, it's quite appropriate to discuss whether they should remain as associate editor.  But that's entirely beside the point - the point is that there's no evidence that anything was done.  If something was done, that's another issue (although, of course, not all actions to remove an editor constitute improper actions.  Guettarda (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it really that hard to understand that my writing "We should run out into the middle of the street." does not constitute disrupting traffic? -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]  I will have to agree with Mr (or Mrs) Action here that this is something that has been widely discussed in the press. I think we should add something along this line similar in format to the other 3 email sections: (1) a quote from the emails (sourced to a WP:Reliable Source) followed by some sort of rebuttal/explanation from another Reliable Source.

Here are some Reliable Sources:, , (not sure whether this is news or opinion piece),. There's also something from New Zealand (now where is that??)

Could we all agree to that in principle? Madman (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I found some of the original e-mails after using Google:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt These are the e-mails where the climatologists discuss how to remove people from their positions, to prevent certain articles they disagree with from being published in peer reviewed journals. That's not very nice, is it?
 * If someone could use them to update the article, please do, since I'm being told that if I edit the article again I could get in trouble... Counteraction (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically we editors cannot quote directly from the emails, since those would be considered Primary Sources. See WP:PSTS.  We can only (in most circumstances) quote from WP:Reliable Sources which quote the emails.  Madman (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources for what? They don't (as far as I can tell) support the idea that they tried to get an editor removed - if, in fact, Jones had acted on the email quoted, shouldn't that email be among the collection?  The fact of the matter is that there's a huge difference between saying "I should do X" and actually doing X.  Especially in private correspondence.  None of the sources (as far as I can tell) support Counteraction's allegations that something wrong was done.  Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources for what?" Reliable sources for the contents of the emails.  As has been mentioned in earlier threads, there are perhaps 5 or 6 e-mails that have been widely discussed/reported/dissected in the press (i.e. in Reliable Sources) and we should include short sections on these 5 or 6 (or 4 or 7 or . . . ) in this article.  We have 3 e-mail sections now, and Mr Action here is proposing that we add a 4th that would revolve around this email from Jones: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"   I think we can do this in a non-accusatory and factual basis.  You know, "just the facts, ma'am".  Madman (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Mr Action here is proposing that we add a 4th that would revolve around this email from Jones" - really? That wasn't what I got from Counteraction's post or her/his arguments here.  I thought you were saying that these were reliable sources that supported Counteraction's proposed additions; my point was that they don't.  So what would you suggest we add?  Guettarda (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about what these scientists have or have not done with respect to the peer review process, it is about the public release of email and other information and its repercussions, including responses from other scientists. If other scientists are alarmed because they think that the emails indicate that some sort of unprofessional behavior is going on, then I think that belongs in the article - to clarify, we're not trying to say that the scientists are unprofessional, that would be a BLP violation I think.  But if other notable people do then we can and should say that they have done so, as a reaction. Ignignot (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Granted. But the source doesn't support the claim made in the section that Counteraction added.  Kelemen commented on what was discussed.  Counteraction present it as if the discussions were actions.  Guettarda (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

 * Re-reading the article shows a tone of cautious alarm at possibly unethical behavior, I think. I think it could be written as:


 * That might be a little too simplistic, making it strongly worded. His position is more nuanced than that (which is why it is about the same size as the wiki article! []) but I think that is the basic idea.  He phrases everything in "might" and "maybe" which makes weasel words inevitable, unfortunately.  Does anyone have suggestions? Ignignot (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded that thought, Ignignot, and added contrasting opinions and ended it with a big fact:

Any changes? Madman (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it also needs a specific rebuttal saying that no unethical behavior has taken place. Ignignot (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think his own stated motivation is significant. He said it was garbage, and so must be kept out somehow. If he'd said it was 'highly damaging to our manufactured and shaky claims', that would be news. If someone writes rubbish in a WP article, you might say, "That is badly-sourced garbage and I'll get it removed somehow, even if I have to get the policy at WP:RS changed." I'm sure in the earliest days of WP, before that policy was very well tested, people really did say things like that, and that's why we have such hard-to-circumvent policies now. --Nigelj (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking about what Jones said. We're talking about Peter Kelemen's reaction to released emails (and some other reactions).  There is no need to defend or explain his comments.  Ignignot (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the rebuttal, I could find no Reliable Source that said that no unethical behaviour has taken place. We could say something to the effect that no charges have been filed even without a Reliable Source, couldn't we?   But of course that's not the same.  We do have the quote from the IPCC chair saying essentially that IPCC process can't be hacked. Madman (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted the proposed section shown above. I will work on getting the 7  references into the correct format. Thanks, Madman (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 10:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the email quote is modified to sound as if he did it because they where sceptics, it's extremely misleading.
 * I reverted the sentence to the exact wording of the email, but put the name of the authors in brackets. OK?  I also addressed Mr Connolley's concerns.  Madman (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My first reaction to this on the article is that this is now a well covered issue. Excellent work.  Thank you. --TS 15:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Statements from elected representatives
I am dismayed that all mention of this source has been expunged from the article. Times have moved on and perhaps this one is now more germane. It is an opinion piece written by the UK prime minister, so is pretty central. Regarding the emails, he writes:


 * Let no one be in any doubt about the overwhelming scientific evidence that underpins the Copenhagen conference. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change brings together over 4,000 scientists from every corner of the world. Their recent work has sharpened, not diminished, the huge and diverse body of evidence of human-made global warming. Its landmark importance cannot be wished away by the theft of a few emails from one university research centre. On the contrary, the pernicious anti-scientific backlash that the emails have unleashed has exposed just what is at stake.


 * The purpose of the climate change deniers' campaign is clear, and the timing no coincidence. It is designed to destabilise and undermine the efforts of the countries gathering in Copenhagen today.

I propose summarising this as follows:


 * Gordon Brown has said that there is no doubt about the overwhelming scientific evidence that underpins the Copenhagen conference. The recent work over over 4,000 scientists, as represented by the IPCC, has sharpened and not diminished the huge and diverse body of evidence of human-made global warming. "Its landmark importance cannot be wished away by the theft of a few emails from one university research centre. On the contrary, the pernicious anti-scientific backlash that the emails have unleashed has exposed just what is at stake." he added, noting that the purpose of the climate change deniers' campaign is clear, and its timing is no coincidence. "It is designed to destabilise and undermine the efforts of the countries gathering in Copenhagen."&lt;ref>

At the same time, I intend splitting the current sub-section, as raised by Itsmejudith, above into 'Elected national representatives' and 'Political organisations'. Currently, only Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute would appear in the latter.

Two questions: has anyone any objections, before I proceed? and can someone find a recent statement re the emails and docs from Pres. Obama? I find it hard to believe he has never mentioned them in any way, and so the article seems a bit lacking there. --Nigelj (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why Obama? There are plenty of world leaders without putting in more US bias. Unless Obama says anything notable then please don't go out of your way to make this website look even more Wikipedia.US. 88.109.63.241 (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Only that he's another world leader, and I thought I'd try and be nice to our colonial cousins ;-) --Nigelj (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree that a statement from Mr Brown would be appropriate. I do hestitate to put in large paragraphs because I'm afraid people won't read them.  Madman (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, especially as the incident happened in the UK, a five-line reaction from the UK Prime Minister is about right. In the absence of any other comments although the article and this Talk are quite active, I think I'll go ahead. --Nigelj (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - that should be the gold standard in the reaction section. Ignignot (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, with a few typos fixed too.--Nigelj (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a Google for something from the US, but there seems to be nothing from Obama, nothing from his advisors since 2 Dec. --Nigelj (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)