Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Incubator archive

I am cut and pasting the wikidemon userspace talk page. Since his project text is the vast majority of the current page, I think that the talk that goes along with it should be available to those who arrive directly here. TMLutas (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Article copyright and origin
Per the terms of the GPL public license, much of the content of this article as of the date of creation is a paraphrased and modified version of the current version of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, located here.

It is an attempt to organize the content better by creating a parent / sibling articles about different aspects, because there is some concern over putting too many different things into a single article, and what each article's right focus ought to be. This article is intended to be about the overarching scandal - how it came about, who created and promoted a scandal, what the term "climategate" is all about, the reactions, and aftermath. The other article is titled and focused specifically about the hacking / data theft incident, an important part but not the entirety of the overal series of events.

Discussions ought to be had either here or there about the appropriate focus of two or more articles, what content to put where, etc. I have trimmed quite a bit of stuff that either seemed too detailed, or that related more to the hacking than to the other parts of the scandal. However, I tried to err on the side of inclusion. Likely there are other parts here that ought to be cut and left for the other article. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support for Wikidemon. IB this article began as a rewrite attempt (by who?) of the parent page. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The "hacking incident" was one event that happened between about 15 October (when the emails were first passed to the BBC) and 19 November when the files first became known to a wider public. Since then, there has been a  substantial amount of new information developed.  Wouldn't break my heart to see the title changed to use "controversy".  I can see removing the word "climategate" in favor of something more descriptive, but if so then we'll still need a redirect from "climatefate" because that is the popular name for the controversy.  The article needs to be findable by the general public. — Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Article name
Provided that this article survives the inevitable AfDs that will ensue, the article should probably be renamed "climategate" or "climategate controversy" rather than "climategate scandal" due to WP:Words to avoid jheiv (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. The name is modeled after Watergate, which for a reason I don't fully understand is called the Watergate scandal here.  I'm not sure Climategate is a bona-fide controversy any more than it is a scandal.  It's some sort of a flap.  Maybe "Climategate" for now to stay neutral? Wikidemon (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a relable source of controversy here at Wikipedia -- suggesting that it is also a controversy in the wider world.... I do agree that "controversy" is the less-inflammatory word, and would also be happy with just "Climategate" as well. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Controversy is fine. 7390r0g (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The definition of scandal. "A scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages the reputation of an institution, individual or creed. A scandal may be based on true or false allegations or a mixture of both."
 * The definition of controversy. "Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion."
 * Per these definitions I find scandal a better fit as the reputation of the CRU has been damaged by the 'widely publicized allegations'. A simple 'Climategate' will do. A descriptive and per definition correct title is 'The Climatic Research Unit Scandal'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.232.214.10 (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

News sources referring to Climategate as a Scandal.
I was collecting a host of sources to make this point over at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, but now it seems to be better put to use here:
 * Wall Street Journal
 * New York Times
 * Washington Post
 * The Daily Telegraph
 * CBS News
 * ABC News
 * Boston Globe
 * Fox News
 * LA Times
 * USA Today
 * CTV News
 * National Post
 * Newsweek
 * The Hill
 * The Globe and Mail
 * BBC News
 * Washington Times
 * New York Post
 * Guardian

This is an incomplete list, obviously. --GoRight (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument here isn't explicit, but I assume that you mean this as support for keeping "scandal" in the title. I'm not sure that a large number of sources calling it a scandal is necessarily a reason to have it in the title, though; we should be aspiring to an even NPOV tone and the use of "scandal" presumes a particular view of the controversy is correct. —Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started to collect usages of Climategate at: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Climategate_usage. Nsaa (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate: the missing criticisms
I'd pretty much given up on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ -- aside from being hideously mistitled, it's, basically, a whitewash, and missing answers to essential, common-sense questions, such as:


 * If the "Hockey Team" were so confident of their diagnosis of near-catastrophic AGW, why were they resisting release of their data so strenuously? Did they have something to hide?

WSJ editorial quote which I can't find now, dammit. Help?


 * I never found the WSJ ref, but this topic is dicussed at If the Science Is Solid, Why Stoop? An Environmental Scientist Parses Climategate, an article in the Springer-Verlag journal Academic Questions. The author, a UCLA geography professor, considers Climategate to be "the greatest scientific scandal in my lifetime". Artice is behind a paywall. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Clive Crook, a senior editor of The Atlantic Monthly, asks: "We contemplate outlays of trillions of dollars to fix this supposed problem. Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot." Source:, the Atlantic Monthly, 30 Nov 2009.


 * The impact of Climategate on the public perception of science:

Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger has written, in "Climategate: Science Is Dying": "I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn't only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. ... [T]he average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and 'messy' as, say, gender studies." Source:

Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry wrote that “This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails.” Source:, NY Times, published November 27, 2009.


 * Who's investigating what went wrong?

Information technology columnist Gordon Crovitz reports in "Bloggers peer review a scientific 'consensus' ":

"Unlike Watergate, Climategate didn't come to light because investigative journalists ferreted out the truth. Instead, this story so far has played itself out largely on blogs, often run by the same scientists who had a hard time getting printed in the scientific journals. Climategate has provided a voice to the scientists who had been frozen out of the debate.

This may be how information-based scandals play out in the future: A leak from a whistleblower directly onto the Web. Expert bloggers then assess what the disclosures mean—a Web version of peer review." Source:, WSJ column, 12-6-2009.


 * Is there any good that can come out of this mess?

Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, writes:

"If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing." Source:, WSJ Europe, Dec.2, 2009.

These or similar well-sourced criticsms and commentary urgently need to be added to our article, if it is to have any semblance of credibility. Or so I believe. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We may have to wait to see how the deletion nomination settles down, and also how people feel about dividing content among two (or more?) articles. I think there are at least four subjects here, possibly five, as I said in my very first introduction: (1) background climate science, the people involved, the state of the research, etc.; (2) the actions and emails of the people who would later become the subject of the controversy; (3) the hacking (apparently) and disclosure of the emails; (4) the public scandal that came to be after it was heralded in the conservative activist press, then soon thereafter reached mainstream attention; and (5) the series of investigations and other fallout, a story still unfolding.  Which of these go in one article versus another is an open question, as is the question of whether we will have one article or several.  It may be a little early to try to perfect things until we figure that one out.  Hope that helps,  - Wikidemon (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a wikipedia reader and editor who loves science and opposes the suppression of information, I agree that Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ has been horribly whitewashed. This article is much better. However, I worry that if and when this article gets moved to the mainspace, it will end up getting whitewashed too. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate is a different but related subject to the CRU hacking incident.
I noticed that the other links to Climategate redirect one to the CRU Hacking Incident page. It seems though that that page deals with different subject matter than the one here. The former discusses the fallout and implications of the latter, but they are separate topics in there own right. The CRU Hacking Incident page talks about the details of the incident but doesn't really get into the discussion of corruption at the East Anglia institute and/or a discussion of the role of groupthink and confirmation bias that many claim were implied in the emails.

As such I vote to keep both pages since they both deal with distinct topics in their own rights. Jfraatz (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)jfraatz
 * I haven't thought through the question of just how much about the "corruption" (or lack thereof?) should be discussed here. Sometimes when you have an article about the scandal, it gets difficult to talk about the truth behind the public debate.  Those are two separate issues, anyway, the debate on the one hand, and the thing that is being debated on on the other.  Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of "scandal" is accurate. (its implications are debatable though)
I noticed someone else suggested that a different term be used than Climategate scandal due to POV considerations. I would point out though that it is accurate to call Climategate a scandal based on the evidence in the emails. The scientists at CRU had been fudging the data (most noticeably with the hiding of the decline of the tree ring series on the hockey stick graph.

Now it has been argued by some that this is indicative of behavior in climate change research on the whole. This is POV, and is debateable. However it is accurate to say that the incident itself whether or not it has broader implications does qualify as a scandal. Jfraatz (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)jfraatz


 * From the WP article Scandal: A scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages the reputation of an institution, individual or creed. A scandal may be based on true or false allegations or a mixture of both. So, the use of the word does not seem to imply any POV issues. Dimawik (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Still, it upsets the CRU defenders here, for no good reason. Maybe just plain Climategate is the best name?


 * Incidentally, Mohib Ebrahim has posted a 30-year(!) Climategate timeline here. I've just started to look thru it -- he obviously spent considerable time & effort to create it. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the use of the word "scandal". However it is emotive, and "controversy" is less so, and would do. Perhaps we should rename to "Climategate controversy" in an attempt to seek consensus. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Renaming to Climategate controversy
I'm going to be WP:BOLD on this and rename, hoping for support, so that we can document the scandal controversy revealed by the leak/theft/release of the e-mails, and not just the leak/theft/release itself. Renaming to Climategate controversy. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I`m happy with this change, however lets try and keep name changes to just this. --mark nutley (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like you moved this right before the article was deleted (in effect copying it and preserving it). See Closed AfD and deletion review. jheiv (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting new RS
Transcript of a Finnish TV documentary on Climategate

The show can also be watched (with English subtitles) here.

Sample quote:

VoiceOver: Steve McIntyre was one of the expert reviewers of the 2007 [IPCC 4AR] report. He objected to hiding the decline in one of his comments.

Steve McIntyre (Actor’s voice): ”Show the Briffa [Yamal paleotemperature] 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 truncation of this graphic. This was done in the previous report (IPCC TAR).This was misleading.”

VO: The IPCC answered McIntyre that, that showing the last part of Briffa’s reconstruction would be considered inappropriate. Professor Jones has recently admitted having used this hiding trick, and he has regretted his choice of words. But he denies having meant any deceit in using the word ‘trick’.

Atte Korhola: “What’s alarming here, in my opinion, is that a lot of these e-mails indicate that the author is a person with a strong mission, belief in being right, and that this somehow justifies taking exceptions from normal practices in science like peer review or openness, self-criticism and the like, basic elements of science.”

VO: The leaked CRU materials contain 3 000 e-mail messages of correspondence between researchers. They reveal an aggressive atmosphere, where the scientists consider dissenting colleagues as their enemies, to be fought with all possible means.

Ben Santer, one of the world’s most famous climate scientists writes in one of his messages to Jones that, he felt tempted – very tempted – to ”beat the crap” out of his older colleague, professor Pat Michaels, who belongs to the skeptics’ camp.

In another message the same Santer expressed and urge to talk to Steve McIntyre and his colleagues in a ”dark alley”. CRU director Phil Jones repeatedly refers to dissenting colleagues as ”utter prats”.

When the Finnish climate skeptic Timo Hämeranta sent a message lamenting the death of Australian veteran skeptic John Daly – also known to viewers of this program –, Jones commented to his inner circle that he took the information as ”cheering news”. - I think this should be a Reliable Source, but would expect it to be challenged. Show was made and shown by YLE TV1. YLE is a public-broadcasting organization which shares many of its characteristics with its British counterpart, the BBC, on which it was largely modelled. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of moving this to the article incubator?
I suspect that it will get a wider set of editors contributing if we move it here: Article Incubator/Climate Gate/

This is much better than my own poor efforts. I would have liked to see it earlier as I'm sure other editors would. TMLutas (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

data reviews
The major, lasting scientific impact of Climategate, if there is any, is going to be in provoking new data reviews and adding prominence to current data reviews already underway. If those further data reviews uncover anything, Climategate will have lent credibility to those findings. A list of climatological data reviews, analyses, and proposed disclosures would seem to be a good section. Here's what I know about.

The UK MET has announced a 160 year data review, scheduled to take place through 2012. This is explicitly due to Climategate's confidence shattering effect.

Professor Hulme's proposal that all data raw and value added should be made publicly available on the Internet as a confidence raising measure.

Courtillot's competing temperature series that was assembled after CRU refused to share data is likely to receive more attention due to Climategate.

Anthony Watts surface stations review surfacestations.org is likely to have enhanced prominence when it finishes in early 2010.

No doubt there are other listings that I'm unaware of. TMLutas (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Started editing some sections
I started editing some sections -- please let me know if anything seems out of line. Cheers! jheiv (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This Should Be Mainlined
This article, sans it's incubation sections (which can be incorporated later), appears to be in pretty good shape for inclusion in the encyclopedia under Climategate. The fact that we still have a redirect for the term is mind-boggling (although a couple months ago, it may not have been as asinine). If there are a few editors who agree that wikipedia should have an article properly addressing Climategate, then pipe up here so we can go ahead with the creation. --K10wnsta (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Climategate doesn't imply one thing or another about global warming, it's simply a general label for all of the drama that unfolded in the wake of the leaked emails. Even if the scientists directly involved are ultimately vindicated and forever remembered as having contributed greatly to science, the series of events in what has come to be known as Climategate will always be historically notable (particularly as its repurcussions will extend into totally unrelated fields of science). --K10wnsta (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that amount to a POV fork? If there's anything useful in this piece, get consensus to include it in the main article. --TS 23:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikers! Climategate is the main article. The fact that East Anglia is bent out of shape that somebody jumped the gun on releasing FOIA info is a footnote at best.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepNorth (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The IPCC AR4 problems on african agricultural yields and the 2035 date aren't properly part of the CRU mail incident I think it's fair to say. They are part of climategate so no, this page is not a POV fork. Climategate is like Watergate in that you can have an article on the email release and the hotel break in and not really get at the heart of either matter. This page is about the overall issue. In fact, I'm deleting a number of things that are too specific about the CRU email stuff. This article should not be so monofocused, though I understand why it would start out that way. TMLutas (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Climategate is like ..." On what published authority? Where are the WP:RS definitions of the term that include the African agricultural yields, the 2035 date and the CRU mail incident? What else is included? It sounds like Climategate should be a redirect to Climate change denial at the moment from what you say. --Nigelj (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I misstated the above. The article is still in need of polishing, but it's important that we get it done so wikipedia has an article for what has become a notably accepted term for a series of internationally notable events.  The 'current' article simply details the single event that precipitated Climategate.  It is clear from the title that anything else is beyond the scope of the article.
 * The Wikipedia does not do "-gate" articles, and this has been pointed out many times in many, many discussions on other article's talk pages. A shame so much work went into this, but it almost certainly won't see the light of day in article space, at least not under the present title. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Climategate is a real thing that has a real name and that name is Climategate. To say that this violates Wikipedia's policies is a grotesque misreading of the rules. It is not even a close call. The rules are crystal clear and they demand that Climategate be the name of this article or at least the first word. Personally, I like Climategate by itself, but to be consistent with Watergate, I suppose we could call it 'Climategate scandal'. Climategate is what -- three months old? It already has more 'mindshare' than 'Watergate' from which it takes its name. This is so bad that elsewhere I suggested that Climategate be pointed to thoughtcrime to drive home the point that certain members of the community want to erase this from the world's vocabulary. Above, someone on the other side of this debate has all but suggested we do exactly that by pointing it to Climate change denial. Truth is stranger than fiction. What is the essential difference between pointing to Climate change denial, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident or thoughtcrime? All three serve to direct you away from the subject and suppress discourse on the subject. Of course there will definitely, without question eventually be an article with the name Climategate. My goodness. This widening and deepening scandal is huge and getting larger with each passing day. The other name it currently points to (Climatic Research Unit hacking incident) is already a joke and will inevitably only be retained as a reminder of its role as an active part of the scandal itself and how it tainted Wikipedia. Does nobody really care what this has done to Wikipedia? About the only good I can see coming from this is the development of a mechanism to prevent it from happening again. It is appalling that clear disinformation should reside here for so many months. Enough already. Let's remove the redirect. Climategate will then get the attention it deserves under its actual name and flourish. The wreckage at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident will either wither and die or take on a more appropriate role as an object lesson in how things can go horribly, horribly wrong and remain nearly impossible to correct. Is there anybody here who is honestly going to promote the thesis that Climatic Research Unit hacking incident would be of much interest were it not for the real thing (Climategate) that it is attempting to suppress by hijacking and redirecting its page? Puh-lease. DeepNorth (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

{unindent}I would like to mainline this article as soon as possible, but let's try to excise any unrelated climate change skepticism/denial stuff, focus on the public reactions, and really make sure it is balanced and looks good. Remember, this article is not a science article, it is an article about a political and social phenomenon. I just reworked the lede and I hope that it reads better. I will be working on more stuff over the next few days; I feel that a substantial amount of material can be taken from Climatic Research Unit documents if necessary. Moogwrench (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely mainline it! I agree 100% with DeepNorth and Moogwrench. WP does do -gate articles; somebody published a whole list of them on the talk page of the silly little hacking article, so Tarc went around vandalizing the titles just to have his way. Clearly disruptive, should be blocked. Yopienso (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On Terminology...
The 'Terminology' section could stand to be polished. I present a variation of the second passage here for assessment (and adjustment):

Just as the term Watergate is associated with the revelations and events that stemmed from the Watergate hotel break-in, Climategate has come to be an umbrella term for the various consequences that came about as a result of the contents of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia. These consequences included multi-national investigations of the individual scientists whose emails were disclosed and increased scrutiny of the scientific process in not just the field of climatology, but for science as a whole.1 1This sentence can be adjusted based on consequences that might be included with proper citation. In fact, I would even argue that it could be removed completely, leaving only the simple, single-sentence, comparative statement of Climategate to Watergate. Obviously, if we kept it, it should be limited to including only two (maybe three) generalized consequences that are significant, as the lesser details would not fall within the scope of a section explaining the terminology. --K10wnsta (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The part of who coined the phrase is actually attributed to a WHUT commenter called "bulldust" i`ll pop it in and if you don`t like it just whip it back out mark nutley (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Page move, deletion of unrelated sections, and other work
I have been working on this page some, and as part of that work, I moved the page to the more common single word "Climategate" for its title in the incubator. I also deleted alot of unfinished sections that were only very marginally related to the topic of this article. We are not here to address climate science controversies in general here, merely this one. We aren't here to look at the underlying science; we are documenting a social and political phenomenon, albeit with a science component. So please let's remain focused on the socio-political controversy and stay away from WP:OR conjecture regarding climate science. A lot of people on the pro-AGW side are justified in calling BS on that one. To the extent that reliable sources indicate an impact on the science part of things, we can include it, but be mindful that the bar for such sources to be considered without qualification or attribution is higher than those documenting an impact on society and politics. For example, a peer reviewed article is going to have a stronger case at arguing impact of revelations on the science than a MS news article by someone without a science background. I have also been doing other tweaks and deletions. Just trying to keep it real and be BOLD, folks. Moogwrench (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have incorporated some of the content from Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, specifically the response section, in anticipation of that same content being deleted from the hacking article once this article is mainlined. Please review this article, but I feel that it is close to being ready for evaluation. Moogwrench (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

POV fork
Any editor taking this live should closely evaluate if it is a POV fork of the neutrally written (and soon to be retitled) Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. It certainly appears to be a POV fork from here. Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked closely enough at this article to see if it is a POV fork or just a content fork. In any case I am not sure that there is a legitimate reason for working on this fork. If there is a legitimate reason that's fine. If it is just an attempt to circumvent policy it will have to go to user space or to WP:MfD. Hans Adler 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I anticipate, as I wrote above, that controversy material would be excised, so as to avoid a content fork. As to whether or not it is a POV fork, cite the text you disagree with.  If the disagreement is with the title, then a community wide RFC on this would be appropriate, since the insular debate has not yielded a consensus on this issue. Moogwrench (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, this "Article Incubator," is actually a backdoor "Requested Move?" Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. The intended scope of the article is different from the stated subject of the previous article (hacking incident vs. controversy). Moogwrench (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The history of this is that after discussing the matter on the hacking incident article I created a separate article about "Climategate", a subject that was not covered in the earlier article. That was deleted for whatever reason, and several editors after posting due notice began to incubate the content here. I have not participated much here, leaving it to others who are more familiar with the whole thing. Undeniably, there has been a public scandal / controversy surrounding the climate research unit, on the occasion of the release of the electronic documents. That is what this article is (supposed to be) about. The origin, development, and legacy of the public controversy. The folks tending to the article about the document release have steadfastly refused to make that article about the scandal, or to cover the scandal in significant detail, instead focusing on the release of documents (per the title) and the underlying content of the documents and behavior of the parties involved. The scandal is a different subject matter. There is no back door. This is an encyclopedic topic with plenty of sourceable content. As a distinct topic it readily fits in its own article. It could be merged into the existing article but there's no clear parent/child relationship between the subjects, and the other article is already fairly long and contentious. So that doesn't bode well for a successful merge. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. The situation seems to be changing now, with the existing article about to be renamed so that it covers all aspects of the topic. Hans Adler 18:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
This POV fork is not neutral, in addition to having unverified information.

Unverified:
 * the files spread virally

POV
 * Scientists, political leaders, and commentators skeptical of scientific consensus regarding climate change claim that the released files, particularly email communications to and from the CRU, are evidence of scientific fraud; other scientists, including members of the CRU, admit that the wording of certain communications could have been more appropriate, but insist that the underlying science of climate change is sound.
 * Provides undue weight to the minority position that there is evidence of scientific fraud.


 * Raymond Pierrehumbert expressed concern
 * Undue


 * Pennsylvania State Senate Education Chairman Jeffrey Piccola wrote a letter
 * Undue


 * George Monbiot strongly criticized the UEA's response
 * Undue


 * David Reay
 * Not Notable


 * Richard Somerville
 * Not Notable


 * Hans von Storch
 * Undue


 * Judith Curry
 * Undue


 * Jim Inhofe
 * Needs disclaimer


 * Origin of the term "Climategate"
 * Does not discuss anything about the use of the phrase by conservative activists - sourceable to time.

This is not a full accounting of the POV problems in this POV Fork. Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're starting from the position that it's a POV fork then I don't think there's any way this could be modified to overcome that objection. There may indeed be a non-neutral POV, and I haven't read it closely enough recently to form my own opinion.  In any event it's not a fork - it is on a  distinct subject that is not covered by other articles, only tangentially by another article that claims to be about the so-called "hacking" incident.  I've removed the POV notice as being inapplicable to content under incubation (it's for POV articles, not POV content efforts).  Applying such a label would tend to polarize the discussion and not really lead to a resolution, and if the position is that it's a POV fork to begin with the real question would be opposing its move to main space, not trying to clean it up.  I think we should evaluate the objections one by one to see what people think and what consensus might be.  Best,  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand how this article is in the scope of the article incubator - the concern with the old version of the article was that it was a POV fork, not that it required improvement. It's still a PoV fork, except now it's a sneaky attempt to move the content from the existing title to a title that is highly partisan. It seems to me that this is, at best, a userspace draft, but, honestly, is little more than a wikipolitical sideshow. Hipocrite (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a POV fork, so that question is answered.  Please don't accuse other editors of being sneaky or having ulterior motives.  I'll let that one pass but please concentrate on the content.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it curious that the same people whom I invited to participate in this article formation have declined to do so, and only did so when when it was finally switched to eval and there was a chance that it would go live. That having been I welcome wholeheartedly any changes and recommendations seeking to improve the article's pov status. Moogwrench (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are all of the edits you made to my talk page - . You invited me to something? Where? Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On the hacking incident talk page. Here, here, and here. That last one was in direct response to one of your posts, Hipocrite. Moogwrench (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So you invited me two days ago? I guess it's shocking I didn't pop right over here and comment. Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you said in response to that the effort was DOA, and made some deprecating remarks about it. You obviously knew about it. So why wait until now to actually work on it? Moogwrench (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I noted almost a month ago that this was a lot of wasted effort on an article that had little chance of seeing the light of day. Sorry, but no amount of lipstick can make a pig prettier., and no improvement can be made when the core is so inherently POV. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your steadfast opposition is noted. I disagree, and I don't think that approach is going to be terribly helpful.  It's a simple fact that there was a scandal.  Denying that fact by not covering it creates a far worse POV problem than acknowledging it and covering it in a straightforward way.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're unsure about what my position is, it helps to ask for clarification rather than guess. I have no problem with covering the controversy.  Calling it by the actual pejorative "climategate" is what I have a problem with. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that follows from your first statement immediately above. I was careful (as I see you were as well) to talk about POV effect of having an article or not, not about any editor's personal beliefs.  You have possibly figured out by now that I personally think climate change skepticism is for the most part a load of rubbish.  My specific content position regards the coverage of this particular flap, not any larger point about global warming.  Just because there's a controversy doesn't mean there's any truth to it.  Anyway, I'm not sold on the name.  I think it should be called climategate, but titles aren't terribly important.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo and others offer opinions regarding a "Climategate" titled article
Just thought that I would post this here, for all those interested in it. Moogwrench (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This should be the main article on the event and fallout
Very good article! And very appropriate links to the articles poorly substituting for it. With this as a "parent," the other two, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_documents gain stature and authenticity.

1. This one deals with the widely published scandal. (Scandal: hacking job, the scientists' responses, the political fallout, and the public's reaction to the whole sordid affair.) Very good to call it "controversy" in the opening sentence.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident deals with the hacking.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_documents deals with the documents.

Please publish post haste! This, and Jimbo Wales' comments re. Climategate, renew my hope in the possibility that Wikipedia's stated principle of neutrality may regain the ascendancy over ideologues who want to spin it to the left. (Just please don't anyone accuse me of wanting to spin it to the right--I don't. Conservapedia exists for that purpose.  It's dismaying when WP veers almost as sharply to the left as they do to the right--let's work together here for neutrality and verifiability.) Yopienso (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This article will be AfD'd as a POV fork if there is any attempt to move it into mainspace. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like you're out of step with the consensus here. Yopienso (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus, merely a conspiracy to violate NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one know nothing of any conspiracy and am certainly not part of one. I'm just a literate, intelligent editor expressing her view of how to improve this little corner of Wikipedia. Too technologically challenged to even know how to move this article--lol!  Go bully somebody your own size. Yopienso (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

An article called 'Climategate'
If there were to be an article called Climategate, this should not be it. Such an article should discuss the history and usage of the term and its etymology wrt Watergate. The first usage of the term I know of can be seen in running a whois on the internet domain name. This was first registered in Scottsdale, Arizona on 5 Jan 2008, nearly two years before the CRU hacking incident. Then after the CRU incident, there were attempts to apply the term to various errors that were uncovered in the IPCC reports, before this exploded into a whole galaxy of -gate terms like Himalayagate, Glaciergate, Africagate etc. Limiting its usage to a partisan description of the text of the CRU emails is demonstrably false. --Nigelj (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead
This article is dead. It should be put out of its misery William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Transwiki to Greenlivingpedia?
Greenlivingpedia might welcome this article. --Chriswaterguy talk 15:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)