Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Proposed change to the first paragraph

A rough consensus is forming (see earlier section) for the following text to replace the first paragraph of the lede:

The Climatic Research Unit hacking incident came to light in November 2009 when it was discovered that thousands of e-mails and other documents had been obtained through the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England. The subsequent dissemination of the material caused a controversy, dubbed "Climategate", about whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists. The University of East Anglia described the incident as an illegal taking of data. The police are conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach and subsequent personal threats made against some of the scientists mentioned in the e-mails.

I am, therefore, turning this into a formal proposal and seek to build a consensus. I believe this has reasonable support from both "sides" of the debate, and so I request supports/opposes/comments to get a general idea of how this might be received. If adopted, it will mean the second paragraph will also need a little bit of revising, but we can get to that next. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC) - Note: This subsection broken out of earlier section and moved here. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed to tidy the page - no agenda, expand again at will Nightmote (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support - as proposer. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Concern "dubbed" by who? Hipocrite (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC) That's a valid concern, but I believe the assertion is well qualified in the body of the article with the "Naming of the incident" section, although "Naming of the controversy" would be more accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Support - takes a refreshingly neutral approach with no clear injection of opinion, well weighted. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 13:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC) CommentSupport – In many ways, a nice improvement over the existing wording, reflecting the opinions of many contributors. While I personally don’t feel the coverage of the personal threats belongs anywhere in the article, I don’t feel strongly enough to fight for its removal. However, it doesn’t come close to meriting a mention in the opening sentence. If a period is placed after “breach”, I’ll support. SPhilbrickT 13:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Er... that bit is already in the first paragraph; the result of an earlier consensus-building discussion. The new bit under consideration is the second sentence, and the rest of the paragraph is there for contextual convenience. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I’m under the weather at the moment, so not up for the research necessary at the moment, but my recollection is that I and others have objected numerous times to the inclusion in the lede. At one time, it said deaths threats – if “personal threats” was the result of a census based compromise, I may have missed it, but it doesn’t change my opinion – the coverage of the personal threats has been tiny, and there’s no evidence that they amounted to anyone other than usual bluster of idiots. I’m not challenging that some coverage exists, but if this coverage is sufficient to deserve mention in the lede, every single article on every single President would have an entry in the first sentence. SPhilbrickT 14:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) The sentence you are talking about is covered in another section on this talk page, and you are free to address this matter in that other section. This discussion is about the new sentence that seeks to address the concerns of those who want "Climategate" covered in the first paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I reviewed the other sections and added my objection there. My reading of the discussion is that it did not receive consensus, but merely remained due to exhaustion of the participants. I like most of what you wrote, but it contains phrasing which was not the result of consensus.SPhilbrickT 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Changed to support subject to the condition that my support not be construed as support for the inclusion of the “personal threats” phrase, and after we complete this discussion, I will open a discussion about that phrase (discussed without reaching a consensus upthread)SPhilbrickT 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I'd like to reiterate for the benefit of all interested parties that comments in support of the proposed wording shall not be misconstrued as comments in support of the entire paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Comment - support if the new text reflected what's already in the article per Scjessey's observation above, change to something like "...dubbed Climategate by climate change skeptics..." Also support Sphilbrick's suggestion to delete the attack portion.Mirboj (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Who actually "dubbed" the controversy "Climategate" is not easy to fairly encapsulate with the brevity expected in the lede of the article. I'd much rather see this vaguely summarized in the lede (as in this proposal) and have it properly explored in the body of the article. Again, what you call the "attack portion" is not under discussion in this section, and trying to cover that ground here may potentially derail this effort. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC) As currently written, the article attributes use of the term "climategate" to skeptics, if the lede reflects what's in the article this change should garner more support. Mirboj (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Well you would think so, but this is a more complex situation. This is an attempt to erect a "bigger tent". Many of the contributing editors here are unhappy with the specific language in the body of the article that you refer to, but are still keen to see the term "Climategate" appear in the first paragraph of the lede in some form. By being deliberately ambiguous about the term's origin in the lede, we are able to (hopefully) come to an agreement that gives that first paragraph some stability. The lede has been the primary reason for edit warring on this article, so stability is an admirable goal. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Support -- Seems reasonable NickCT (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Comment The trouble with this argument is that by "seek[ing] to address the concerns of those who want X" and attempting to erect ever bigger tents, it means that for every half-dozen new WP:SPAs that extreme right-wing and other fringe blogs can send us, provided they have the tenacity to add to the disruption for a few weeks, we will erect a bigger tent, incorporate a bit more of their views, and eventually, their purpose is served and WP suffers a little more. --Nigelj (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC) While I appreciate your concern, I think it is reasonable to say that we are quite capable of identifying the difference between regular editors and SPAs. As long as the origin of the term "Climategate" is properly exposed covered in the body of the article, I do not see this as a slippery slope issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I wish Nigel would stop throwing out inflamatory remarks regarding people that he disagrees with. Continued attempts to frame this as right-wing extremism is certainly not a very civil approach, and it makes it hard to believe that you can compromise with anyone that you don't agree with. Arzel (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC) That is not a helpful contribution either. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Support - Thanks for taking the lead on this. JPatterson (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Comment - I'm surprised there haven't been more responses yet. It seems that everyone is too busy with teh dramaz to care about improving the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC) The problem, it seems, is the all-or-nothing crowd, which has members on both "sides" of the debate. Just because we can't find consensus on everything all at once doesn't mean we can't make positive changes in one or two areas at a time. It seems everyone agrees that the proposed edit is a move in the right direction. For now, let's stick with that. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 18:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Thus far, most of the responses have come from the those who are generally skeptical of AGW (with one or two exceptions). I'd like to see responses from some of the others before declaring any sort of consensus. There will come a point, however, where WP:SILENCE kicks in. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Support Seems like a fair compromise to me over everything which has been debated. --mark nutley (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Support with condition Climategate needs to be Bolded in the section. It is the term to which this will be known for all time. Arzel (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC) That is not the case. "Climategate" refers to the controversy that followed the hacking incident. It is not directly synonymous with what this article describes, but merely a subset of it (albeit it a significant one). As such, it is technically incorrect for "Climategate" to be rendered in a bold typeface; however, it is certainly something that can be discussed. Are you explicitly stating that you are opposed to this proposal if your condition isn't met? I feel I should point out that if no consensus is found here, the existing text will remain in place. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC) SCJ: per WP:MOS & WP:REDIR, redirects to the main title are to be bolded when used in the article text. Also note that "redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC) That's not strictly correct. Both of these are just guidelines, and can easily be overridden by local consensus; nevertheless, it remains an open question and I am personally okay with it being in bold type if this proposal is implemented. Do you support this proposal, or did you just want to comment about this related issue? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Not to speak for Pete, but I would suggest that in the interest of moving things forward, the question of whether to bold the word "Climategate" or not should probably wait until consensus is determined for or against the proposed wording. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 23:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC) OK, Conditional support, conditional on bolding Climategate in the lede para. I don't think I've ever seen an article where an alternate (redirect) title wasn't bolded -- and, as I've just demonstrated, WP code automatically bolds the redirect in its article. Huh. Well, it shows up bold in the Preview..., Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I like to see closure on this issue. I think the proposed change would allow us to take a big step forward toward removal of the non-NPOV banner. It's been up for days now, the comments have been positive from one-side of the gully and silence from the other. I'd say that's about as close to consensus as we get around here. Going once, going twice? ... JPatterson (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC) It's been 2½ days, with no "opposes" and plenty of activity in other threads. I hate to claim consensus by virtue of WP:SILENCE, but we are getting into that territory. Let's wait until the 3-day mark (approx midnight UTC) before doing anything. In the meantime, we should give a little thought as to how this change will impact the second paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC) WTF? Is "concern" not an "oppose" unless it's bold? Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I read "concern" as "question", so I provided what I thought was a reasonable response. I took your lack of response to my comment as an agreement that your concern had been addressed. Sorry if I misunderstood. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, I raised a concern, and I don't believe it was adressed. I can't agree to the inclusion of climategate without mention of who uses and created the name - the bigger tent argument is great and all, but it dosen't seem like there's any give at all from the other "side" of this tent, so, no. Hipocrite (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC) It's handled by the "Naming of the incident" section, although I think it should be "Naming of the controversy". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Would it help to alleviate your concern if we added "(see Naming of the Controversy)" after "Climategate") in the proposal above? JPatterson (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC) So let's remove "climategate" from the lede alltogether, because it's handled by the naming of the incident section. Or, we could add "swifthack," because that's included in the naming of the incident section also. Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I think you must have missed much of the conversation that led to this proposal. It was based on the fact that "Climategate" refers to the controversy (not the incident). "Swifthack", in contrast, refers to the incident itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Rather, swifthack refers to the same thing climategate refers to, except to note that it is, in the opinion of the person calling it swifthack a manufactured controversy. I'm not willing to give an inch to have a mile taken here, so sorry. The current lede works fine. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC) That's some astounding bad faith there. How about you meditate over on the probation page until you can conform to it. Arkon (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Support - The proposed text is significantly better and clearer that what we have - and I see consensus supporting this change as well. We're not going to get 100% agreement here. Time to implement. Ronnotel (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I would still prefer to give it a little more time, since this is the first paragraph of the lede. I don't want to jump the gun and start an edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Support - Looks pretty good to me. Nicely done. Arkon (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Support - I concur. SunSw0rd (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - It's been well over 3 days and that should have been enough time for everyone to have had a gander and made their preferences known. Apart from a few comments expressing concern, there is near unanimous support for this change. I believe consensus can be fairly assumed. I am, therefore, going to go ahead an stick it in the article. I will then review the second paragraph to make sure it makes sense with the changes to the first. If there are any last-minute objections, please express them below rather than reverting the change. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support iff the bolding of Climategate don't get thrown out. Nsaa (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Code section

Collapsed to tidy the page - no agenda, expand again at will Nightmote (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The code section was utter rubbish, based on a misunderstanding by Newsnight on the difference between research / graphical code and the actual code used to construct the series, so I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I reinserted it, you need to prove newsnight was wrong with reliable sources, newsnight say they got it right after all. --mark nutley (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Newsnight isn't a RS for code. They are hopelessly wrong; and you don't have the ability to judge either. Incidentally, complaining about blind reverts which aren't is a bit off when blind unthinking reverting is exactly what you've done - have you considered being civil? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) What makes you think it was a blind revert? I read it first. Newsnight is a RS, it does not matter if your pov thinks it is not. As stated, give reliable sources proving newsnight got it wrong or leave the text in. --mark nutley (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC) BTW, do not lecture me on being civil after saying this and you don't have the ability to judge either I am capable of reading and understanding a great many things --mark nutley (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Relax, everyone. No need for this fuss. I've commented on WMC's talk page asking him to seek consensus for bold removals. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Yes i saw that, thank you. mark nutley (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC) WP:OR and WP:V aren't going to allow you to remove Newsnight. --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC) P'raps WMC has a reliable source which backs his claim. Then again, p'raps WMC should brush up a bit on WP:OR. Nightmote (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC) It's my understanding that the Newsnight stuff was roundly discredited. Our own article has a source on this matter, so it seems that WMC was right. That's not an excuse for carving it out without prior discussion though. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I can't say one way or the other. Newsnight's "expert" (I don't know the fellow) says it's climate change code. The author of the opinion piece says it's not. Probably the author spoke to someone or read something that contradicts that position but (as the author points out) Newsnight hasn't retracted the story and the author didn't produce a name or any touch-and-feel truth. Until a reliable source refutes it, the statement bears weight. Nightmote (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Interesting that you chose to respond here and ignore my points below, NM. However, if you read the Guardian piece you will find, "Neither of the two pieces of code Newsnight examined were anything to do with the HadCRUT temperature record at all, which is actually maintained at the Met Office". That is a statement of fact, not opinion. Myles Allen is head of the Climate Dynamics group at University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department, so it is reliably sourced to an informed and capable scientist. That one fact means that all the speculation in the world about how bad the code was is irrelevant - we don't know what it was written or used for. --Nigelj (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC) The "Guardian piece" is an op-ed.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I didn't "ignore" anything, Nigel. Little quick to jump to conclusions, there. You will forgive me, I'm sure, but I must have missed the part about what Myles says the code was for. He does claim that it's not part of the HadCRUT record, alright, but as far as I can see that's kind of where he stops. Is that record available to the public? Has anyone compared it to the Newsnight-identified code? A comparison like that would certainly be a great reliable source, I'd say, and would definitively show that the code wasn't used there. Good catch! Nightmote (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed removal

Following Nightmote Hipocrite's reorganization of this section, I'd like to propose we remove the second paragraph completely. Stuff like "various editorials and blogs have stated" and a quote from Declan McCullagh that adds nothing but crystal ball gazing "what-iffery" isn't worthy of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed to tidy the page - no agenda, expand again at will Nightmote (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(insert joke) That is *not* my child. Nightmote (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Yeah, sorry. My bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Hi. That edit is mine. It was undone. I support redoing it, and I also support removing the second paragraph wich adds nothing. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC) There are sources, reliable sources and then there's reality. In reality no one actually knows what that code was used for, if anything other than experiments, teaching and playing. There are hundreds of useless sources (blogs etc) that would like to use the code to prove all kinds of nonsense, there is even one 'reliable source', that as WMC says were well out of their editorial depth and allowed a piece of nonsense to be aired. Then there are a few actual reliable sources like The Guardian above who actually know that the code proves nothing until we know what it was used for. I don't think we can really be expected to give equal weight to all the nonsense next to the reality. Once the investigations are in, we may know what the code was used for, and where they keep the real stuff that was used in the published papers. Until then, can we trim this section down to saying that there was some code, but no one knows what it was written or used for? Which accords with reality. --Nigelj (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Mark Nutley has presented it as a reliably-sourced fact, Nigel. If you don't like it, the burden lies with you to find a relibale source that proves that the code is something other than what his source says it is. Otherwise this article becomes nothing more than POV-pushing from the uninformed who are unable (or unwilling) to understand the science. Nightmote (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Well that's not really true, is it. We have it on good authority from an expert in this field that the Newsnight piece was pretty much nonsense, akin to criticizing a clay mockup of a car for the way it drives. Also, one actually has to question whether or not Newsnight is any more valid a reliable source as the opinion piece in the Guardian. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Can you paste specific sentences? or simply a proposed "final" version? As people have indicated the section is still actively/currently edited.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Why are you guys debating this twice, here and in the subsection above? And if that's how you want to debate it, why don't you read the other thread? Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department, said (in print, in the Guardian) after the Newsnight broadcast, "Neither of the two pieces of code Newsnight examined were anything to do with the HadCRUT temperature record at all, which is actually maintained at the Met Office". That is a statement of fact (not opinion) reliably sourced to a domain expert. He went on to say that they said "this is climate change code", which means nothing until you know what, if any, use it was ever put to. So, while it is a fact that Newsnight wasted time and money on creating and broadcasting a meaningless piece of journalism, it is also a fact that we do not know what the code was written for. I think you need a reliable source that does know what it was for if you want to ignore the refutation of the Newsnight position ("this is climate change code" without saying what it was ever used for). --Nigelj (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Agreed. In fact, this section should really be removed completely, since it is mostly based on Newsnight's mistake. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Current" version

The CRU files also included temperature reconstruction programs written in Fortran and IDL, programmer comments and a readme file. In a BBC Newsnight report, software engineer John Graham-Cumming found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" because it lacked clear documentation or an audit history. Graham-Cumming also reported finding a bug in the code's error handling that could result in data loss. Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase and question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record. In his CBS News blog, columnist Declan McCullagh stated that "East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way."

Collapsed to tidy the page - no agenda, expand again at will Nightmote (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU. When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story. He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code. --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed version

I propose the following, shortened version, written to take account, from the start, of our (i.e. everyone's) current ignorance as to purpose:

The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. There is no indication as to the purpose of the code, nor any that it was ever used in the preparation of data for publication. Various sources, including a BBC Newsnight report, have found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" possibly including bugs and poor error handling.

Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU. When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story. He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code.

--Nigelj (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - Fine with me. Either that or get rid of the whole section. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose it as is, but I'm fine with working on it and have specific contentions that can be addressed. The "possibly including" is OR. Newsnight reported a bug, they didn't say that the code possibly included a bug. This sentence - "There is no indication as to the purpose of the code, nor any that it was ever used in the preparation of data for publication" - needs to be clearly cited and/or teased out so it's clear that the sources Newsnight, Washington Times and Computer World support it. --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In order to define a 'bug', you would have to know what the code was supposed to do. I believe the bug was that the software could drop or omit some data points. Without more detail, that might have been exactly what the code was meant to show students how to do. --Nigelj (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your other point is a negative. Someone else would have to provide a source that did show that it was used for some purpose, e.g. publication. --Nigelj (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

:) You appear to be saying that we should include unsourced assertions in the article until their contraries are sourced. I hope/expect that's not what you mean. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, and all that.

In any case, I think I've been misunderstood. My point is only that the sentence needs a clear citation or needs to be removed. --Heyitspeter (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It all needs to be removed. Newsnight screwed up. Funny thing is, a couple of months ago all the skeptics were apoplectic about how the "biased", "pro-AGW" BBC sat on the CRU data. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the connection to that affair, nor have I heard of it. As for Newsnight, it doesn't matter whether they screwed up. Remember WP:V. Feel free to find RS' that support your claim and add them to the article, though. As is we only have an op-ed piece. --Heyitspeter (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[1] Ypur reliable source is an op-ed in CIF? no way, get a decent one please. Neither of the two pieces of code Newsnight examined were anything to do with the HadCRUT temperature record at all, which is actually maintained at the Met Office How can that statement even be right? Do you expect me to believe cru had no code at cru to work with? It was all kept at the met, pull the other one. Plus i have actually looked through a lot of the code files myself, it is most certainly what newsnight said it was. mark nutley (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Expert speaking on the topic of his expertise. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Come now kim, less sarcasm please. If our roles were reversed you would be asking for reliable sources would you not? mark nutley (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, your assumption of sarcasm is unfounded. The opinion published in the reliable source is that of a published expert on the subject, whose views could be acceptable for use as a rs even if self-published. Op-eds are inappropriate because newspaper editors aren't published experts on the specific subject, this is an expert opinion. . . dave souza, talk 07:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Newsnight is not a WP:RS on computer code. Myles is correct: the code concerned is not the code that constructs the record. MN is, as usual, defending anything anti-GW, regardless of reality William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on edits, not editors. In any case, according to WP:RS, "For information about academic topics, both scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are acceptable, depending on context." I don't see how anyone could argue that Newsnight (i.e., the BBC) is not an RS, especially given that they incorporated experts into their review process.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The quality of arguments against shortening or removing this section are very poor. I say, "No-one knows what the code is for" and everyone screams, "Prove it! Get a citation!". You don't need to cite a negative, you need to find a citation that does reliably know what the code was written for. It is obvious that no one knows, as there is no reliable source that says, "This code was written for X", there is only supposition. We have a reliable cite that Newsnight got it wrong and had no counterargument when this was pointed out. ("It's climate change code" doesn't help, it still leaves the question, written for what use? For testing? For teaching? As part a post-grad student's homework?) In the absence of any more rational argument I shall make the change proposed above. --Nigelj (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason you need a citation before adding that sentence is that its addition without the citation would be in direct violation of WP:PROVEIT, which states that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation," (not my emphasis) and of WP:OR.

(You are currently arguing that you don't need to cite statements phrased in the negative! If this were true it would be completely acceptable for me to add the sentence, "The CRU does not plan on continuing operations past the year 2011" to the lede of this article, since it's in the negative, and good luck finding a citation that states "The CRU is planning on continuing operations past the year 2011.")--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is in direct opposition to your position under #E-mail row unit 'broke data law' below, where you encourage people to add information (that you approve of) without discussion of the reliability of the source or their interpretation of it here. Once something is in, you fight like this to prevent it being removed or summarised differently. The Newsnight findings have been publicly discredited, yet we quote them as fact. The sentence you are so worried about is cited, to [2], which was always cited at the end. (I have explicitly cited the sentence itself now above.) The cite says, "Presumably, then, the quality of the code I use to put together problems for our physics undergraduates shows that we should not trust results from my colleagues who work on the Large Hadron Collider on the grounds that "it is all physics code"." How much clearer could he be? This is code that could have been used put together problems for undergraduates. It could have been used for anything! Find a reference to say what it was used for, or we will have to say, "There is no indication as to the purpose of the code, nor any that it was ever used in the preparation of data for publication", as in the proposal above. --Nigelj (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Below I said that where one is adding one sentence cited by an obvious RS (the BBC), you should feel comfortable adding it without discussing on talk. Here I pointed out that were you to add the sentence we're discussing now, which has no source at all, you would be in direct violation of WP:PROVEIT and WP:OR.

Here we have a whole paragraph sourced to a BBC citation that has been totally discredited, in print, by a domain expert, yet you are insisting on keeping the paragraph. It is now grossly misleading in the article, but you will not let it be updated or removed. --Nigelj (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't break/edit user comments. Nigelj, both sources are backed by domain experts. Also, you've just added the proposed addition, which goes against WP:DISRUPT and WP:CONSENSUS, violating the probation. Would you mind reverting yourself? --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the link you give here does not cite the sentence in question.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC has now removed this text three times without consensus, unless a WP:RS Is found, and not an op-ed in CiF it has to stay in further disruption will lead to an RFS. mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally broken

We should not be discussing re-writing this section. It should be removed. It is totally and irrevocably broken. It contains gobbledegook of the Sokal hoax type: Graham-Cumming also reported finding a bug in the code's error handling that could result in data loss. - this is just wrong. The code does not work like that. We're not talking about real-time software that can lose data (obviously). You cannot drag in an outside "expert" who knows nothing about the code, have him read some undocumented fragments, and expect them to say anything useful. And indeed, he has said nothing useful William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC: Do you have a RS for your analysis? Otherwise it looks like WP:Original research to me. Note that I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong.... Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@WMC:This goes against WP:OR and WP:V. You know better.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@PT: we don't have a RS for what is there at the moment. Unless you think Newsnight is a RS for computer code? Come on, leaving aside the mob, you ought to know better William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You have already made both of these points in the above section and both have been responded to there. Adding them here just takes up more space-time. Please discuss them above if needed. --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@WMC - not only are your conclusions OR, they are contradicted by other evidence. The readme file expresses concerns about code quality and database issues that effect "our flagship product". And Newsnight was not offering a journalistic opinion but rather reporting on an [John Graham-Cumming|expert opinion] from a notable source (John Graham-Cumming). The standard is verifiability not Truth, not even your Truth. JPatterson (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We have two poor sources that don't get to grips with the detail of the matter, and a better reliable source is sorely needed. John Graham-Cumming may have expertise in writing commercial code, but displays a lack of knowledge about "climate code". We have an expert source saying so, but all we really have from that is that is is unknown what the code was used for, teaching, experimental work, whatever. There's some info about in unreliable sources, but the uneasy balance of two non-ideal sources was not good. The issue does need to be covered when sources are found, deleting the section in the meantime leaves a void but is one acceptable solution. . . dave souza, talk 20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No dave, that is not an acceptable solution. Any coder worth his salt can look at code to see how it works and what it is meant to do. We have newsnight a WP:RS plus of course we have the harry read me file. We know the code they used was junk, i looked at it and it is junk. There are plenty od climate data files released in the foi.zip, there is no reason to doubt that newsnight did not pick one of those to look over. Get a WP:RS disproving newsnights claims or give it up. mark nutley (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it has to come out, given these concerns. The person interviewed on Newsnight is not a climate scientist (or any kind of scientist, as far as I can tell). It's plainly non-expert commentary; as such, although it's been reported by a reliable source, the source's source is not reliable for this kind of interpretation. It's not really much different from asking a non-expert to opine on some other aspect of the science and then (falsely) presenting that non-expert opinion as somehow definitive. Sloppy reporting from Newsnight, basically. And btw Mark, whether or not you know how to read code is irrelevant - the question is did the code do what it was designed to do. If it did, it doesn't matter if it's not written to commercial standards, or indeed whether it's badly written or inelegant. You don't need a Ferrari to go to your local convenience store. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, all i am seeing is your opinions, not reliable sources debunking newsnight. Less opinions more proof please. --mark nutley (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Newsnight is certainly not a "better" reliable source than the expert opinion given in the Guardian. Right now, we really don't have any "cast-iron" sources for anything, which is why it would seem prudent to remove the section entirely. "If in doubt, leave it out!" What really pisses me off is that you lot are edit warring over the damn section. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the Guardian source by Myles Allen totally debunks the Newsnight 'analysis', as it shows that they forgot to ask what the code might be for. Since you guys can't agree to insert a wording that says that, then I too would rather remove it as it is totally fallacious at the moment, talking as it does about an irrelevance. And I too am angered that tag-teams are at it again in the article, with some parties not even sullying their hands here in the discussion. --Nigelj (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. It isn't our job to say what debunks what. We have RS on both sides, both are sticking with their story. The proper course in such a case is to do what we've done everywhere else in the article when faced with dueling interpretations (i.e. everywhere :>), put them both in. What makes this case any different? JPatterson (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not how it is at all. If this was the article on Barack Obama and we had one source saying that he is "the antichrist" and another source that says "he isn't", we wouldn't mention either. And I'm not kidding, BTW: Antichrist/Messiah Theories -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That hardly seems an apt analogy. There is no fringe side here. We have a notable expert in computer science quoted by a reliable source (WMC's opinion of the BBC not withstanding) contradicted by a non-computer scientist as reported in an equally reliable source. Report those facts and let the reader decide which makes the more compelling case. JPatterson (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt there's a reliable source which says Obama is the anti-Christ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. There doesn't need to be in order to make my point. Anyway, I think it is clear that deleting the section is the only viable choice. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it's a poor analogy. BBC News is a reliable source. We don't remove content just because we don't like it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not BBC News. It's Newsnight - sort of like "60 minutes". And the Guardian piece is no less reliable. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

60 Minutes is a reliable source, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So, in summary, what we seem to have here is no-one thinking this should stay except for MN, who insists that he can't hear anyones arguements, and insists he can see no consensus for removal. We don't need a source debunking Newsnight (though we have one, viz Myles) because Newsnight isn't an RS in the first place William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope look in the section above, you will see it is not just i who says this should stay in. It is no fault of mine that people have broken this thread up into three pieces and that you can`y see those who are for it`s inclusion. mark nutley (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I see at least 5 editors objecting to its removal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

5 wrongs don't make a right LOL -- Scjessey (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And i see it has been rewritten by Nigelj, so now there was no temperature reconstruction programs in th .zip, it was data processing software. Way to rewrite history guys. Nigelj, please revert as you had no consensus for what you did. mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. I had one objector - HeyItsPeter. And the sentence he objected to is not included. --Nigelj (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Say what now? Perhaps you should look again, we have 5 editors saying this text should remain and the usual suspects wanting to remove it and control the content of the article. Perhaps you should wait for consensus before making such WP:Bold changes on such a contentious article. --mark nutley (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The section should stay. On one side we have NewsNight and several op-eds and blogs stating that the code is an issue. On the other side we have a single op-ed that disagrees. And that's supposed to be an argument to remove the section? The speculation that these sources "don't know what they're talking about" is meaningless without a source. The assertion that "nobody knows what this code is for" also cannot be in the article without a source. Oren0 (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looking again at the section, it fails verification and npov policies, as well as appearing to include original research. Undue weight is given to the Newsnight report, which is a one-sided news story comparing old code which is apparently not in the finished product to finished modern code. That point is countered by expert opinion, but there's still not a detailed analysis of what the issues with the code are. The statement "Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data...." is cited to one editorial in a disreputable newspaper with an anti-science Mooney background, and a report in Computerworld talking about the security lessons to be learnt from the breach, saying nothing about blogs and editorials. It does make the ill-informed comment that "In one document, a researcher explicitly acknowledges making up data sources". If my understanding is correct, that's a commented out reminder that arbitrary data was being deliberately introduced to test a program, and should not appear in the final product which it didn't. For any sort of balance, we should also say that other blogs (and editorials?) have strongly disputed these interpretations of the code,[3] but then we'd need good reliable sources making that analysis. While I'd like to see this issue given proper coverage, sticking to a stale news story and first responses to it doesn't give us the necessary sources to base this section on. Better sources urgently needed. . . dave souza, talk 12:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• It should be removed, fails relevance and RS criteria etc as (especially directly) above. Verbal chat 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• I have to disagree with DS's contention that the Graham-Cumming's analysis, reported in a reliable source, fails verifiability, although I agree that the sentence on blogs should be removed. Graham-Cumming is a notable expert. Nor do I understand the argument that the Newsnight report is "one-sided". It states that Graham-Cumming is not a AGW skeptic, reiterates the mainstream scientific view re AGW and states that the spaghetti code (had to laugh at the string of GoTo statement visable as Graham-Cumming points to when talking about the bug) does not necessary imply the results are in error. See also my comments below discussing Allen's (non)-response. JPatterson (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you both say (DS & V), except that if we delete the section then we are open to "The WP cabal won't even allow a section on the code". We also invite anybody who comes along to write up their own version. We only have two sources, one discredits the other, and we have the fact that there is no reliable source that knows what the code was written for (if there was one, someone would have found it by now). So, I suggest below a very thin, almost content-free section that says that we don't know much about the code, except that Newsnight was on the wrong track. It's only a stop-gap as I assume the inquiries will answer the questions once and for all. --Nigelj (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As this is causing such issues perhaps use both as suggested above? Leave the section as it stands and add in the piece from the guardian? Would this be acceptable? mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is incresingly difficult to assume good faith with you, MN. Please review the multiple proposals belo... wait, you've already commented. It appears there is at least weak consensus right now to shrink the section, and a specific sentence is eagerly awaiting sources. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading both sources, I can not see how the removal could be justified. Here's the relevant quote from the Allen in the guardian opinion piece:

Perhaps the most concrete example of journalists claiming to reveal "problems" with the CRU temperature record was a report on Newsnight (widely redistributed) in which a software engineer criticised computer code contained in the leaked email package. Neither of the two pieces of code Newsnight examined were anything to do with the HadCRUT temperature record at all, which is actually maintained at the Met Office. Newsnight's response, when I challenged them on this

But "problems with the CRU temperature record" is not what Graham-Cumming alleges. His findings is that the CRU code is poor documented, lacks an audit history and is poorly written. The commentator even states that this doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the final result. Graham-Cumming's criticism goes to process and controls at the CRU. He makes not comment on the end result. It seems to me that it is Allen's straw man critique which can not be sustained in that without examining every program in the hacked files, one can not say with any certainty that they had no impact on the result.

It is not our job to say who is right or wrong in this debate. The code is a notable part of the controversy and all we can do is fairly present both sides.JPatterson (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You left out the good bit, that follows your quote. He *destroys* the Newsnight analysis by pointing out that they forgot to ascertain what the code was actually ever used for. All they could say was "It's climate change code", but no one (repeat no one) knows whether it was ever used for any analysis that made it into any published paper. It could have been experimentation, doodling, examples created for teaching undergraduates; it could even have been some grad-student's homework that was awaiting marking. Allen gives the undergrad teaching example. These aren't two views, they are one view and a total disputation of that view that cannot be denied. --Nigelj (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not see in the source where he says anything like "they forgot to ascertain what the code was actually ever used for", but I think that implication is in the quote I provided above. The point Graham-Cumming is making about the lack of documentation and controls and generally amateurish programming practices goes to process and traceability, a valid concern even if the end results were not effected. Far from destroying the Newsweek analysis, Allen doesn't even address these issues. JPatterson (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at code section

Bold, revert, revert, revert, revert while discussing is not a good model for editing this or any other article. This is a developing story and improvements to the rest of the article are ongoing, making me loathe to lock it from editing. In the meantime, any further edits to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Code and documentation made absent consensus here will be considered edit warring. Edit warring is damaging to the encyclopedia, and may lead to your account being blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

To gauge the current consensus, can people indicate their preferred version of the 'Code and documentation' subsection below? --Nigelj (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed to tidy the page - no agenda, expand again at will Nightmote (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk section is competely inappropriate. Per WP:Vote one simply can't force the minority to accept the majority view. A reliable source (which in and of itself is adequate) backed by an expert opinion (icing on the cake) has made a statement. Deleting it because an editor (or two or three) doesn't like it or feels that it's "obviously" wrong is inappropriate and counter to the way the editing process works. If two reliable sources specifically contradict each other on this issue, (and the Guardian and the BBC would seem to qualify as reliable sources) it would seem to me appropriate to reference both and then try to parse a valid statement from the synthesis of the two statements. The BBC may have overstated their case. The Guardian piece may not have gone far enough in refuting the validity of the BBC's position. In either event, only careful language will outline the reality. Nightmote (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC) So do you have a suggested wording for improving the article, or just an opinion? Either vote or suggest a different wording, I'm done with hearing ppl's opinions. --Nigelj (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Awkward for you that this is a collective project, then. You don't get to make decisions on what will be in or out. Re-read WP:Vote. The majority cannot force "consensus" on the minority. I won't re-visit this, and I will not allow you to make changes without reasonable discussion and consensus. Find a reliable source that refutes MN's entry or go away. Nightmote (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Hi - in the !voting sections below there are a number of proposals, including one that has no outstanding objections what-so-ever, and one that requires urgent attention (about unsourced info currently in the article that has been challenged.) Have you considered helping reach consensus? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Well, now Hipocrite, I reckon there's a *reason* you're calling this a !vote instead of a vote. When you roll that together with Nigel's insightful " ... I'm done with hearing ppl's opinions ... " I think that my principled stand makes more sense. Unsourced material? Out. Sourced material? In. And to Hell with wholesale edits and swap-outs. Nigel wants to make a change, he can do so same as the rest of us - one word at a time, with reliable sources and slowly-built consensus. I will oppose with great vigor any effort to railroad the peer-review process by presenting the editors with false "choices" that actually limit the opportunity for reasoned debate and careful word choice in this highly-contested article. Have I "considered helping reach consensus"? That's offensive, Hipocrite, - perhaps deliberately so - given the exchange we just had regarding the identification of relationships. I've demonstrated Good Faith. Are you willing to do the same, or are you just going to finger-point and complain about how much *you* have had to compromise? Nightmote (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC) NM, I'm not getting your point here. The language that is gaining consensus keeps both the BBC critique and the guardian response which seems in line with your desired outcome as stated above. I'd like to hear your comments on the proposal. BTW, the whole compromise thing is a giant red herring. Consensus and compromise are two different things. The measure is not how far each side has come but how far each must go to get neutral language all can live with. JPatterson (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Longer version

The CRU files also included temperature reconstruction programs written in Fortran and IDL, programmer comments and a readme file. In a BBC Newsnight report, software engineer John Graham-Cumming found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" because it lacked clear documentation or an audit history. Graham-Cumming also reported finding a bug in the code's error handling that could result in data loss. Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase and question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record.

Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU. When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story. He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code.

Collapsed to tidy the page - no agenda, expand again at will Nightmote (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Please add your vote here) Keep It is well sourced and everyone and his granny knows there was climate data in the foi.zip, are we meant to just ignore that? --mark nutley (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Object "everyone and their granny" is not sourcing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Support this version JPatterson (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Request - could you please source "Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase and question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record." by linking to a specific reliable source or sources that verifies all of the information therein? Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Keep Claims that the BBC News isn't a reliable source are ridiculous. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Keep/Support--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Shorter version

The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. Various sources, including a BBC Newsnight report, have found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" possibly including bugs and poor error handling.

Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU. When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story. He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code.

Collapsed to tidy the page - no agenda, expand again at will Nightmote (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Please add your vote here) Support --Nigelj (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Acceptable Hipocrite (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Oppose as per WP:OR. The source does not indicate that the software possibly contains bugs. The source indicates that it contains bugs.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Even shorter version

The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. On BBC Newsnight, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said that the code lacked clear documentation and an audit history, and possibly included a bug and poor error handling. Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU.

Collapsed to tidy the page - no agenda, expand again at will Nightmote (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Please add your !vote here) Optimal Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I like this prose much more. It is better worded and by saying less avoids the speculation problems. Ignignot (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Support I prefer this too (tnx to H for writing it) --Nigelj (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Support - thanks for the considerationsOppose - If we're going to name Allen and provide his credentials, it is non-NPOV to not even mention that it was a noted computer scientist who reviewed the code for the BBC JPatterson (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Accepted, and modifed. Your objection now adressed, is this ok? Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Well, I'm not so sure now. Having pumped up the BBC report for JPat, the lack of detail in its rebuttal means that two-thirds is on the BBC with only a brief comment on HadCRUT below it. I'm thinking of moving my vote back up, to where we get the thing about undergraduates for balance. --Nigelj (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the modification but it's perhaps a step too far flow-wise. The BBC video lists him as a "software engineer". I would think this should be sufficient. JPatterson (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Taking you at your word, I just changed it as you suggest. I'm happier with it now, but I'm aware that chaging the text after people have voted is confusing. I'll strike my comment above now too. --Nigelj (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Acceptable still has the "commercial software" quality thing in it, which imho utterly irrelevant. It is not commercial, and it is not written for distribution - but to be run by the programmer who made it, and knows its quirks and how to use it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I agree. We should drop the commercial aspect and use his relevant critique, which is that the code is "poorly documented" "lacked clear documentation", "lacks an audit history" and contains at least one bug.JPatterson (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Well, if people don't mind these incremental changes while we vote, then I'm happier with the quote replaced by those words from the long version instead. Personally I'd like to see something about Allen's undergraduate teaching example too, but when compromising for a consensual agreement, you can't have everything I guess. Is everyone OK with this so far? --Nigelj (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC) It's a considerable improvement over the longer versions, and there is an argument for a placeholder until better and more informative sources emerge. The point of the undergraduate teaching example was that there was no indication of what the code was being used for, it should be mentioned concisely. Perhaps "and might be no more than a teaching example." Something on those lines. . . dave souza, talk 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC) "and might be no more than a teaching example." would seem to have as much evidential support as "was used to produce the final IPCC report", that is to say, none. Seems to me that speculation on either side is inappropriate. JPatterson (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC) There's something in that, but we're also stating "temperature data processing software" as though it was used for that purpose – perhaps "alleged temperature data processing software" would cover the point. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I see your point -we do not want to leave the impression that for a fact the software was used in some "official" capacity. But as was made clear in the report, it was temperature data processing software, a description that speaks to the type of data that was the input to the program. Of course it says nothing at all about how the output was used. I think a clarification along the lines of "the purpose of these programs and their, effect if any, on the scientific conclusions reached by the CRU is unknown" is the best we could do, but this seems bordering on OR to me. Suggestions?JPatterson (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC) A note - I'll resolicit anyone who opines before any edit to the proposal before taking the proposal live. Hipocrite (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC) A quibile: I don't think he states that the code has "poor error handling". I think "a bug in its error handling" would be more accurate. JPatterson (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC) So when and were exactly is your A note - I'll resolicit anyone who opines before any edit to the proposal before taking the proposal live I see you made the change, yet i see no consensus for this change. Please revert like you said you would in your edit commentary thank you. --mark nutley (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I didn't modify the proposal before taking it live. It had broad, if not unanimous acceptance and was a compromise between multiple parties.Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Oppose as per WP:OR See above. It also excludes sourced information for no apparent reason.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I don't see a violation of WP:OR. The reason is that the information not included isn't interesting or relevent. Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Modified Even shorter version

Incorporating the changes discussed above

The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. On BBC Newsnight, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said that the code lacked clear documentation and audit history, and found a bug in the error handling code. The purpose of the code and its effect, if any, on the scientific conclusions reached by the CRU is unknown. Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU.

(Please add your !vote here) JPatterson (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of subsection

Collapsed to tidy the page - no agenda, expand again at will Nightmote (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Please add your vote here) Support until reliably sourced and agreed. . . dave souza, talk 12:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Support per Dave. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Preferred Hipocrite (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Preferred not enough reliable sources, and the whole commercial software thing is a red-herring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I voted above to keep, should i also vote here? --mark nutley (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Sure. The voting method is pretty ridiculous, but as is, I voted at each place. I don't see how else it could work.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Opposed It needs rewording but the basic contention is reliably sourced. JPatterson (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Oppose. That would be silly.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Interim step

Collapsed to tidy the page - no agenda, expand again at will Nightmote (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase and question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record." references [4] and [5]. Assuming for the purpose of this section only that those sources are totally reliable, I see no evidence that there are "various editorials and blogs," no evidence of "hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase" and no "question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record" in relation to the data files. Could someone point out where, exactly, using quotes, in those sources such information is gleaned? I further suggest that unless those sections are gleaned, we remove at the very least, this one sentence in the short term. Please don't reply with bolded "OBJECT," or whatever, rather just provide the requested sourcing. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Well it`s been in shedloads of blogs, but as they are not reliable sources should we link to them? --mark nutley (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) You need a reliable source saying it's been in blogs. Provide one. Just finding lots of blogs and linking to them is WP:OR by WP:SYNTH, as it was the last time. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC) So would delingpole in the telegraph do the job? --mark nutley (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Provide a source and a quote from that source and it can be evaluated. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Wall street journal The whole affair has much of the blogosphere alight www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails The Examiner Mentions four blogs I`ll get more if needed but am busy at the moment. Seems i can`t post a link to the examiner, why not? i`m sure i have before --mark nutley (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC) It appears that you misunderstand what blogs are being attributed here - specifically, this section is about the code snippits, not the emails. We are looking for RS's saying blogs are saying the code snippits "hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase," not merely that blogs are talking about climategate. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Fair enough, these mention bloggers looking into the code and what it did. CBS News Article linking in loads of blogs looking at the code not the e-mails. American ThinkerSame as above, links bloggers to looking at code. The AtlanticLinks bloggers to the code (undent) Great, thanks. I ignored the second as not a reliable source, and the third, while possibly a reliable source, doesn't state anything about other bloggers. In fact, it merely references the first story. The first story dosen't seem to reference anything other than programmers looked at the code, and found some errors and didn't like some comments. You'll want to find something where bloggers and columnists found the code "hides and manipulate data to show a temperature increase." Hipocrite (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again

Collapsed without prejudice for housekeeping. Expand at will. Nightmote (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In case anyone's wondering, the reason why we're suddenly getting another influx of ranting newbies and IPs is because this article is being targeted (yet again) by anti-science blogs. Hopefully it will pass in a few days when they get bored and move on to the next manufactured outrage. In the meantime, please notify the newbies with the template in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Notification of probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Good. We need more POV-pushing anti-AGW editors to balance out the POV-pushing pro-AGW editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC) You seem to have been overlooked in the article probation notifications. Now fixed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I'd like to think that's because everyone loves my edits. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Well, that might be an over-optimistic assumption... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC) LOL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I might add that your claim about "POV-pushing pro-AGW editors" is rather nonsensical. Presumably you feel we also have "POV-pushing pro-evolution editors" and "POV-pushing pro-round earth editors". In each case, and this case as well, what we have is a scientific theory which is supported by the overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant field(s) and is opposed by a small-to-tiny minority of scientists plus a segment of the general population that rejects the science because of political or religious beliefs. Wikipedia is "pro-AGW" for the same reason that it's "pro-evolution" or "pro-round earth" - because those are the overwhelming-majority scientific viewpoints. The viewpoints of non-scientists, while interesting up to a point, are far less relevant. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Two points ChrisO. 1) Shouldn't even a small-to-tiny minority of scientists be heard on Wikipedia; or at the very least not suppressed? 2) Those who reject the science for political or religious beliefs: what are specifically those political and those religious beliefs. I mean, are those who are to the left of center pro AGW while those who are to the right of center con AGW? Are Muslims pro AGW while Hindus are con AGW? Just asking. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Pretty sure I've been overlooked as well. But I am quite aware :D Feel free to template me also though. Arkon (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC) (outdent)To the best of my knowledge, there is no equivalent in the evolution or creationism topic spaces. They explain creationism and then debunk it. Here, we have refusal to even admit the fringe theory exists even in articles about the fringe theory. Take a look at our Intelligent design article which is a featured article. It has entire sections - indeed entire sub-articles - devoted to key concepts of ID such as irreducible complexity. They don't shy away from explaining what the fringe theory is. Neither should we. As someone who's spent the majority of his Wikipedia career in debunking fringe theories, I can say that the best way to handle them is to address them head-on. People are naturally curious and want to know what the fuss is about. Pretending that they don't exist or refusing to explain them in sufficient detail gives the readers the false impression that the fringe theories might be right. Our article on Piltdown man plainly explains that is was hoax. In no way does this isolated incident invalidate the science of evolution. Likewise, the potential misconduct of 3 or 4 climatologists does not invalidate the science of AGW. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC) But this article is not about anthropogenic global warming, so your entire comment is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Well, it may be irrelevant to this thread topic, which is to alert people that this article is receiving yet more outside attention. But it is helpful for the reader that the article references the background against which the incident occurred. Whatever the scientists did wrong - suppressing seemingly contrary evidence, playing politics, being rude (or whatever it is) - probably happens all the time in other fields. It only became a scandal because of the hacking incident, the promotion of the controversy by activist journalists, and the reception among climate skeptics, all of which would not have happened but for the prevalence of unscientific beliefs about global warming. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC) We have other articles to talk about this. And I don't agree with your assertion that this was a "scandal". It was a mild controversy at best, and that is well supported by most reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC) It's relevant to this article because the e-mails and code has been seized upon by AGW opponents as evidence that AGW is wrong. We should explain that and debunk where appropriate. Ironically, the defensive tone of the article does a disservice to the science of AGW by making it appear as if the AGW opponents might be right. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I couldn't disagree more. By giving room to the allegations and subsequent debunking you are giving a voice to the fringe. If you adopt that strategy, pretty soon many Wikipedia articles on science, religion and politics will be stuffed full of waste-of-time claim/rebuttal sections for things not relevant to the mainstream of society. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not saying that this deserves to be mentioned in the main AGW article, but in articles about the fringe theory, we should explain what it is. The best way to fight ignorance is by exposing it, not by pretending it doesn't exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC) No. This is not ignorance we are talking about here. Ignorance can be fought with education. This is actual denial - blind faith that the scientific facts are either wrong, or misinterpreted, despite an overwhelming consensus from scientists. The way to fight deniers is to ignore them and not give them a platform. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC) This is not a fight, it is an encyclopaedia. Tell me again what one of those is for? mark nutley (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC) You are addressing the wrong editor. It was A Quest For Knowledge who said "The best way to fight ignorance is by exposing it," and I was simply responding to that statement using the same term. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)(Comment - with the accept that this can be removed or collapsed, since it *is* a meta-discussion outside of the topic of the article) Yes, of course it should be done so in accordance with secondary reliable sources, in articles about "the" fringe "theory". The trouble is there isn't a single fringe view... There are multiple mutually exclusive fringe views. When we are talking not so fringe views, then it is Iris hypothesis or Cosmoclimatology. To the extent possible and within WP:WEIGHT some of it is at Global warming controversy (but here it is rather a top-view, where it is small minority posititions mostly). The main trouble is that there isn't a coherent fringe or minority view on the scientific side of global warming, and what most people think is one, is mainly blog/opinion pieces that take the "i know better than scientists" view, by pointing out something that looks simple and obvious on the surface, but has relatively complex scientific explanations. ("CO2 always followed temperatures in the past" etc). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC) "The way to fight deniers is to ignore them and not give them a platform." Your opinion is at odds with the rest of the community, Scjessey. Much of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE would need to be rewritten if that were true. Why don't you nominate Intelligent design for deletion and see how far it goes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Just because you say it "is at odds" does not make it so, and clearly your interpretation of WP:FRINGE is flawed. Perhaps one could say you have a fringe view of WP:FRINGE! I have no idea why you keep referring to the Intelligent design article. I would no more nominate it for deletion than nominate Creationism (which is directly related, although filled with much the same nonsense). That's because despite being obviously wrong, intelligent design is not a fringe concept. I think you are being deliberately provocative, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC) What specifically do you think is flawed about my understanding of WP:FRINGE? I bring up intelligent design as an example of how to deal with fringe theories. AFAIK it's our only article about a fringe theory that has achieved feature article status. Please don't question my motives. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Intelligent design is not "an example of how to deal with fringe theories." So, specifically I think the flaw in your understanding of WP:FRINGE can be derived from you not understanding what "fringe" means. Like I said, although ID is obviously wrong, it cannot be called a fringe theory because it has substantial support and orders of magnitude more mainstream media coverage when compared to those who deny AGW. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Actually not. (ie. much of NPOV and FRINGE would need to be rewritten). While ID is fringe "science", it is certainly not a fringe movement. As science it is dismissable, as a movement it isn't. Thats why it doesn't merit inclusion on evolution (science), but does merit an article (movement). As i stated above, global warming "scepticism" (of the kind we are talking about here), doesn't have such a "movement" or coherent focus, but where it does have such, it should be mentioned (and is). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC) <ec> ID is indeed a fringe view, and is carefully shown as such with full reference to majority views. In my understanding, we can devote articles to fringe views provided the majority view is shown in these articles, and they show majority view expert opinions on the fringe views. What we can't do is present fringe or minority views as The Truth without clearly showing how they have been received by majority scientific opinion. As Kim rightly says, there is a range of minority views, which denialists tend to lump together to create a false dichotomy between the scientific consensus and the denialist position that the science should be rejected. This blog by John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas State Climatologist; Professor of Meteorology, gives a thoughtful view of the reception of the emails. . . dave souza, talk 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC) (ECx2 In reply to Scjessy) I would have to disagree with that. I don't know when's the last time I've seen any article in the MSM that in any way supported ID or questioned evolution. At most, there's occasionally articles mentioning silly things IDers and creationists are doing. And there's like 2? biologists who are known for actively support ID. AFAIK both of them always supported ID, in fact they got their PhDs partially to give them legitimacy. And most people ignore them because, well I can't say because it would violate BLP. However I see articles all the time which question various aspects of AGW. There's probably at least 15 climate scientists I can think off-hand who are known for questioning various aspects of AGW. And they at least get some respect from the media (some may say get too much respect) perhaps because many of them were resonably respected scientists before they started to question various aspects of AGW. Also in NZ for example, as I expect in a number of countries, for a mainstream politician to in some way suggest they support ID or express scepticism of evolution is likely to be political suicide. However several politicans have express scepticism of AGW and they're doing fine. Heck as mentioned in John Key as recently as 2005, our now PM expressed scepticism. I'm pretty sure polling will show similar trends. (From a quick search, I've seen figures that show 75% in NZ believe evolution is true [6], yet this perhaps fairly poorly worded poll [7] suggests nearly half doubt AGW. And before you laught at NZ, I strongly expect similar results in many European countries and probably Canada too.) None of this means they are any more right, but the idea intelligent design has "has substantial support and orders of magnitude more mainstream media coverage" is IMHO clearly false. At least outside the US. Americans seem to really like ID for whatever reason so perhaps it's true there. (Of course they also like denying AGW so I'm not convinced it's really true there either.) Note I did say 'questioning various aspects of AGW'. One of the problems is that people tend to conflate everyone who questions any aspect of AGW as part of some unified denialist movement. This is clearly nonsense, while current science suggests all of these people are wrong, they hold disparate views and to lump them together into one does a disservice to the reader and almost definitely just increases the support for the denialist view. Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Sadly, while I'm glad to hear about NZ, ID has considerable political success in Texas (liable to influence textbooks all over the U.S.) Missouri and Mississippi, to name but three. With that anti-science background it's unsurprising that AGW denial based on mistrust of scientists is popular. Another similarity, as you suggest, is that ID creationists portry any "dissent" from the established view as refuting the scientific consensus. As you say, it's well worthwhile documenting the various types of dispute about AGW. . . dave souza, talk 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Just wanted to add one thing which is that ID is clearly a pseudoscience as nearly everyone agrees, not just because it's wrong but because it's inherently unscientific. While some of the methods of those who question various aspects of AGW are arguably unscientific and the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supports AGW, many of the theories are in themselves not inherently unscientific or pseudoscienctific, only wrong or unsupported based on the available evidence. A better comparison when it comes to evolution would be lamarckism. But the political reasons to support that died out a long time ago Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Scjessey: Of course, Intelligent design is a fringe theory. It has little-to-no support from the scientific community (at least in relevant fields). How many lay people support a fringe theory is irrelevant for our purposes here on Wikipedia. We go according to reliable sources. Kim: Yes, there is a range of opinions within anti-AGW proponents. But that's pretty typical with fringe theories. With the 9/11 conspiracy theories, you have people who think the Jews carried out the attacks, or that a shadow government was responsible, and even people who think that reptilian shapeshifting aliens (my personal favorite) were responsible. Dave: I don't disagree with anything you say in your post. This is one of those articles where we should explain the fringe viewpoint in context with the majority view point as it pertains to the article's topic. What I am seeing is a whitewashing of the controversy as if admitting its existence somehow invalidates AGW. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC) The trouble is that you are conflating different kinds of scepticism. There are (to my knowledge) around 2 scientists (in relevant disciplines) in the world who would claim that "the increase in CO2 is not anthropogenic". There are (again to my knowledge) very few (handfull or so) scientists (again in relevant disciplines) in the world, who would state that "CO2 doesn't cause warming". Despite this - MSM picks this up as relevant positions in the climate change debate. On the other hand you can find a minority of scientists who think that there might be negative feedbacks that will counter the effects of global warming (tropical iris or cosmic rays). These views are seldomly referred in MSM, but are real and true science, which is mentioned in our articles. There is indeed a disconnect between what you read in MSM and what you can find in climate science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC) KimDabelsteinPetersen: OK, I get your point now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Funny, I have seen tens of thousands of scientists who say "the increase in CO2 is not anthropogenic" Oregon_Petition... not just two.--75.250.185.125 (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

PSU Inquiry to conclude later this week

[8] - I don't know if this merits inclusion in the article but the findings will definitely be important to the reaction section. Since the PSU paper will probably be the first to carry this, does it constitute a RS on the subject? Ignignot (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful heads-up, something to look forward to. Not sure if they'd be counted as an RS, but I'd expect there to be plenty of coverage immediately afterwards, and presumably the conclusions of the findings are likely to be released. The difficulty may be finding neutral commentary. . . dave souza, talk 16:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm uneasy about using a student newspaper. Better to refer directly to the university's press releases. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Uneasy"?!? Sweet Jesus. A University Newspaper is one step removed from crayons and butcher block paper. I wouldn't use it to line my bird cage. (ahem) By which, of course, I mean that we should be careful in the sources we choose. Nightmote (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Student-run newspapers have come up on the WP:RSN, and the general feeling is that they are reliable, especially if the university has a good journalism department. I would guess Penn State qualifies. The article doesn't contain anything controversial or factually inaccurate that I can see. Then again, it won't kill us to wait until another reliable source picks up the story. It doesn't really add much to the article anyway. Based on everything I've read so far, it appears as if Mann is going to be exonerated anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing Question

In Mann_e-mail_of_11_Mar_2003 we have [Climate Research] in square brackets and in Jones_e-mail_of_8_Jul_2004 we have [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report] also in square brackets. I thought these were editing errors, but the second is quite deliberate. If this has been discussed, please tell me when and I'll search for it, or if someone can explain why, I'd appreciate it, as both look out of place.--SPhilbrickT 14:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the bracketed bits are glosses rather than direct quotes, e.g. AR4 has been replaced by [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report]. But I think it would make more sense to use [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report|AR4]]? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

<ec [edit conflict]> :It's a standard way of dealing with things that are clear from the context, but not actually in the quoted text. In the 11 March example, I thought the bracketed text might have replaced "they", but looking at the source it actually says "the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revi-" so the bracketed name is to avoid readers thinking he meant Caledonian Railway. Haven't checked the 8 July text, but the same principle will apply. . . dave souza, talk 16:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, WP:MOS discourages linked text in quotations somewhere. . . dave souza, talk 16:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Good point. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistently, we accept AR4 as a term in Jones_e-mail_of_May_2008, but replace it with an alternative in Jones_e-mail_of_8_Jul_2004. As noted, the replacement is wikified, in contravention to policy. The Guardian didn't feel the need to explain "AR4" to their readership, and neither do I. For consistency, I'm changing the quotation to its actual value. Should someone feel that some readers here won't know the term, it could be added to a footnote, but I don't think it is needed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 February 2010

Per MOS, the adjoining text is now modified to make it clear what AR4 means. Repeat and rinse until anyone reading the article will not have to remember an explanation given three sections earlier. The Grauniad does, of course, expect its readership to be uncommonly knowledgeable and erudite <ahem> . . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Better than my suggestion of placing it in a footnote.--SPhilbrickT 17:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Collapse/Archive/Housekeeping

Would anybody object to my (partially) collapsing some of the discusisons, or would someone like to archive some of them? This page is just getting a little long for me, is all. Nightmote (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've shrunk the archivebot to 2 days from 3 days. I can't imagine any shorter would be acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and collpased a few sections. I will be in no way offended if anybody expands 'em again. On this issue, I have no agenda. Nightmote (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wigley 2005

In 2005 Wigley appeared to agree. "This is truly awful," he said, suggesting to Mann: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this reference. It's very good. Please remember to sign your edits with four tilde (~) at the end. Click on the (talk) page on your last post to find out more.91.153.115.15 (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on the wiki conventions... I'll get there, thanks for the pointer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I dropped by to note the same citation. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change emails hacked by spies

The independant http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emails-hacked-by-spies-1885147.html Interception bore hallmarks of foreign intelligence agency, says expert . By Steve Connor , Science Editor Off2riorob (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh... that is so speculative it gives me that uncomfortable feeling I get about the whistleblower speculation. If wikipedia has proven anything, it doesn't take a sophisticated organization to do something exceptional (good or bad). Ignignot (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

David King admits to speculation over source of climate science emails - Former government adviser backs away from sensational claims over involvement of foreign intelligence or wealthy lobbyists [9]91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We have to take this out then. It is just ridiculous. Ignignot (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it from the lead. It makes us look like idiots to put something completely made up in the head of the wikipedia article. The other reference to it will need to be updated, I don't know if people would want to just remove it or modify it to mention that the comments were later retracted. Ignignot (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear sweet god remove it, it is pure speculation by king. We may as well put in Ignignot did it cos i`m speculating that he is :) Until plod has finished the investigation there really should be zero about who did it or why. mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The material also exists in this section. Presumably this speculation should be removed as well? Ronnotel (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For now let's remove it - just having the tinfoil hat viewpoint is a little silly. It could be an improvement to mention what he said and then later retraction though. Ignignot (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why has David King been expunged from the article? The above does not look like a fulsome discussion to me. His inclusion is not "just ridiculous", and does not "make us look like idiots". Those aren't rational arguments, just personal comments. David King is a very significant figure in the fields of science and politics in the UK. His conclusions are fully attributed as being his own statements. We have the opinions of other significant individuals in the article, what's so wrong with DK? (Of course, a lot of this is only provisional, as most of it will be superseded by the results of formal inquiries, but still) --Nigelj (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What would make the opinion of a "government science advisor" any more relevant on what is and what isn't a clandestine intelligence operation than, say, Joe Six-pack? He's clearly speaking as an individual, not as a representative of the government or the university and I don't see much in his CV that would indicate expertise in this area. Best to leave it out unless corroborated. Ronnotel (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that Sir King has backed off his story slightly, which would make it better not in the lede. He's still in the article as noting the intent to disrupt Cophenhagen, I believe. Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Kinda predictable – which is why WP:NOTNEWS. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So Nigelj - it was basically speculation taken out of context that King has since stepped back from, as referenced in the guardian. There is still a short mention of him in the lead - I am completely open to revising that somewhat, but in this (rare) case there wasn't a big discussion because people that are normally arguing on different sides of this article both wanted it gone. The reason I said it makes us look like idiots is because it is silly to make what was revealed as off the cuff speculation into a sizable portion of the lead of the article. At first I left it in the reactions section but then people asked to take that out as well - personally I would have left it in and then added to it that he had later clarified somewhat, but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to argue and didn't have the time to do it myself, so I shut up. Ignignot (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - it is still in the article almost in its entirety. It was actually repeated 3(!) times. Ignignot (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It was in there three times? What makes me think someone was trying to get a message across :) Best to remove them all. mark nutley (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it still in there - only his claim that it was designed to target Copenhagen, which he hasn't backed off of. Where is it? Hipocrite (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to what you partially removed [10]. I might have been looking at an older version or something. Anyway this looks a lot better now. Ignignot (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Inch given - MILE TAKEN

Oh, look, I gave an inch on the lede (excluding who did the dubbing on climategate) because I was told "note that "dubbed" links to explanation." Apparently it no longer does, so untill it does, I'd like to know exactly where these changes were discussed. Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the in page redirect? I removed it via consensus reached above in Edit warring over bold-face?. What exactly is your issue with this? --mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bozmo said it was unusal, i removed it, scjessy agreed with it. A few guys further up the page also said they did`nt like it. I removed the link + the bold typeface as it was causing needless arguing, i thougth it was a good compromise lose the link and the bold typeface? --mark nutley (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What happened to hippocrites comment? Sorry if i deleted it :( --mark nutley (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it when I found two people commenting on it. I don't think you should be undoing compromises I make with others without first waiting for me to opine. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, please be careful with WP:OWN. This is out of line.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Guardian - Phil Jones - UHI - China

If it is in the Guardian it must be the truth, right?

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws - Exclusive: Key study by East Anglia professor Phil Jones was based on suspect figures [11]

Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege - In the first part of a major investigation of the so-called 'climategate' emails, one of Britain's top science writers reveals how researchers tried to hide flaws in a key study[12]

How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies[13]91.153.115.15 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar article in The Independent today. Thepm (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• As ever, the Grauniad is pretty good at including differing viewpoints, though such a contrast between pieces by the same journalist seems unusual. The first two really do make the behaviour of Jones and Wang look problematic – perhaps a little mitigated by Jones struggling with a siege mentality and the belief based on bitter experience that any information released would be badly misrepresented. The Grauniad claims an exclusive study, the Indy refers to "a study" so they may be echoing the other newspaper.
  One good point made in the comments to the first piece is that the description of Jones & Wang 1990 as a "key study" and as being cited by the IPCC ignores many other studies of the same topic. The comment by Bioluminescence, 1 Feb 2010, 9:21PM, refers to Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found which is useful as the second page onwards of the pdf gives a review of the literature on the subject, A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban, Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China, A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change.
  So, these first news reports need to be treated with caution, it will be interesting to see scientific responses. As the third Grauniad piece points out, so-called skeptics have grossly misrepresented innocuous statements, this issue appears to have more to it. The second piece includes a quote from Mann which is worth mentioning in our article: "This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking for one thing they can harp on, where people w/ little knowledge of the facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They can't take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalise that the science is entirely compromised." . . dave souza, talk 11:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I am at a loss for words. I will get back to this but... wow... your glasses must have some heavy duty polarized coating to only get that from these sources. Are you sure we are talking about the same material? Shocked...91.153.115.15 (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, wow! Suggest you read the articles more carefully. . dave souza, talk 16:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Supplement: Jones, Wang et al. 1990 isn't just about Chinese weather stations, the focus of the complaints, it also covers European parts of the Soviet Union and eastern Australia. . . dave souza, talk 11:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Have the russians also made statements of cherry picking data from their sites? i recall reading that recently. I`ll dig it out later on. But that would make two lots of stations they were messing around with. mark nutley (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As always, reliable sources will be of interest. dave souza, talk 16:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

[[14]] Here's one.

Mr. Briffa sent Mr. Mann a copy of his Science article on April 12, advising Mr. Mann that he had "decided to mention uncertainties in tree-ring data while pushing the need for more work." Earlier emails also show Mr. Briffa struggling with Russian tree-ring results and the reports of Russian scientists on their difficulties. Their findings often contradicted the idea that the world is warmer today than hundreds or even thousands of years ago. "Relatively high number of trees has been noted during 750-1450 AD. There is no evidence of moving polar timberline in the north during the last century," wrote Rashit Hanntemirov from Russia in October 1998 -- implying that warming has been common in the past and nothing unusual was happening today. ... The public battles between Mr. Mann and the two Canadians are already on the record. The emails reinforce the worst of suspicions that the official scientific community did all they could to smear Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick, prevent publication of the work of skeptics, manipulate the peer-review process and isolate all skeptics as cranks. On May 31, 2004, Phil Jones, head of the IPCCdesignated Climatic Research Unit, wrote to Mr. Mann: "Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised ... "

Again we see the pattern of wagon circling, with the emphasis on suppressing information the CRU scientists see as damaging to the cause. The irony is they have done more damage to their cause than anything that could have been accomplished by the skeptics if they had simply operated according to time honored principles of science. This is an important part of the story and deserves more attention than it is currently getting. JPatterson (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting article. The National Post appears to give a clear account of the anti-action on AGW position, suspect it may not be a reliable source for the science: can we find mainstream journal info on this? . . . dave souza, talk 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full article but [this one] by the Russian author mentioned in the NP article would be interesting to read in full. Note that the NP article appears to have the spelling of his name wrong it's Hantemirov not Hanntemirov JPatterson (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a nice article. Roughly: Trees show clear damage on extreme weather events. This gives a binary type signal in the annual rings. "Normal" weather =0, Extreme weather =1. This is however not the same as using tree rings as a general temperature proxy which is obviously much more tasking.130.232.214.10 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this really true? How can Nature accept such unsourced material. I'm speechless. I was in the believe that they worked after the Scientific Method standards (it looks like the "These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results." and "is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists," is not part of the process ...)

Professor Jones and a colleague, Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of the State University of New York at Albany suggested in an influential 1990 paper in the journal Nature that the urban heat island effect was minimal – and cited as supporting evidence a long series of temperature measurements from Chinese weather stations, half in the countryside and half in cities, supplied by Professor Wei-Chyung. The Nature paper was used as evidence in the most recent report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, it has been reported that when climate sceptics asked for the precise locations of the 84 stations, Professor Jones at first declined to release the details. And when eventually he did release them, it was found that for the ones supposed to be in the countryside, there was no location given.

— http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climategate-scientist-hid-flaws-in-data-say-sceptics-1886487.html ()

Nsaa (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, bad news. It seems very strange that positions weren't given in the 1990 paper, and Jones has dug a hole for himself by not stating earlier that info was missing or unfindable. . . dave souza, talk 16:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@DS - We've already had a response from a scientist in the know, and a contemporaneous one at that. Tom Wiggins who was head of CRU at the time, thought Wang had "screwed up". "Were you taking W-CW [Wang] on trust?" he asked Jones. He continued: "Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?". Why indeed. And why didn't Wiggins demand the article be withdrawn? Wang now says the original data can not be found. Where have we heard that before? The overall picture that is emerging here shows the CRU seemingly more concerned with the reputation the institution and its scientists than the integrity of the science. Not good.

I think you offered the Mann quote as some sort of justification. To me it is all the more damning. This overriding concern for how contrary results might be spun is at the heart of the problem. Suppressing data contrary to your theory is the definition of scientific fraud. "But we're right on the science and this will be misunderstood" is no excuse. JPatterson (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments by Wiggins are part of the hacked emails, not a response to the current investigations. As stated above, not good.

The Mann quote is part of the report, and is highlighted by the Grauniad. The background to the seige mentality is an aspect of the issue that we should cover – the articles are clear that there was a lot of pressure on the scientists, and some reacted in exactly the wrong way by trying to stop information going to amateurs they regarded as untrustworthy, instead of making it all public.

As a clarification, the repetition between the first and second Grauniad pieces is explained by seeing the paper edition – the first piece is the headline front page story, and the second piece is the detailed report inside the paper. Perhaps this was obvious to others, but I found it a bit puzzling that two articles were covering the same topic in the same issue of the paper. . . . dave souza, talk 16:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, they can`t have it both ways, why was there a siege mentality if they only had one FOI request like it says in this article? Since when was one FOI request a siege :) mark nutley (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Read carefully. The ICO refer specifically to their opinion about one person making FOI requests. Also read the Grauniad's front page story – 105 freedom of information requests made to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU). It also says only 10 had been released in full, but doesn't say how many were released in part with some info properly redacted as exempted by the FOI legislation. . dave souza, talk 16:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe view? This has been known since at least 2007 ...

Hmmm... I've just waited for the claim that all this is a WP:Fringe view (some examples from this discussion page). Hopefully Papers like Wei-Chyung Wang fabricated some scientific claims "I have formally alleged that Wang committed fraud in important parts of his global-warming research. Below is a relevant timeline." by Douglas J. Keenan in 3 August 2007 as reported by Andrew Bolt in Climategate - now the Guardian discovers what was always there at least can be accepted as valid points.

"In global warming studies, an important issue concerns the integrity of temperature measurements from meteorological stations. The latest assessment report from the IPCC indicates that the global average temperature rose by roughly 0.3 °C over the period 1954–1983. Thus, if errors in temperature measurements were of similar size to, or larger than, 0.3 °C, there could be a serious problem for global warming studies. [...] The problem with Jones et al. and Wang et al. was first raised on the ClimateAudit blog of Stephen McIntyre (who exposed the “hockey stick” graph of temperatures over the past millennium). McIntyre noted that the stated claims about Chinese data seemed “absurd”. Indeed, for anyone familiar with Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, the claim to have obtained substantial reliable data for 1954–1983 makes little sense."

— http://www.informath.org/WCWF07a.pdf

Nsaa (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate now re-directs to "naming the incident"

This is getting absurd. Where prey tell, was consensus reached over this piece of POV pushing? I don't know how to tell where the change came from but I hope that the person responsible would self revert and start a discussion here. JPatterson (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did that in response to this edit. I suggest you stop calling things POV pushing, as it's not conducive to a civil atmosphere. I've reverted my edit to the redirect as the in-text redirect to naming the incident has lasted. Hipocrite (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As you know I have always supported the link from Climategate to the naming the incident section. Ironically enough, my edit to put that link in was the one that prompted your request for a 1RR sanction against me that got me banned for a month. But as much as I agree with your position, tit-for-tat editing just promulgates the [WP:BATTLE] mentality that is keeping us from moving forward. Given the never ending controversy surrounding the naming issue, one could reasonably assume that a change to the redirect would be hotly contended. As you are well aware, the terms of the article probation require you to seek consensus here first for such changes. Please be more conscientious in the future. JPatterson (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly endeavor to do so. Thank you for your reminder. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The perception of scientific scandal predates the use of the term "Climategate", as discussed above in The Name of the Game. If this perception of scientific scandal cannot be discussed in this article, then another with the Climategate title may be appropriate.Oiler99 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be so simple to just start a new article that deals with climategate in its broader scope. So why not? Bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate Timeline

A very well done synopsis of the hacking and then the subsequent news/political fallout as it grows is documented on this PDF:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/climategate/history/climategate_timeline_banner.pdf

I suggest a preface to the time line like this: With the Internet release of the CRU e-mails last November, Mohib Ebrahim started work on a visual presentation setting out who, what, when, where, and how.

Can Wiki accommodate a visual style timeline? I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It ought to be seen unless there are those of you who would like to hide this too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I admit I find this timeline interesting but unfortunately it can not be used on Wikipedia due to how Wikipedia operates. Blogs are not acceptable sources... which is in many cases is a shame.130.232.214.10 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So, if this time line has been published elsewhere, such as a government web site, a book, a researchers paper then it would then be"acceptible"? There are numerous citations in wiki that refer to blogs. Realclimate is frequently referenced. The author of the Climategate Timeline, Mohib Ebrahim, has had his work published on many non-blog sites.

For example it is referenced here:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256:mohibebrahim&catid=1:latest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Refer also to this very article, Anthony Watts, (reference 117) a blogger. It is archived at his site:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=mohib+ebrahim

So, put the Climategate Timeline up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see FAQ question #3 Ignignot (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly; Yes, BUT with several other qualifiers. The source also needs to be NEUTRAL.

I think neutrality is a nebulous term, not befitting ALL CAPs like an understood legal term of art.

This means it's in effect easier to get something pro-AGW in than something anti-AGW. That's just the way it is for the moment. I'm really the wrong person to argue with as I feel your pain. I find that both Wattsupwiththat and ClimateAudit often rise to a quality well above many crappy peer-review articles of which there are plenty in all fields. In short: peer-review OK, blog's NOT. If anyone else wants to comment on this feel free to do so. (And I see someone has already done so.)130.232.214.10 (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is clear to everyone that "crappy peer-review articles" are about eleventy-billion times more reliable than the skeptical rantfests like Watts' blog. I'm not even sure if 130's comment was meant to be serious. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It was. I have published peer-reviewed articles in good/high impact factor journals (Nature Publishing, Springer Verlag). It is becoming common to first submit ones crappy article to one journal, get rejected, resubmit the same (identical) crap, get rejected, resubmit another 3 times... and surprise presto it's published peer-reviewed. There are simply too many papers submitted for reviewers to do proper reviews on all papers. I would accept Anthony Watts data on surfacestations.org if properly submitted. This does not change the fact the Wikipedia does not use blogs.130.232.214.10 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well irrespective of what you might think of peer-reviewed work, there is no possible way anyone could consider Watts' blog to be a reliable source. I suppose a printed version might be useful in the bathroom. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer-review does fail. For instance Phil Jones 1990 article is probably crap because he trusted that his friend Wang had done good job which he quite apparently did not. I believe Phil Jones acted in good faith when he submitting the article. And likewise the reviewers trusted that the data was good. Science is still built on a fair amount of trust, simply because it is in most cases not practical for the reviewers to replicate the study. So most of the review is checking for common sense errors and making (friendly) suggestions.130.232.214.10 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Watt's "blog" is already abundantly referenced, and in the very article. see 117. There is no excuse to NOT include this very well done piece of work other than biased exclusion. FAQ #3 does not apply since wiki acknowledges Wattsupwiththat.com as a credible information source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk)

Er.... no. Watt's blog is only acceptable as a source for what it says. It is not a reliable source and it will never be regarded as such. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29

Read reference number 117 in the main article. So it already is acceptible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but you do not seem to understand what I am saying. The Watts' blog is only used to reference statements attributed to the blog, or to Watts himself. It is absolutely not a reliable source for anything else, least of all science stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Take you mouse, click "article" in the above tab, scroll down and there is a reference to Anthony Watts's site(117). That being said, I provided other sites that host Mohib Ebrahim's PDF, one being www.climatescienceinternational.org. It appears that some people dislike of the expansion of the Climategate scandal and some people wish to contain it or have it characterized an a hacking incident. That appears to be biased. I say put up the Climategate Timeline by Mohib Ebrahim, referenced on pro-AGW sites as I have shown. Concern yourself with the revelations that the IPCC used non-peer-reviewed evidence to "prove" the Himalayan glacier melt argument. Or that it used an article from the NY Times to "prove" the peripheral effects of warming. Climategate is not something that happened in the past, or simple a single incident. It is a growing multifaceted monster of hiding facts and concealing knowledge and suppressing information, alive and well... here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Watts himself has done tremendous work on the Urban Heat Island effect study with extensive documentation of thermal stations left out or surrounded by asphalt. Utterances of hyperbolic dislikes of Watts' excellent work discredits those who are hyperbolic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest disclosing the information, not "hiding" it or "tricking" it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

let the discussion continue.

Is this section geared towards improving the article? I don't see how it is. Perhaps the first person to not respond wins. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would look at the time line as written by Mohib Ebrahim, it details who, what, when, and how each of facts that have arrisen in realtion to the "hacking" or whistleblowing incident in this subject. In fact it present a far better picture od what happened than this butchered article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Himalayan Glacier Melt of 2035

As part of the increasing expansion of the scope of the Climategate scandal,knowledge of the inclusion of Non-peer reviewed works in the IPCC document has just come to light. Known by Rajendra Pachauri prior to the Copenhagen 2009 conference, he now admits the errors.

The basis of the claim that the Himalayan Glacier Melt to eliminate certain glaciers by 2035, now retracted by the IPCC, was non-peer reviewed publications. Specifically, the conclusion was based on 2 publications, one a student paper and a an article in a mountain climbing magazine, a sports enthusiasts magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1955405,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247616/Climate-emails-hacked-spies-claims-chief-scientist.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583711,00.html

This incident speaks to the continued claim of Climategate that the reason specific papers were not included in scientific journals because they were not peer reviewed. This incident demonstrates that this claim is not true. It significant to Climategate. But not specifically to the limited dimensionality of the email hacking incident which is what some of the AGW activist desire to confine this discussion to.

Don't be in such an activist hurry to shut down discussion. Open minds never fear the truth.

"The evidence – which for the first time firmly links the so-called Climategate affair with the almost equally embattled Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – turns out to be quite separate from the overhyped claims of tampering with the evidence which have so far dominated discussion of the emails."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100024719/new-evidence-puts-east-anglia-climate-scientists-future-in-doubt/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The glacier issue is covered at Criticism of the IPCC AR4 in detail, with reliable sources. Your last quote doesn't refer to the glaciers, though the blog does make a mention of them in the context of "The new evidence does not invalidate the almost universally acknowledged fact that the world has warmed up over recent decades. This is supported by widespread measurements from around the world, including from the oceans far from any urban effect. Like previous revelations over the past weeks – most notably an erroneous claim in the latest IPCC report that Himalayan glaciers will melt away by 2035 – it does not affect the basic science underpinning global warming." As it then says, it raises questions about Jones which we were discussing at #Guardian - Phil Jones - UHI - China above. Please note the blogs are not generally accepted as reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 10:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Souza's assertion is not entirely correct. the Criticism of the IPCC AR4 section mentions the fact that there is criticism but does neither state the 2 sources which were not peer reviewed nor did it state that the head of IPCC has already confirmed the error. The idea to ignore this subject here and to point to a faulty effort to carry the subject elsewhere is just bad practice.

The point of the Himalayan Glacier issue wrt Climategate has to do with the claim that in the Jones et al emails, the publications had to be peer reviewed. As a direct consequence of the email hacking incident and the scrutiny subsequent to it, we now know that the claim of Jones et al wrt to peer review is utterly a fabrication. Include the 2 non-peer review example as evidence.

Is this section geared towards improving the article? I don't see how it is. Perhaps the first person to not respond wins. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

Could someone explain this reversion?

In the edit summary for this reversion of an edit, the following rationale is given: too much information for the lede. The edit originally made reduced the amount of words in the sentence, and so I am left wondering how this is "too much information" and thus needing reversion? Moogwrench (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the comment that it too much information. It looks more like an excuse to kill a reference to a UK paper that is critical of the scientist's behavior. Several news resources and articles are actively being blocked. But they can't block them all so some other excuse has to be made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.95.166 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC) — 142.68.95.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The reversion removed the repetition of the word "sanctions" (it appeared twice in the same sentence) and also removed the reference (there are no references in the lede of this article). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I got slightly confused there. Partially reverted. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored the content to the paragraphs, minus the reference (I assume the reference is what you wanted eliminated). I also eliminated the annoying passive tense of the timeline--"had been dealt" and "had been breached"--which featured no clear actor for the corresponding passive tense actions, and provided content to support the lede change. Moogwrench (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

These changes introduce editorial opinion by one newspaper into a statement by the Information Commissioner's Office. In the lead and the timeline, we have "The Information Commissioner's Office stated that the UEA had breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data..". It's cited to The Times which opens its article with "The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data.", giving the newspaper's opinion, then further down in the article quotes the ICO: "The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation." The statement in our article is clearly incorrect: it can be changed back to the previous wording or rephrased to accurately quote the ICO, or failing that state that it's an opinion by The Times and not the ICO's statement. On a related topic, this issue now appears in the lead, the timeline, e-mails and Jones e-mail of May 2008. My own preference is for the detail to go in the Jones e-mail of May 2008 section which shows the context, with all other instances being concise summaries, linking down to it if appropriate. Any other proposals? . dave souza, talk 09:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

almost certainly not a hacking incident

I know the status quo of Wikipedia wants this to be a hacking incident, but as most IT people have been saying since day 1, it almost certainly can't have been a hacking incident. UEA IT have finally admitted that all files were contained on a single backup server and the Norfolk Police, who were previously investigating "theft of data", are now only investigating "how private emails have become public". That is, it seems that everyone is finally waking up to the fact that there was no hacking incident. See The Guardian. Is it time to do something about the title of this article? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Either modify this page to be Climate Research Unit Hacking Incident and confine it to only the very narrow issues related to the hacking or whistle-blowing or whatever it turns out to be, and release the word Climategate to involve the whole range of associated issues that precipitated from the release emails not discuss the actual hacking. The wiki editors DO NOT want people to use Climategate as it has evolved since November. That is tyranny. The world is out-running the wiki editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article says: "The government's former chief scientist has backed away from his sensational claim that a foreign intelligence agency or wealthy US lobbyists were behind the hacking and release of controversial emails between climate scientists." The term hacking is still used. There is no reason to believe that the release of the e-mails was authorized. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Alex Harvey - I agree that the likelihood that it was a hack is diminishing. It appears from The Guardian that the police are no longer investigating a crime. Let's face it the only proof of a hack seems to be the UEA saying 'well I don't know how they got out!'

The trouble now is that the likelihood of a reliable source trumpeting that the files were *not* stolen is fairly remote. More likely is that there will just be "less emphasis" on the idea that they were. For what it's worth, I fully endorse your move to make the title less POV, but you'll need to get consensus from the team here. That's proven difficult in the past. Thepm (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Newsnight last night said "hacking". And if you look at the archives you will find that Scjessey has gone to extraordinary lengths to propose a range of alternative names for discussion. People simply cut across that, but please, go ahead and start a new naming discussion if you want. There is not a "team" here except to the extent that WP editors try and work collaboratively even when they disagree. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than speculating, why don't you wait until the official report comes out later this month? I note that Alex is ignoring the fact that there were two hacking incidents - one of the CRU's mail server, and one of RealClimate, in the initial attempt to distribute the stolen files via RC. The anti-science activists who've been promoting the completely speculative "whistleblower" claim have been trying their hardest to ignore the RealClimate hack, which doesn't fit their preferred narrative of a "whistleblower". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no actual proof that RC got hacked is there? Other than them saying it, whic hwould fit nicely into the narrative they wanted to portray that this was a hack. In fact, given RC`s absolute belief in AGW i doubt very much that any hacker would waste time hacking that server and uploading the files there, what would be the point? RC would have never made them public the way the Airvent did. mark nutley (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There were only a few people with login credentials to RC, and someone else logged in and tried to post something to the blog and remove everyone else's privileges. While I have been a little skeptical of attributing the CRU part to some vast conspiracy of hackers, the second part is definitely the work of at least one hacker. Most likely (pure speculation) there were login credentials in the email that was taken from the CRU, and the hacker simply used them. Ignignot (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this section geared towards improving the article? I don't see how it is. Perhaps the first person to not respond wins. Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a thoughtful comment. Back to the concept of splitting the Climategate subject from the CRU hacking incident. Why not run it as a completely separate article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I am sympathetic to the position that this article should be called "Climategate", this particular discussion was held at length (and several times) and the determination was that the "-gate" suffix was to be avoided in the title per WP:AVOID, down at the bottom of the page in the "Controversy and Scandal" section. Regarding splitting the article, that issue has also been raised (and lowered) several times and rejected due to concerns over WP:POVFORK. I (and others) have concerns regarding the neutrality of this article. Some view the theft of the data as pivotal - an invasion of the privacy of scientific professionals by parties unknown in an effort to discredit a valid and possibly apocalyptic hypothesis. Some view the actions of the scientists as a scandalous and deliberate effort to misrepresent data and interfere with the peer-review process. Some editors want to limit the discussion to scientific aspects of the situation, while others feel that the political and social aspects also have merit. It's complicated, but I am (sometimes) confident that by working together on the existing article and editing in good faith with tolerance of the views of others, we can eventually find an uneasy peace. Nightmote (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The theft of data is not determined. That is an assumption made by "some". This article should not be so quick to jump to such unsubstantiated conclusions. Since theft has not be verified (an may be ruled out) the pivotality of it in the Climategate subject makes even the title of the subject erroneous and obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty please, learn to sign your posts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.232.214.10 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (Oh great lead by example.)130.232.214.10 (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The terms "theft" and "stolen" are, I believe, correct. It has been a while since I reviewed the terminology (I didn't like it, either - I wanted to go with "copied" or something, I think), but I seem to recall that (at least under US law) the copying of files without permission constituted theft (British law may be different). I think that the prosecutor's office has the option of not charging the individual(s) involved based on "whistleblower" status, but I don't have the references in front of me and don't know. Oh - please sign your posts. Nightmote (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is important to note that there has never been a suggestion from any of the people or organizations involved that there was a "whistleblower". I am not aware of a single reliable source that supports this theory. The most prolific term has been some derivation of "hacker". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Scjessey; we may be talking about two different things. A whistleblower doesn't necessarily have to be an insider, simply someone identifying wrongdoing that is a threat to the public interest. In this instance, were someone to be apprehended under United States law, that individual might very well avoid prosecution for the theft based on whistleblower status. Like I said, though, I am no lawyer, and I'm especially not a barrister. The question of whether or not the hacker was an insider remains completely unresolved. Nightmote (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My comment made no mention of the meaning of "whistleblower", although it usually means an insider. I was remarking that no reliable sources have used the term. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The identity of the hackers

This section of the article is wrong wrong wrong.

Dr. Gavin Schmidt a scientist at NASA stated that the hacking operation required considerable skill and knowledge that an opportunistic hacker would not have had. While the hacking operation was occuring, Dr. Schmidt had attempted to disable it but was prevented several times before finally succeeding because the hackers had penetrated deep into the website's database software. Dr. Schmidt said "That requires some kind of monitoring-tool set-up and required them to have more access than you would get by simply logging into the blog."[66] The hackers used a legitimate computer based in Turkey as a proxy server but the attack could have been launched from another computer anywhere in the world.[67] Steve Connor, Science Editor for The Independent, called for an investigation to find the perpetrators.[68]

• Ref`s 66 & 67 lead to King`s statement which he has now backtracked on.
• ref 68 Is also just a rehash of Kings statement, which he has now backtracked on.

This entire section should be removed, as RC has given no proof that they got hacked, and King has retracted his "It were spy`s that done it" statement. Comments please? --mark nutley (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, I don't see where 66 and 67 reference anything from King, rather "He attempted to disable the hacking operation as it was taking place, but was prevented several times before finally succeeding because the hackers had penetrated deep into the website's database software. This required considerable skill and knowledge which an opportunistic hacker would not have had, he said. "That requires some kind of monitoring-tool set-up and required them to have more access than you would get by simply logging into the blog," Dr Schmidt said," and "Dr Schmidt said that the hackers were using a legitimate computer based in Turkey as a proxy server but the attack could have been launched from another computer anywhere in the world." I don't know if ref 68 has been passed by events. I don't think it has, but it might have been. I don't think Schmidt has backed off his statements. Has he? Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I used to run a web site for cancer patients which included a blog. I kept getting hacked in a similar way, unauthorized uploads of files and pictures. Turns out there was a backdoor installed in the open source blogging software I was using. It was clever, installed into the database initialization routine. Search for a certain term and voilla your in. Just because a server is hacked, doesn't mean the hackers were particularly skilled. The backdoors are published on hacker sites. Any school kid can find and exploit themJPatterson (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Both 67 and 66 lead to The Independent 'Climate emails hacked by spies' Schimdt has ot backed off of his statement no, however there are no ref`s no prove what he is saying is true, were is the ref to his statement? Plus the proof the RC was hacked? None of the ref`s in this section are usable as King has backed off on his statements as shown here mark nutley (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the independent article? It's about more than just King. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and i ask again, were is the proof that RC was hacked? We have one quote in a newspaper, were did that quote come from? There is no link from the indy to schimdt`s statement. Were are the third party verifiable sources? Currently this fails miserably in actual proof. mark nutley (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This should be simple to fix. Make sure Schmidt is attributed correctly, and then no "proof" is required. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I thought proof was required? We have a quote in an op-ed attributed to him, not really a wp:rs is it? Why are there no links to schimdt`s statement? Have the police questioned him as yet about this hack? Were is the actual proof that RC was hacked? Surly you guys ca nfind the links to this stuff? mark nutley (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I don't quite understand your problem. Could you please pick a specific statement in the article that you think is poorly sourced and present it? Note further that op-eds in major papers are reliable sources for many things. Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire statement by schimdt is the problem, there is no proof RC was hacked, just the say so of one guy. If RC was hacked then why have the police not questioned him about it? The entire statement seems to be for the sole purpose of going with this was a hack story, I don`t think this is a reliable source, not without proof of this alleged hack. --mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, Dr. S. is quoted in an op-ed by a reliable source and he's an expert on Real Climate (as the operator of the site). Probably better than saying "the entire statement by schimdt is a problem," you should instead quote exactly what in the article is a problem, and what exactly the problem is with it. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)"Hack" is a vague term that could cover the scenarios that the "must-be-a-leak" camp are proposing. We know for sure that UEA did not release this data on purpose. Someone - inside UEA, outside or both acting together - got access to computer stuff they shouldn't have had access to. It's likely to be illegal, hence the police investigation. Not "theft" as defined in UK law but it could be a violation of one or more provisions in the rather complicated UK laws relating to IT. As I said, Newsnight said "hacked" last night. That should be source enough to keep using the loose term until the police investigation is over. Or do we really have to track down a transcript of the Newsnight programme? They also said "emailgate" and not "climategate". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the entire paragraph is poorly-written with what looks like a mega-sentence that rambles on forever. I'm taking a look at it now. Will post an alternative here momentarily. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith I think this statement is a bit broad: " ... got access to computer stuff they shouldn't have had access to ... " As far as I understand it, the identity of the "hacker" remains a complete mystery and their clearance level remains unknown. We may find out what's what when (or if) the Police release a report. Because the data was released without the permission of UEA/CRU, the term "stolen" might be considered to be neutral. "Hacker" would seem to apply to the Real Climate uploading. The way I see it, the term "hacker" has connotations of an "outside-in" attack. (shrug) Or maybe I'm just talking out my posterior. Nightmote (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Alleged theft is the exact term to be used. If a legitimate username and password was used by an insider then that is not a hack but may be theft. Depending on the status if the confidential disclosure agreement the person had with the entity that owned the server, there may not have been even a crime. So "alleged theft" is the proper term. No evidence of a hack has be produced.142.68.92.131 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not as I understand it. The laws relating to computer crime aren't all that clear to me, but as I understand it the copying of the data from the server without permission is a theft. That theft may be forgiven under some "whistleblower" statute irrespective of whether or not the thief was an employee of UEA/CRU, but the data were stolen. As I understand it. Nightmote (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative text for first part of "The identity of the hackers"

How's this:

Gavin Schmidt, a scientist at NASA, stated that the hacking operation required considerable skill and knowledge that an opportunistic hacker would not have had. He said that the hackers had penetrated deep into the website's database software and it required several attempts before the operation could be disabled. Schmidt stated, "That requires some kind of monitoring-tool set-up and required them to have more access than you would get by simply logging into the blog." -- no longer valid. We are already way beyond this version. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to cleaning up, I've changed "Dr. Gavin Schmidt" to simply "Gavin Smith" and wikilinked him - I'm pretty sure titles like "Dr." are not generally used on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, he's named above - he should be just "Schmidt" no link here. I boldly edited the text as this shouldn't be controversial. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The way that currently reads it looks like he tried to stop the alleged hack at cru, not the alleged hack at RC. Are there no links to prove that RC got hacked? or is it just based on what schimdt is saying? --mark nutley (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Hipocrite - can't find another wikilink, so I've put in the new version with the link applied.

@ Mark - I've changed it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the timeline has his name linked, and you are quite right, mark, so I changed it first [15], but I think that got lost in the wash? Let's put back "at RealClimate" in that paragraph, if that's ok with you SCJ? Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you put alleged hack at real climate instead of stated that the hacking operation as there is no actual proof of a hack at RC? mark nutley (talk)

No, we really can't. He's a reliable source on Real Climate, and casting doubt on his statements of fact dosen't seem kosher without a source. Is there any doubt RealClimate was hacked in a reliable source? Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits doth fly back and forth with gay abandon, eh? I've left the wikilink in because the "timeline" section is way north of this one, and I've restored the "against RealClimate" that I'd mistakenly removed earlier. All should be better now. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sallgood. I'm glad we cleared that up. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough sjc, then stated that the hacking operation should have at real climate in it ya? Just to make it clear that`s what he is talking about.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I have already fixed it to make sure it is obvious Schmidt is talking about RealClimate. Was there something else? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stating that he is a scientist at NASA makes absolutely no sense in how his opinion has any validity to the statement about RC's website being accessed. Is he an expert regarding websites? Is he an expert regarding RC? How is his being a scientist at NASA make his opinion about the ability of someone gaining access to RC anymore reliable than me going down the hall and asking my network administrator? It reads like "John, a pig farmer, sated that the fox that gained access to his neighbors hen house must have been very skillful and knowledgable about hen houses." Arzel (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and corrected on main page. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry scj, i do not see realclimate anywere in the proposed text above? mark nutley (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's on the main page. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've struck out the version above to avoid further confusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Doh Sorry guys, and thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

emails rekindle Keenan's accusation against Jones and Wei-Chyung Wang

From the Guardian Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege 1st Feb 2010. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to see how things play out during the next month or so. Fred Pearce is a reputable journalist with green credentials. What I find most interesting is that he is now echoing a lot of things that have been circling on blogs for weeks, months even years. At last focus of the story has shifted away from the hacking incident and the news are starting to cover more of the actual substance. The main points/big questions of interest are in my opinion:

1. Peer-review. Did it work? If not then where lies the fault? System or person(s)? 2. What are the implications for the science/sciences? Good? Bad? Ugly? 3. The IPCC. Impact of the story. Scientific impact and perceived impact?

There are countless angles to this story but maybe these good starting points for a discussion.130.232.214.10 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not the appropriate place for a discussion. This is a talk page for a wikipedia article, where the only discussion that should take place is related to changes in the article. Please don't mistake this for a web-forum. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. This is exact place to raise and present this issue. Since the wiki editors insist on forwarding the "Climategate" body of information to the hacking incident page, this one, and then claim that this page is only related to the hacking incident, blame yourselves for people putting, as you call it, unrelated information here. Open the independent article on Climategate to address all these so-called inappropriate inclusions. This the circular logic of religio-science. Like a religion. The bible says god exists, and god told the prophets to write the bible to say he exists. In a similar fashion, wiki editors define climategate only as the hacking incident and then reject info related to climategate that does not fit their contrived definition. I think there a few job openings in religious leadership that this kind of reasoning requires.142.68.92.131 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How does this section propose to edit an article? Please focus on what we're here to do - write an encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Open up a separate page to deal with the larger issues of bad scince, alleged bad scince, precipitated from the alleged theft incident. It is your fault that all this other stuff is landing here.142.68.92.131 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I put it to you, Hipocrite, that unless we limit the scope of this article, and that right soon, the above talking points will eventually be included because they go to the heart of the content of the emails. My (constantly evolving) opinion is that this article should pretty much avoid any discussion of the validity of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. By including (multiple) statements about how the science remains super-dooper valid, we are inviting a proxy battle royale with various hard-corps alarmists and hard-corps skeptics cherry-picking this bit of data and that bit of data. We should limit the article to the theft and the resulting scandal, and then wikilink as appropriate to the global warming article to discuss What It All Means to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, the hockey stick graph, and the thong industry. I know I've whined about this before, but I've been reluctant to start writing a hack-and-slash version of this article without at least some consensus that such a rewrite would be welcome. Nightmote (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I already consented to that above. Do it in your user space, and I'll even help. I wonder, however, will we really stop getting the talking point inclusions if we make the article focus on what the article should focus on? Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be great if a small group worked on a slimmed-down and logically structured version of the article. I don't know how much I can contribute though because my real-life commitments are unpredictable at the mo. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a poke at it in my user space. I took the time to misspell "hacking" in the title, which I hope is appreciated. Seriously, though, I can't see it taking the place of Leviathan. Feel free to make wholesale changes to it. Nightmote (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate needs its own page

I propose creating a separate article called Climategate and breaking the forward to this article.142.68.92.131 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a bore, but you ought to maybe read these archived talk sections: [16][17][18][19][20]. This idea - which is not without merit - has been done to death. Nightmote (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No. It is still alive and well. the editors refuse to add content citing it's irrelevance to the narrow self-imposed definition of the "hacking". So, Open it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.92.131 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop beating the dead horse. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that bias exists and the biased editors want Climategate to disappear. It won't. Open up the article.142.68.92.131 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Major proposed edit

Nightmote and I have worked on a major edit to this article that would shrink it dramatically. It is located at User:Nightmote/sandbox_CRU_Hackining_Incident#References. We would welcome comments, concerns, or criticizms with an eye to taking the cut-down version live in the very near future. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Guardian series

New Grauniad articles are worth checking out:[21][22][23][24][25][26]. . . dave souza, talk 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Updated, see this page for latest articles. They give a good if rather devastating overview, covering reasons as well as misdeeds . . dave souza, talk 21:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Great series. Kind of makes our obsessive focus on "the hack" seem a bit silly. JPatterson (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not silly if you want to suppress the dissemination of the malpractice of scientists. The last reference is particularly good.142.68.165.13 (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

JPatterson, I read your page about Climategate. I also read all the blocking and games that various editors have subjected you to. Your page on Climate gate better represents the world view of the evolving nature of the scandal. It is not just a "maybe theft" incident. 142.68.165.13 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the paragraphs from FactCheck, Associated Press and Nature editorial?

I just went through the article history and can't find the diff. But they were there yesterday.[27]. Why were these paragraphs deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha and all of the other allegations of misconduct were removed to, leaving the reader with the (wildly mistaken) impression that the controversy exclusively concerns breaches of the FOIA act. I'll add this back later if someone doesn't get to it first.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Readability and style change

I started re-reading the article from scratch and I note that someone finally followed my suggestion and added the sentence "Scientists, scientific organisations, and government officials have stated that the incident does not affect the overall scientific case for climate change." to the lede. Not sure who wrote that, but thank you.  :)

When I got to the E-mails section, I noticed a similar sentence, "The Associated Press ... concluded that they ... did not support claims that global warming science had been faked."

The following paragraph then contains a similar sentence, "FactCheck stated that claims by climate sceptics that the emails demonstrated scientific misconduct amounting to fabrication of global warming were unfounded, and emails were being misrepresented to support these claims."

The next paragraph opens with a similar sentence, "An editorial in the scientific journal Nature stated that the e-mails had not shown anything that undermined the scientific case on human caused global warming"

By this time, (as a reader) I started noticing how redundant it was to keep stating basically the same thing: AGW is real. I wanted to read something new. So I removed that part of the sentence so it goes right into new information that the reader hasn't been told yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You have removed a significant piece of the article. Why have you not sought a consensus for this controversial removal of referenced material? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored this material, since it seemed especially significant. Rather than being redundant, it reinforced the prevailing view that the science remained sound. Please seek a consensus for such controversial edits in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I decided to assume good faith that fixing readability issues wouldn't be controversial. It's repetitive. Try the same exercise that I did. Read the article from the beginning and see if you get bored by the fourth time you read essentially the same information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest both of you read the new sources from the Guardian (above). Major revisions appear likely.91.153.115.15 (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did read the sources above and none of them change the scientific consensus regarding global warming. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This (Heat Island) is one of the major criticism of the land based temp. measurements used by the temperatures that produced the Hockey stick if I remember correctly ... So this is possible another nail in the AGW coffin. Nsaa (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Or possibly another scientific question to be further investigated – as is continuing. See the sources above, for starters. What we need to reflect primarily is the mainstream view, not denialist spin, and the implications of removing all the research based on the east Chinese weather stations will be of interest. . . dave souza, talk 15:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The ironic thing is that when I suggested (twice!) that article should explicitly state that this controversy didn't change the scientific consensus, my suggestion was rejected both times. Now that it's finally in the article - at least 4 times - and want to drop it down to only 3 times for style reasons (it's redundant and the repetition bores the reader), my suggestion is again rejected. Where is the logic in that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is only a symptom of the real problem: the article is a jumbled mess because it's the product of warring factions. No one sane would volunteer to step in and make it coherent because they'd be caught in the crossfire. As a result things end up being repeated in different places because there's no effective organization. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The article looks like a cafeteria after a food fight because that's what it is. I think the paragraph-by-paragraph approach was showing promise (the first paragraph is much improved). I tried to keep the ball rolling with my rewrite of the second paragraph above but that discussion never really got started before it was sidetracked into the weeds on some minor point. We need to drop the us vs them mentality and concentrate on composition and coherency. JPatterson (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that virtually any change to this article will be controversial. I was tempted to except spelling corrections, but then I remembered the skeptic/sceptic wars, so even spelling isn't exempt. I agree that four statements of the same point is redundancy to the point of idiocy, but that said, there are probably fierce supporters for each and every one of the entries, so the best course is to itemize each of the entries, and propose which two or three would be best to remove. Then we can debate it, and possibly even reach a consensus.--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think that it might be worth the effort to remove most of the references to the AGW hypothesis. If we look at this event as being comprised of three phases - the theft, the scandal, the consequences - the *only* section where the valididty of AGW needs to be touched upon is the "consequences" section, in which it can be asserted that the basic hypothesis remains valid, with a wikilink to the appropriate global warming article. We could cut down on the redundancy, reduce the number of contentious statements, and pass the whole AGW issue back to the appropriate article. *If* this scandal causes a re-think of the AGW hypothesis, the story would be continued in that article. Nightmote (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, "scandal" is a gross exaggeration. It's not like one of the CRU was caught fiddling the data while dressed as a Nazi and secretly dating Tiger Woods. The "controversy" arose because people specifically opposed to the theory of AGW seized upon the material (which was apparently cherry-picked for this particular cause) and tried to use it to suggest the theory was wrong. It is important that it is made completely clear that the anti-AGW people were wrong, and that the science remains rock solid. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, at least the talk page produces comments like this gem... Ignignot (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

..... and so we start round 12 of this knock-down, drag-out, smash-fest. Nightmote (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not as rock solid as it appeared in respect of one specific 1990 publication, the articles confirm that the consensus remains essentially the same. There's a lot of pointing at flaws found in old research as though newer research can be ignored. . . dave souza, talk 15:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to try and put it another way. To the best of my knowledge, nobody at this stage is saying that Climategate is a game-changer. The general contention is that one or more CRU scientists engaged in unprofessional behaviour (yes, they bloody well did fiddle the data; there's an article today about the Chinese stations that ought to raise eyebrows), but that Global Warming is real. There is some real-world sentiment that the "A" in "AGW" ought to be "a" or even "-", and the infighting on this talk page reflects that. I believe that we can describe what happened at UEA/CRU and the fallout without needing to pass judgement on whether that "A" belongs there. A statement in the summary paragraph stating that Global Warming remains a scientific fact, a statement in the consequences part of the article stating the same thing, and a wikilink to the Global Warming article where the "Anthropogenic" part of AGW can be debated all day. We don't need to compromise our beliefs, but we can best reach consensus by not forcing others to compromise theirs. Nightmote (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right about what we should be doing, unfortunately some editors seem to think that it's not just a game-changer, but "another nail in the AGW coffin". Presumably not thinking of the deaths likely if worst case projections are correct. Per making necessary assumptions policy, we accept that mainstream scientific opinion is that AGW is significant, and present that as the majority view while also noting significant minority views raised by reliable sources relating to this article subject. . . dave souza, talk 16:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether or not AGW is accepted "rock solid" science, does the valididty of AGW need to be debated in this article? This article is about Climategate - the theft of computer files and people's perception that the files suggested unprofessional behaviour on the part of CRU scientists. Maybe we can skip the "consequences" part altogether, since they are part of a much, much, larger sphere of debate. Really. If this scandal changes the ladscape of the Global Warming Controversy, then *that* article should be changed. Perhaps we can limit this article to saying (in about 10,000 more words) "These files were stolen (link). These guys looked really bad (link). The newspapers and governments reacted like this (link). This guy was fired (link). The scientific community changed these things (link). The police arrested this other guy (clink)." Nightmote (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of rewriting this article to present just the bare facts. If someone were to draft a bare-facts version in their userspace that they thought the other "side" of the fence could get on board with, that would be quite helpful. Hipocrite (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(grin) I'll get right on it! "Section 1: The Scheming Bastards ...." Nightmote (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Scjessey: Can you please rejoin this discussion to see if we can get some sort of consensus to remove some repetitiveness and improve the article's readability? Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've already made my opinion clear; however, if a new version is properly proposed here I'll take a look at it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did and I asked that you try the same exercise that I did. Read the article from the beginning and see if you get bored by the fourth time you read essentially the same information. Did you get a chance to do so? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed. I came to the conclusion that I'd like to see the point rammed home even further, with additional elaboration. Right now, much of the article seems to suffer from an anti-AGW point-of-view that unfairly maligns individuals and gives the skeptical hordes too much time on the podium. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should the point be "rammed home even further"? We're not supposed to engage in disputes, only cover them. If this is your reason for repeating the same things over and over again, then I suggest it's not a reason at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. So much for any semblance of NPOV. The article as it stands reeks of pro-AGW goaltending. Honestly, this article would be much clearer and more accurate if it simple read something like this:

"Data from CRU was posted on the Internet without the permission of CRU. CRU believes the data was stolen from their servers. The local police are looking into the matter to discern if a crime took place. The data in question consists of files and emails, of which a portion details questionable behavior on the part of a group of climatologists with regards to treatment of climate data. In other emails the authors discuss their preference for blocking publication of opinions and studies conducted by other climatologists that do not agree with their conclusions. People who believe that global warming is anthropogenic in nature, and most climatologists and scientists, state that the data and emails do not change the science, and should be considered as an unfortunate display of normal human nature. People who don't believe global warming is anthropogenic in nature, and some climatologists and scientists, state that the data and emails reveal flaws in the published works promoting the idea of anthropogenic global warming and expose an unscientific attempt to squelch studies and scientific work in opposition to the prevailing scientific thought."

There. You can all go get some rest. Textmatters (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge has asked me to say a bit more about this section. My feeling is that that we give coverage to three separate organs (AP, FactCheck and Nature) that are valid and worthwhile. AQFK says that there is redundancy there, but I disagree because I think that having the three separate sources is indicative of how expansive the agreement is that the science hasn't really been impacted by this incident. Therefore, I am not in favor of these being cut down. If someone can show me a better way to do it (proposed here, not shoved into the article without prior discussion) then I'm willing to give it consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that someone else has already deleted the repetitive phrase (along with the rest of these paragraphs), I let's table this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, although my fellow Britons will be confused by your use of the word "table" instead of "shelve" ("table" has the exact opposite meaning in the world outside of North America). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)