![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center. Gwen Gale ( talk) 20:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Bah, CA has a mirror now. Only now noted -- J. Sketter ( talk) 21:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I know this policy is never followed, but this minor news event is not material for an encyclopedia. Bleh. - Atmoz ( talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Recent edits to this article are partisan. Editors rmv as "No source, and wrong" something that is easily sourced, and correct. Please respect the facts that exist, not the ones you wish to exist... If the whole thing is revealed as a fraud later, then you can say the facts are wrong. meanwhile, the emails do suggest that data was fudged. Please respect Wikipedia more than you respect your own views. I do it all the time. Ling.Nut ( talk) 08:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course, it would be nice if Wikipedia had some respect for the posters to the site. I am a climate skeptic with a scientific background and I have found that Wikipedia has some kind of surveillance system which is used to delete any remarks which are not following the popular view that man is causing global warming be burning fossil fuels. Now if those supporting this view had any evidence, never mind proof, that this is true it would give me comfort. But, as it is, Wikipedia is just another propaganda source. So, why am I censored, while climate crazies are not? Arthur ( talk) 09:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"In Finland, MEP Eija-Riitta Korhola is going to present a written query to European Commission about the credibility of IPCC climate reports. Her husband, climatologist and Helsinki University professor Atte Korhola says that published e-mails show some concerning signs, and expresses the view that the current political weight of climatic research has led the climatology to lose it's rules." (not a quate, but my summary, sorry)
From a finnish online newspaper Uusi Suomi
-- J. Sketter ( talk) 10:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (sig. added)
Please do not try to change the slant of this articled by quick-fire dramatic edits: rather, please engage with the discussions on this talk page. Considerable effort has been put into keeping this page neutral and based on published facts, secondary reliable sources etc. Please engage with the consensus philosophy that makes WP work so well. -- Nigelj ( talk) 13:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised (well not really) to see that the actual content of the emails is not discussed. Certainly many reliable sources have gone into some detail about the contents and which ones are significant and why. Is there any objection to creating a section detailing the notable contents of the emails? WVBluefield ( talk) 15:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not adressing him by his name - Kevin Trenberth? And as this seem rather an obvious attempt to discredit those who leaked the files, we should perhaps also mention, that trenberth is appearing in the leaked emails more than a 100 times. 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 15:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Settled Science? Computer hackers reveal corruption behind the global-warming "consensus" (quotes the Washington Post). Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for posting these links. I'll repost this one, which may have gotten lost upthread:
(ec) I hate to burst your bubble, but according to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources, opinion pieces can only be considered reliable sources for statements about the authors opinion.
—
Apis (
talk)
21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk pages are meant for discussing sources and improving articles. I'm citing sources from reliable publishers which support the topic's notability, which is about reliably published assertions that the scientific sources themselves have been manipulated. You're welcome to say you disagree with any reliable source, but otherwise your assertions are supported neither by the cited sources nor the policies of this website. Please also try not to stray into personal attacks. Meanwhile, Apis O-tang is mistaken, WP:RS notes that as to opinion, "it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Nigelj ( talk) 23:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Its like some editors aren’t even trying to hide their POV pushing anymore [2]. WVBluefield ( talk) 22:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I accidentally hit "enter" while trying to restore the phrase "and keeping skeptics' research out of peer-review literature.". My intention was to add the phrase, and a citation. As I typed it in, I realized I was using the spelling"Skeptic", rather than "sceptic". (Is this an English issue?) While deciding how to handle the spelling, I accidentally hit enter, and added the phrase without an edit summary, thereby breaking my 100% edit summary streak. My next edit was to correct the spelling (except in links - I think I did it correctly, but if it is an UK spelling, feel free to revert.) I then added a WSJ source to back up the phrase. I gather that the phrase was removed because it was supported by Fox News. As per my read of this discussion Fox is acceptable.
I see Connolly has reverted the spelling. Sorry about that, I thought sceptic was simply an error, but apparently not.-- SPhilbrick T 23:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
WMC wondered whether three citations were needed for a single sentence. That sentence asserts six points. I've confirmed that the first five are covered by the Revkin article, and the sixth point is covered by the WSJ article. Accordingly, I removed what was footnote nine, also a WSJ article, as redundant.-- SPhilbrick T 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I hastily added a sentence "Storch has been critical of Mann in the past." in an attempt to provide balance to the prior sentence in which Storch called for the recusal of Mann and Jones. My intention was to make it clear this was not someone making an unbiased call, but someone with a history of conflict with Mann. However, I'm not sure whether it is proving the balance I want. If anyone has any suggestions, please feel free to improve.-- SPhilbrick T 23:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be in danger of random POV moves. I think it would be a good idea if page-move was locked William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
as opposed to intentional POV 'moves'??lol?? (Keep up the good work! pj) 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 20:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
In the Stephen McIntyre Wikipedia-article he is not adressed as climate-sceptic and as far as I know, rightly so. To critisize works of climate scientists doesn't actually make you automatically a climate sceptic. I'd like to see that removed (or at least sourced). 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the sock-detection experts would like to look into this trolling? -- Nigelj ( talk) 18:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, user WVBluefield has reinserted 'climate-sceptic blogger' (altough this seems to be a compromise between him and user Verbal), neglecting this discussion. Nevertheless, I think this is not the way wikipedia is supposed to work. I hope someone who has the right to edit the article will make the necessary edit. 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 00:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The Climate Research Unit does not officially label this action as a “hack”, only that data was illegally taken from the servers [3]. There has even been some speculation that this was an internal leak from some whistleblower inside the CRU or the university [4]. This being the case, I propose we rename the article to Climatic Research data theft, or something along those lines. WVBluefield ( talk) 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There are interesting details here [6]. According to Gavin Schmidt of the RealClimate blog, his blog was hacked and a message linking to the files was cued for posting, but this was discovered and the post canceled. Also, along with the original comment at "The Air Vent", there was a link made in a comment at McIntyre's blog. These three actions appear to have been carried out by the original hacker or a confederate. Mporter ( talk) 05:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
So quit deleting it. Sukiari ( talk) 09:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
No copyright is claimed. Sukiari ( talk) 09:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
If it is, please direct me to the claim. Sukiari ( talk) 09:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I will not self revert, as the link to the actual documents is extremely apropos, and the copyright holders have not asserted that their emails be withheld from the wikipedia.
Unless it's a new policy to kill all links from wikileaks, in which case we can team up and delete them all. Sukiari ( talk) 09:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it good faith to call in a buddy to revert? Is it consensus? Sukiari ( talk) 09:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
And, I will not stop adding a link to a zip file. Thousands exist unmolested on the wikipedia. Sukiari ( talk) 09:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yet hundreds of links from wikileaks remain unchallenged. This is a legitimate cite. Sukiari ( talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
(ecx2)My reading of WP:COPY suggests it is in the main concerned with preserving the rights of the creators of creative content. I don't see anything in there about using it to suppress the details of private correspondence. Perhaps if the content in question had intrinsic artistic value in and of itself but that's not the case here. On the contrary, I would think it is strongly in the public interest to have access to this material and that this would fall under the exception to the policy. Ronnotel ( talk) 16:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the change from e-mail to email of User:Ratel. [14] Firstly this was obviously a search and replace move but poorly done as I count two instances were the title of a reference was changed which is obviously inappropriate. However the more important point and the reason for the reversion (I had planned just to fix the titles) is that this article title uses e-mail so we need consistency. If we want to use email then the article should be moved. But given the many moves I suggest against that without discussion. It occurs to me that WP:Engvar applies her since both terms are valid and some varieties of English use e-mail while others use email, both are valid words. The fact this isn't a distinction involving the normal varities of English shouldn't make a differewnce. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
i see people prefer british variant of the word. shouldn't american skeptic be used instead? 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 14:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Please, for the last time, blogs are not
reliable. This is about a current event and we should only refer to reliable news sources, not speculations in blogs.
—
Apis (
talk)
14:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The Washington Post's correspondent Juliet Eilperin has been able to publish some very strong points in her own words: "an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies ... a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming."
This is a valid reaction to the incident, but it is not a summary of the whole incident. I have moved these opinions out of the WP:LEDE into the 'Reactions' section, where I think they better belong. We already have quotes from some of the main players in the lede - 'sceptics' from Revkin, the University, and Kevin Trenberth making an inciteful point about about the timing. I do believe that is enough for the lede and is now balanced as it stands. -- Nigelj ( talk) 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
No, he did not say that. That's a summary paraphrase from an interview with him, written by AP, excerpts of which are available below it in the same article. And, please stop linking to Google News, as these links disappear after several weeks. Either find stable links, or use WebCite. Viriditas ( talk) 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure whether it's suitable for the article but it appears Chris de Freitas, while highly critical of the e-mails (particularly the alleged collusion/ganging up) does appear to think the criticism of his paper was no worse then what was said publicly. He also doesn't feel the hacking is justified [16] Nil Einne ( talk) 00:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
2,000 documents -> 3'485 to be exactly. (without the emails, which are somehow documents as well...) 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
what constitutes as a document? 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 01:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
"Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is a poor title for two reasons:
I renamed the article to the more defensible "Climatic Research Unit e-mail file release incident", but it was named back to the less defensible title without discussion. TJIC ( talk) 02:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There are 2 issues with the name. The CRU has in the past put non public data on the public side of its servers. The previous "leak" in July 2009 turned out to have been done by the director of the CRU while fighting a FOI request by Steve McIntyre. This current "leak" is a FOI2009.zip containing all the information requested by Steve McIntyre in a second FOI request. The CRU could simply have made the same mistake again and put the FOI information on the public side of the server.
The Second issue is that there is more than email in the file. The is also source code and data in the file. A better name would be "Climatic Research Unit incident of November 2009" Michael Ring 24 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J Ring ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Is the name of the article supported by reliable sources? I did a search in the sources, and find that the neologism 'climategate' is only mentioned in blogs and other non-reliable sources. Is there an alternate name that is reasonable, more neutral in tone, and that is supported by reliable sources? LK ( talk) 09:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added at least tree sources ( three first refs) that's not blogs using the term Climategate. I've just added it as another term used for this incident. Nsaa ( talk) 01:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
(also known as Climategate [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8])
Already dubbed "Climategate," e-mails
someone recently dumped a large cache of e-mail files and documents from the University of East Anglia University's prestigious Climactic Research Unit onto the 'Net. [...] Don't let users put passwords in their signatures. Yep, you got that right: One of the scientists included both on his e-mail signature — which means that anyone receiving an e-mail from this guy had access to his files. This may have been the source of the hack; in fact, some folks have theorized that a recipient of the e-mail was the source of the data dump. [...] Another theory behind the supposed "hack" is that the files were compiled in response to a FOIA request
Dermed var spetakkelet løs, først på ulike klimablogger, etter hvert også i aviser som Wall Street Journal, New York Times og The Guardian. «Climategate» kaller klimaskeptikere innholdet i e-postene.
But a recent scandal that's been dubbed ClimateGate is showing a very ugly side of climate science, and anyone who clung to that old-fashioned vision of scientists at work will be surprised by the reality.
ClimateGate: Waiting for vegetarian overlord response
One of the world's leading promoters of the anthropogenic global warming myth claimed Monday he is convinced the e-mail messages involved in the growing international scandal ClimateGate "are genuine," and he's "dismayed and deeply shaken by them."
On the Climategate emails
We have seen plenty examples of that last kind of bullying in the Climategate scandal (Warmergate, as Mark Steyn has wittily christened it: damn! Wish I'd thought of that): scientists ganging up to shut scientists who disagree with them out of the peer-review process; scientists actually gloating over their opponents' deaths.
The article cites that the RealClimate website is downplaying the importance of the files. Which is good information to have in the article.
However, it's hugely relevant that the folks responsible for this RealClimate statement ( Gavin Schmidt, Michael E. Mann, Eric Steig, Raymond S. Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Rasmus Benestad, Caspar Ammann, Thibault de Garidel, David Archer, Raymond Pierrehumbert ) are all DEEPLY involved in the incident - they all have emails that have been released.
I have added this information into the article, and it has been removed, with WP:OR.
The problem is that this is ** not ** original research - the list of folks behind RealClimate is taken straight from the Wikipedia article.
I'm adding the data back in. If you have problems with it, please hash it out here before reverting yet again (3RR). TJIC ( talk) 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"Real Climate" is actually mentioned in the emails as being a friendly source that will hold up publishing embarrassing comments for screening and review. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt 173.168.129.57 ( talk) 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This classification is a blatant attempt at censorship. This is a very notable event about extremely important public institutions. It is clearly not covered by the BLP. Stop the censorship now. EggheadNoir ( talk) 19:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I also fail to see how an article about an institution is BLP. I read all the BLP stuff I could find and just don't see it. Nevertheless, I don't support the use of poor sources. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia notify the police about Scibaby's activities here, the IP addresses he uses etc., so that they can investigate his possible involvement in the hacking? Count Iblis ( talk) 20:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
F has been blocked for socking, astonishingly
William M. Connolley (
talk)
18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
comment: is above a legal threat?
wp:nlt
93.86.205.97 (
talk)
14:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There are some malicious redirects popping up - Mike's nature trick. Can someone delete them please? William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Slowjoe17 ( talk) 14:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC) This is my first time writing for Wikipedia, so I may be asking dumb questions.
The article says the release at the Air Vent was on the 19th, but the actual link is dated the 17th.
Should the actual release comment be linked? It is http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917
"In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'
This is from: [1] BrianSkeptic ( talk) 07:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a reaction that should be added to the article as it is a claim that has been made often, denied often and now proved true. --
Mojib Latif, a climate researcher at Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, said he found it hard to believe that climate scientists were trying to squelch dissent. Mr. Latif, who believes in man-made global warming but who has co-authored a paper ascribing current cooling to temporary natural trends, said, "I simply can't believe that there is a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical papers from being published." [21] 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph in the == Reactions== section includes a phrase ... selected deliberately to undermine the strong consensus that human activity ... Does it strike anybody else as odd that the words "strong consensus" appear without quotation marks in the middle of so many references to skeptics?
Maysmithb (
talk)
02:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Autochthony writes, This has stirred up a hornets' next, hasn't it? One link, that may give background to the article, and to the statements on this page, is http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/must-see-video-climategate-spoof-from-minnesotans-for-global-warming/#more-13179 Whatever the truth - and does anyone have a direct line to the truth (I don't, I don't think) - we need perspective. Autochthony wrote. 2250z 25.1.09. 86.151.60.238 ( talk) 22:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Sukairi keeps adding the claim the e-mails contain threats of violence. The trouble is, despite asking "peeps" to look it up [22], it appears he/she hasn't bothered to since the source used in no way mentions violence. In other words, Sukairi is introducing claims that appear to be sourced but are not. If Sukairi is asking people to look up the original e-mails, I suggest he/she look at WP:OR and WP:Verifiability since both are clearly violated here Nil Einne ( talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it says, quoting: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.” Sukiari ( talk) 10:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Saying you are tempted to beat the crap out of somebody, and then emphasizing yourself "seriously tempted" is not a threat of violence?
It is in a court of law. Sukiari ( talk) 10:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, please enlighten me as to where the source you quoted above, and the one I also quote, defuses the threat. I would like to know if I have gone blind. Sukiari ( talk) 10:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I can see where you might miss the dripping sarcasm in the article cited. All highly respected scientists commonly threaten to beat the crap out of their critics, no? Sukiari ( talk) 10:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
A massive "reaction" section, but only one sentence shyly hinting at the actual content of the archive? Why is that? Óðinn ☭☆ talk 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This is because it happened just a few days ago. these thousands of files have to be analyzed and interpreted first. Wikipedia is not a news-site and we have plenty of time. climate gate is a major affair that requires careful study and rs doing that should be worked into the article.
84.72.61.221 ( talk) 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There must be a more credible sceptic of climate change than Glenn Beck. That he has more or less never leveled any reasoned criticisms against anything forgoes the possibility of him being a legitimate critic in any sense relevant to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 ( talk) 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, the citation associated with the mention of Glenn Beck is simply Fox News' wiki page... sort of irrelevant, no? That he is associated with Fox signifies nothing about his positions on climate change research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 ( talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It was me who added that paragraph. The description of George Monbiot as an "environmentalist and political activist" is taken from his WP bio. I thought that there should be a commentator from the right as well, and Beck was the first one that I found. I have no strong feelings about keeping Beck, but I do strongly believe that it would be good to have someone from the right. And yes, the original reference was to youtube; what is the reason that was inappropriate? AlfBit ( talk) 19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This should be added to the article:
In an interview regarding the hacking incident Phil Jones claimed "We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU." [24] However, in email message 1228330629.txt dated December 3, 2008, Dr. Jones writes, "About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all." [25] Occam eraser ( talk) 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Three times in two paragraphs, the lead said the information was "stolen", and on top of that, the first sentence of the second paragraph stated that police are investigating. I removed one of the "stolen"s and moved the police procedural business to the end of the lead, but that doesn't solve all the problems: three quotes in the lead, all of them from the pro-global warming side, no quote from the other side, despite the fact that the matter is a controversy involving roughly two sides. JohnWBarber ( talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking the same thing but perhaps not for the same reasons. The majority of the lead is focused on the POV from one side of the issue. In addition it repeats a number of quotes that are provided in the article itself. This represents WP:UNDUE weight for those quotes, IMHO. The lead should be summarizing the article, not repeating one side's POV. -- GoRight ( talk) 21:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
In an article about a discovery in which Real Climate is alleged to be a sock puppet for the alleged scientists accused of subverting science, Real Climate is cited as a reliable source.
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!!
Occam eraser ( talk) 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
what disturbs me the most, is the fact, that we only have one explanation for the trick to hide decline. an explanation from a blog, who is involved in the scandel. an explanatio, further, that doesn't even try to look like it tries to explain anything. did someone read it? it makes in absolutely no way any sense. it's candid wrong and misleading. we should have at least one other explanation. 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate has posted more details about the hack, which appears to have been more far-reaching than initially thought. [28] Climate Audit was also targeted and Steve McIntyre has disclosed one of the IP addresses involved - 82.208.87.170 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). [29] Predictably, both are open proxies. There's not much doubt that this was a genuine incident of hacking (the successful hack of RealClimate's server indicates as much). I've added a summary of this to the hacking and theft section, sourced to the two blogs under the exception in Wikipedia:Verifiability for blogs as reliable sources on themselves. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"according to Fox News one e-mail "how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process."
A spectacular bit of Wikispeak here. It's not "according to Fox News". It's straight from the horse's mouth - the sentence "Kevin [Trenberth] and I [Phil Jones] will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" cannot be interpreted any other way by speakers of English, whether they work for Rupe Murdoch or not.
However, Fox News said this thing, and if Fox News said it, it must be wrong and a right-wing conspiracy.
Someone needs to look up the old saying about broken clocks being right twice a day - even if round here it's probably been tagged (citation needed). -- 86.170.69.253 ( talk) 00:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wiki-Rules haven't changed: If no one has an argument why not to change it, it will be changed. waiting for arguments. 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Somehow we just have to work Fox's pronunciation of 'Anglia' into the article: University of East-Angula, just to expose them for the bunch of morons they are. Please. Please! :):):) 1812ahill ( talk) 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It’s the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being “confused” by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
Whats say you? Time to include. 71.239.229.241 ( talk) 03:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the phrases "Global-warming skeptics" and "Skeptics" (when in relation to man-made global warming) should not be used. However if (Al Gore's) global warming is the official party position/global religion (and I was not informed) then maybe #2 is correct.
[31] Skeptic
There is no certainty of the authenticity of these documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.246.153 ( talk) 05:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Phil Jones is reported here [32] as saying that the emails appear to be all genuine: "He confirmed that all of the leaked emails that had provoked heated debate – including the now infamous email from 1999 in which he discussed a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures - appeared to be genuine." Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 09:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't the time to make an edit myself, but the best story in the media so far is on cbsnews.com. See this. [33] Also, see the story by Willis Eschenbach. [34] RonCram ( talk) 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Just for context, you guys need to bear in mind what we're talking about here. Early in the formation of the earth, millions of years worth of photosynthesis trapped millions of tons of carbon in living things, which died, sank and got buried and turned into oil, gas and coal. In the last few hundred years, humans have dug up millions of tons of this stuff and burnt it, releasing the carbon as CO₂ etc. That CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and it is now free in the atmosphere: there is no way it can do anything other than trap incoming solar heat and warm the earth's climate. See Effects of global warming for why this matters.
These e-mails are interesting, and some people's future career opportunities may even depend upon the public's reaction to some exact choice of words they made ten years ago and put into writing. But nothing in these e-mails has any bearing on 'the science', as briefly (and crudely, at about Year 8 or 8th-Grade science level) described above. So be very careful from the point of view of WP:BLP about how you report on these guys' choice of words, but please don't allow the media excitement to lead you into thinking that any of what they wrote alters any of the actual science. -- Nigelj ( talk) 08:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This article compromises with the insanity of so-called skeptics, pulling the article away from facts towards a ridiculous bias in favor of uneducated media pundits who steer the conversation towards their own agendas by cherry picking, and Wikipedia's compromise with such absurdities only grants credence to what rightfully has none. Way to maintain a neutral point of view. 'Neutrality' is the first thing I think of when I see tinfoil hat sources cited. -- 66.188.84.217 ( talk) 09:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some crude misunderstanding: this whole affair is in no way about the plausibility of global warming. OT und Nigelj missed the point. 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 11:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me the guys that got their emails stolen were trying to screw the careers of those they didn't like, while trying to fudge data. Name one of them who has denied the emails, they haven't. So this stuff wasn't fabricated. Now this is a political issue no matter how you look at it, WP rules and regs notwithstanding. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to debate either controversy but some critics have pointed out the connection: It's about how some AGW advocates may have shot themselves in the foot and may have damaged their case. This blog post (which I suppose isn't a reliable source) wraps up the connection from the point of view of someone who is still on the mainstream side. [36] (Disclosure: Ilya Somin's POV is pretty much my POV, too.) The potential damage is not among people who know science and evaluate the science themselves -- it's among people who don't know science and therefore rely on the disinterested, fact-based scientific community to provide good, authoritative scientific opinions about global warming. If some top scientists are keeping their data from others and pressuring various scientific journals to stop publishing papers that would otherwise pass muster but for their opinions, it hurts the case that the scientific consensus is based on science and not politics. It seems to me that this is what the debate is all about and this is what we should be looking for in reliable sources. I've seen e-mails online where Michael Mann and others were purportedly discussing political pressure on various scientific journals, and then Mann (in public comments quoted in the media) was disparaging critics for not getting published in scientific journals. There are emails online purporting to be from Michael Mann stating that the RealClimate website was essentially in the pocket of the mainstream side and would skew online discussions unfairly to favor Mann and his colleagues. If the purported problems with the computer code means that some of the published conclusions can't be relied on, that directly damages the mainstream view (reliable sources haven't weighed in on that, so far). The conclusions I'm drawing about this so far are that these are significant issues, and as reliable sources weigh in on it, this should all be covered. It seems to me that reliable sources will inevitably cover all of this, eventually. JohnWBarber ( talk) 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center. Gwen Gale ( talk) 20:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Bah, CA has a mirror now. Only now noted -- J. Sketter ( talk) 21:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I know this policy is never followed, but this minor news event is not material for an encyclopedia. Bleh. - Atmoz ( talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Recent edits to this article are partisan. Editors rmv as "No source, and wrong" something that is easily sourced, and correct. Please respect the facts that exist, not the ones you wish to exist... If the whole thing is revealed as a fraud later, then you can say the facts are wrong. meanwhile, the emails do suggest that data was fudged. Please respect Wikipedia more than you respect your own views. I do it all the time. Ling.Nut ( talk) 08:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course, it would be nice if Wikipedia had some respect for the posters to the site. I am a climate skeptic with a scientific background and I have found that Wikipedia has some kind of surveillance system which is used to delete any remarks which are not following the popular view that man is causing global warming be burning fossil fuels. Now if those supporting this view had any evidence, never mind proof, that this is true it would give me comfort. But, as it is, Wikipedia is just another propaganda source. So, why am I censored, while climate crazies are not? Arthur ( talk) 09:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"In Finland, MEP Eija-Riitta Korhola is going to present a written query to European Commission about the credibility of IPCC climate reports. Her husband, climatologist and Helsinki University professor Atte Korhola says that published e-mails show some concerning signs, and expresses the view that the current political weight of climatic research has led the climatology to lose it's rules." (not a quate, but my summary, sorry)
From a finnish online newspaper Uusi Suomi
-- J. Sketter ( talk) 10:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (sig. added)
Please do not try to change the slant of this articled by quick-fire dramatic edits: rather, please engage with the discussions on this talk page. Considerable effort has been put into keeping this page neutral and based on published facts, secondary reliable sources etc. Please engage with the consensus philosophy that makes WP work so well. -- Nigelj ( talk) 13:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised (well not really) to see that the actual content of the emails is not discussed. Certainly many reliable sources have gone into some detail about the contents and which ones are significant and why. Is there any objection to creating a section detailing the notable contents of the emails? WVBluefield ( talk) 15:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not adressing him by his name - Kevin Trenberth? And as this seem rather an obvious attempt to discredit those who leaked the files, we should perhaps also mention, that trenberth is appearing in the leaked emails more than a 100 times. 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 15:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Settled Science? Computer hackers reveal corruption behind the global-warming "consensus" (quotes the Washington Post). Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for posting these links. I'll repost this one, which may have gotten lost upthread:
(ec) I hate to burst your bubble, but according to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources, opinion pieces can only be considered reliable sources for statements about the authors opinion.
—
Apis (
talk)
21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk pages are meant for discussing sources and improving articles. I'm citing sources from reliable publishers which support the topic's notability, which is about reliably published assertions that the scientific sources themselves have been manipulated. You're welcome to say you disagree with any reliable source, but otherwise your assertions are supported neither by the cited sources nor the policies of this website. Please also try not to stray into personal attacks. Meanwhile, Apis O-tang is mistaken, WP:RS notes that as to opinion, "it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Nigelj ( talk) 23:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Its like some editors aren’t even trying to hide their POV pushing anymore [2]. WVBluefield ( talk) 22:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I accidentally hit "enter" while trying to restore the phrase "and keeping skeptics' research out of peer-review literature.". My intention was to add the phrase, and a citation. As I typed it in, I realized I was using the spelling"Skeptic", rather than "sceptic". (Is this an English issue?) While deciding how to handle the spelling, I accidentally hit enter, and added the phrase without an edit summary, thereby breaking my 100% edit summary streak. My next edit was to correct the spelling (except in links - I think I did it correctly, but if it is an UK spelling, feel free to revert.) I then added a WSJ source to back up the phrase. I gather that the phrase was removed because it was supported by Fox News. As per my read of this discussion Fox is acceptable.
I see Connolly has reverted the spelling. Sorry about that, I thought sceptic was simply an error, but apparently not.-- SPhilbrick T 23:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
WMC wondered whether three citations were needed for a single sentence. That sentence asserts six points. I've confirmed that the first five are covered by the Revkin article, and the sixth point is covered by the WSJ article. Accordingly, I removed what was footnote nine, also a WSJ article, as redundant.-- SPhilbrick T 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I hastily added a sentence "Storch has been critical of Mann in the past." in an attempt to provide balance to the prior sentence in which Storch called for the recusal of Mann and Jones. My intention was to make it clear this was not someone making an unbiased call, but someone with a history of conflict with Mann. However, I'm not sure whether it is proving the balance I want. If anyone has any suggestions, please feel free to improve.-- SPhilbrick T 23:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be in danger of random POV moves. I think it would be a good idea if page-move was locked William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
as opposed to intentional POV 'moves'??lol?? (Keep up the good work! pj) 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 20:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
In the Stephen McIntyre Wikipedia-article he is not adressed as climate-sceptic and as far as I know, rightly so. To critisize works of climate scientists doesn't actually make you automatically a climate sceptic. I'd like to see that removed (or at least sourced). 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the sock-detection experts would like to look into this trolling? -- Nigelj ( talk) 18:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, user WVBluefield has reinserted 'climate-sceptic blogger' (altough this seems to be a compromise between him and user Verbal), neglecting this discussion. Nevertheless, I think this is not the way wikipedia is supposed to work. I hope someone who has the right to edit the article will make the necessary edit. 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 00:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The Climate Research Unit does not officially label this action as a “hack”, only that data was illegally taken from the servers [3]. There has even been some speculation that this was an internal leak from some whistleblower inside the CRU or the university [4]. This being the case, I propose we rename the article to Climatic Research data theft, or something along those lines. WVBluefield ( talk) 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There are interesting details here [6]. According to Gavin Schmidt of the RealClimate blog, his blog was hacked and a message linking to the files was cued for posting, but this was discovered and the post canceled. Also, along with the original comment at "The Air Vent", there was a link made in a comment at McIntyre's blog. These three actions appear to have been carried out by the original hacker or a confederate. Mporter ( talk) 05:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
So quit deleting it. Sukiari ( talk) 09:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
No copyright is claimed. Sukiari ( talk) 09:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
If it is, please direct me to the claim. Sukiari ( talk) 09:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I will not self revert, as the link to the actual documents is extremely apropos, and the copyright holders have not asserted that their emails be withheld from the wikipedia.
Unless it's a new policy to kill all links from wikileaks, in which case we can team up and delete them all. Sukiari ( talk) 09:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it good faith to call in a buddy to revert? Is it consensus? Sukiari ( talk) 09:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
And, I will not stop adding a link to a zip file. Thousands exist unmolested on the wikipedia. Sukiari ( talk) 09:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yet hundreds of links from wikileaks remain unchallenged. This is a legitimate cite. Sukiari ( talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
(ecx2)My reading of WP:COPY suggests it is in the main concerned with preserving the rights of the creators of creative content. I don't see anything in there about using it to suppress the details of private correspondence. Perhaps if the content in question had intrinsic artistic value in and of itself but that's not the case here. On the contrary, I would think it is strongly in the public interest to have access to this material and that this would fall under the exception to the policy. Ronnotel ( talk) 16:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the change from e-mail to email of User:Ratel. [14] Firstly this was obviously a search and replace move but poorly done as I count two instances were the title of a reference was changed which is obviously inappropriate. However the more important point and the reason for the reversion (I had planned just to fix the titles) is that this article title uses e-mail so we need consistency. If we want to use email then the article should be moved. But given the many moves I suggest against that without discussion. It occurs to me that WP:Engvar applies her since both terms are valid and some varieties of English use e-mail while others use email, both are valid words. The fact this isn't a distinction involving the normal varities of English shouldn't make a differewnce. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
i see people prefer british variant of the word. shouldn't american skeptic be used instead? 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 14:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Please, for the last time, blogs are not
reliable. This is about a current event and we should only refer to reliable news sources, not speculations in blogs.
—
Apis (
talk)
14:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The Washington Post's correspondent Juliet Eilperin has been able to publish some very strong points in her own words: "an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies ... a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming."
This is a valid reaction to the incident, but it is not a summary of the whole incident. I have moved these opinions out of the WP:LEDE into the 'Reactions' section, where I think they better belong. We already have quotes from some of the main players in the lede - 'sceptics' from Revkin, the University, and Kevin Trenberth making an inciteful point about about the timing. I do believe that is enough for the lede and is now balanced as it stands. -- Nigelj ( talk) 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
No, he did not say that. That's a summary paraphrase from an interview with him, written by AP, excerpts of which are available below it in the same article. And, please stop linking to Google News, as these links disappear after several weeks. Either find stable links, or use WebCite. Viriditas ( talk) 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure whether it's suitable for the article but it appears Chris de Freitas, while highly critical of the e-mails (particularly the alleged collusion/ganging up) does appear to think the criticism of his paper was no worse then what was said publicly. He also doesn't feel the hacking is justified [16] Nil Einne ( talk) 00:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
2,000 documents -> 3'485 to be exactly. (without the emails, which are somehow documents as well...) 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
what constitutes as a document? 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 01:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
"Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" is a poor title for two reasons:
I renamed the article to the more defensible "Climatic Research Unit e-mail file release incident", but it was named back to the less defensible title without discussion. TJIC ( talk) 02:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There are 2 issues with the name. The CRU has in the past put non public data on the public side of its servers. The previous "leak" in July 2009 turned out to have been done by the director of the CRU while fighting a FOI request by Steve McIntyre. This current "leak" is a FOI2009.zip containing all the information requested by Steve McIntyre in a second FOI request. The CRU could simply have made the same mistake again and put the FOI information on the public side of the server.
The Second issue is that there is more than email in the file. The is also source code and data in the file. A better name would be "Climatic Research Unit incident of November 2009" Michael Ring 24 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J Ring ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Is the name of the article supported by reliable sources? I did a search in the sources, and find that the neologism 'climategate' is only mentioned in blogs and other non-reliable sources. Is there an alternate name that is reasonable, more neutral in tone, and that is supported by reliable sources? LK ( talk) 09:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added at least tree sources ( three first refs) that's not blogs using the term Climategate. I've just added it as another term used for this incident. Nsaa ( talk) 01:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
(also known as Climategate [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8])
Already dubbed "Climategate," e-mails
someone recently dumped a large cache of e-mail files and documents from the University of East Anglia University's prestigious Climactic Research Unit onto the 'Net. [...] Don't let users put passwords in their signatures. Yep, you got that right: One of the scientists included both on his e-mail signature — which means that anyone receiving an e-mail from this guy had access to his files. This may have been the source of the hack; in fact, some folks have theorized that a recipient of the e-mail was the source of the data dump. [...] Another theory behind the supposed "hack" is that the files were compiled in response to a FOIA request
Dermed var spetakkelet løs, først på ulike klimablogger, etter hvert også i aviser som Wall Street Journal, New York Times og The Guardian. «Climategate» kaller klimaskeptikere innholdet i e-postene.
But a recent scandal that's been dubbed ClimateGate is showing a very ugly side of climate science, and anyone who clung to that old-fashioned vision of scientists at work will be surprised by the reality.
ClimateGate: Waiting for vegetarian overlord response
One of the world's leading promoters of the anthropogenic global warming myth claimed Monday he is convinced the e-mail messages involved in the growing international scandal ClimateGate "are genuine," and he's "dismayed and deeply shaken by them."
On the Climategate emails
We have seen plenty examples of that last kind of bullying in the Climategate scandal (Warmergate, as Mark Steyn has wittily christened it: damn! Wish I'd thought of that): scientists ganging up to shut scientists who disagree with them out of the peer-review process; scientists actually gloating over their opponents' deaths.
The article cites that the RealClimate website is downplaying the importance of the files. Which is good information to have in the article.
However, it's hugely relevant that the folks responsible for this RealClimate statement ( Gavin Schmidt, Michael E. Mann, Eric Steig, Raymond S. Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Rasmus Benestad, Caspar Ammann, Thibault de Garidel, David Archer, Raymond Pierrehumbert ) are all DEEPLY involved in the incident - they all have emails that have been released.
I have added this information into the article, and it has been removed, with WP:OR.
The problem is that this is ** not ** original research - the list of folks behind RealClimate is taken straight from the Wikipedia article.
I'm adding the data back in. If you have problems with it, please hash it out here before reverting yet again (3RR). TJIC ( talk) 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"Real Climate" is actually mentioned in the emails as being a friendly source that will hold up publishing embarrassing comments for screening and review. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt 173.168.129.57 ( talk) 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This classification is a blatant attempt at censorship. This is a very notable event about extremely important public institutions. It is clearly not covered by the BLP. Stop the censorship now. EggheadNoir ( talk) 19:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I also fail to see how an article about an institution is BLP. I read all the BLP stuff I could find and just don't see it. Nevertheless, I don't support the use of poor sources. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia notify the police about Scibaby's activities here, the IP addresses he uses etc., so that they can investigate his possible involvement in the hacking? Count Iblis ( talk) 20:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
F has been blocked for socking, astonishingly
William M. Connolley (
talk)
18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
comment: is above a legal threat?
wp:nlt
93.86.205.97 (
talk)
14:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There are some malicious redirects popping up - Mike's nature trick. Can someone delete them please? William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Slowjoe17 ( talk) 14:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC) This is my first time writing for Wikipedia, so I may be asking dumb questions.
The article says the release at the Air Vent was on the 19th, but the actual link is dated the 17th.
Should the actual release comment be linked? It is http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917
"In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'
This is from: [1] BrianSkeptic ( talk) 07:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a reaction that should be added to the article as it is a claim that has been made often, denied often and now proved true. --
Mojib Latif, a climate researcher at Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, said he found it hard to believe that climate scientists were trying to squelch dissent. Mr. Latif, who believes in man-made global warming but who has co-authored a paper ascribing current cooling to temporary natural trends, said, "I simply can't believe that there is a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical papers from being published." [21] 67.141.235.203 ( talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph in the == Reactions== section includes a phrase ... selected deliberately to undermine the strong consensus that human activity ... Does it strike anybody else as odd that the words "strong consensus" appear without quotation marks in the middle of so many references to skeptics?
Maysmithb (
talk)
02:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Autochthony writes, This has stirred up a hornets' next, hasn't it? One link, that may give background to the article, and to the statements on this page, is http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/must-see-video-climategate-spoof-from-minnesotans-for-global-warming/#more-13179 Whatever the truth - and does anyone have a direct line to the truth (I don't, I don't think) - we need perspective. Autochthony wrote. 2250z 25.1.09. 86.151.60.238 ( talk) 22:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Sukairi keeps adding the claim the e-mails contain threats of violence. The trouble is, despite asking "peeps" to look it up [22], it appears he/she hasn't bothered to since the source used in no way mentions violence. In other words, Sukairi is introducing claims that appear to be sourced but are not. If Sukairi is asking people to look up the original e-mails, I suggest he/she look at WP:OR and WP:Verifiability since both are clearly violated here Nil Einne ( talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it says, quoting: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.” Sukiari ( talk) 10:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Saying you are tempted to beat the crap out of somebody, and then emphasizing yourself "seriously tempted" is not a threat of violence?
It is in a court of law. Sukiari ( talk) 10:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, please enlighten me as to where the source you quoted above, and the one I also quote, defuses the threat. I would like to know if I have gone blind. Sukiari ( talk) 10:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I can see where you might miss the dripping sarcasm in the article cited. All highly respected scientists commonly threaten to beat the crap out of their critics, no? Sukiari ( talk) 10:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
A massive "reaction" section, but only one sentence shyly hinting at the actual content of the archive? Why is that? Óðinn ☭☆ talk 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This is because it happened just a few days ago. these thousands of files have to be analyzed and interpreted first. Wikipedia is not a news-site and we have plenty of time. climate gate is a major affair that requires careful study and rs doing that should be worked into the article.
84.72.61.221 ( talk) 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There must be a more credible sceptic of climate change than Glenn Beck. That he has more or less never leveled any reasoned criticisms against anything forgoes the possibility of him being a legitimate critic in any sense relevant to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 ( talk) 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, the citation associated with the mention of Glenn Beck is simply Fox News' wiki page... sort of irrelevant, no? That he is associated with Fox signifies nothing about his positions on climate change research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 ( talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It was me who added that paragraph. The description of George Monbiot as an "environmentalist and political activist" is taken from his WP bio. I thought that there should be a commentator from the right as well, and Beck was the first one that I found. I have no strong feelings about keeping Beck, but I do strongly believe that it would be good to have someone from the right. And yes, the original reference was to youtube; what is the reason that was inappropriate? AlfBit ( talk) 19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This should be added to the article:
In an interview regarding the hacking incident Phil Jones claimed "We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU." [24] However, in email message 1228330629.txt dated December 3, 2008, Dr. Jones writes, "About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all." [25] Occam eraser ( talk) 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Three times in two paragraphs, the lead said the information was "stolen", and on top of that, the first sentence of the second paragraph stated that police are investigating. I removed one of the "stolen"s and moved the police procedural business to the end of the lead, but that doesn't solve all the problems: three quotes in the lead, all of them from the pro-global warming side, no quote from the other side, despite the fact that the matter is a controversy involving roughly two sides. JohnWBarber ( talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking the same thing but perhaps not for the same reasons. The majority of the lead is focused on the POV from one side of the issue. In addition it repeats a number of quotes that are provided in the article itself. This represents WP:UNDUE weight for those quotes, IMHO. The lead should be summarizing the article, not repeating one side's POV. -- GoRight ( talk) 21:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
In an article about a discovery in which Real Climate is alleged to be a sock puppet for the alleged scientists accused of subverting science, Real Climate is cited as a reliable source.
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!!
Occam eraser ( talk) 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
what disturbs me the most, is the fact, that we only have one explanation for the trick to hide decline. an explanation from a blog, who is involved in the scandel. an explanatio, further, that doesn't even try to look like it tries to explain anything. did someone read it? it makes in absolutely no way any sense. it's candid wrong and misleading. we should have at least one other explanation. 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate has posted more details about the hack, which appears to have been more far-reaching than initially thought. [28] Climate Audit was also targeted and Steve McIntyre has disclosed one of the IP addresses involved - 82.208.87.170 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). [29] Predictably, both are open proxies. There's not much doubt that this was a genuine incident of hacking (the successful hack of RealClimate's server indicates as much). I've added a summary of this to the hacking and theft section, sourced to the two blogs under the exception in Wikipedia:Verifiability for blogs as reliable sources on themselves. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"according to Fox News one e-mail "how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process."
A spectacular bit of Wikispeak here. It's not "according to Fox News". It's straight from the horse's mouth - the sentence "Kevin [Trenberth] and I [Phil Jones] will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" cannot be interpreted any other way by speakers of English, whether they work for Rupe Murdoch or not.
However, Fox News said this thing, and if Fox News said it, it must be wrong and a right-wing conspiracy.
Someone needs to look up the old saying about broken clocks being right twice a day - even if round here it's probably been tagged (citation needed). -- 86.170.69.253 ( talk) 00:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wiki-Rules haven't changed: If no one has an argument why not to change it, it will be changed. waiting for arguments. 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Somehow we just have to work Fox's pronunciation of 'Anglia' into the article: University of East-Angula, just to expose them for the bunch of morons they are. Please. Please! :):):) 1812ahill ( talk) 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It’s the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being “confused” by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
Whats say you? Time to include. 71.239.229.241 ( talk) 03:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the phrases "Global-warming skeptics" and "Skeptics" (when in relation to man-made global warming) should not be used. However if (Al Gore's) global warming is the official party position/global religion (and I was not informed) then maybe #2 is correct.
[31] Skeptic
There is no certainty of the authenticity of these documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.246.153 ( talk) 05:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Phil Jones is reported here [32] as saying that the emails appear to be all genuine: "He confirmed that all of the leaked emails that had provoked heated debate – including the now infamous email from 1999 in which he discussed a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures - appeared to be genuine." Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 09:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't the time to make an edit myself, but the best story in the media so far is on cbsnews.com. See this. [33] Also, see the story by Willis Eschenbach. [34] RonCram ( talk) 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Just for context, you guys need to bear in mind what we're talking about here. Early in the formation of the earth, millions of years worth of photosynthesis trapped millions of tons of carbon in living things, which died, sank and got buried and turned into oil, gas and coal. In the last few hundred years, humans have dug up millions of tons of this stuff and burnt it, releasing the carbon as CO₂ etc. That CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and it is now free in the atmosphere: there is no way it can do anything other than trap incoming solar heat and warm the earth's climate. See Effects of global warming for why this matters.
These e-mails are interesting, and some people's future career opportunities may even depend upon the public's reaction to some exact choice of words they made ten years ago and put into writing. But nothing in these e-mails has any bearing on 'the science', as briefly (and crudely, at about Year 8 or 8th-Grade science level) described above. So be very careful from the point of view of WP:BLP about how you report on these guys' choice of words, but please don't allow the media excitement to lead you into thinking that any of what they wrote alters any of the actual science. -- Nigelj ( talk) 08:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This article compromises with the insanity of so-called skeptics, pulling the article away from facts towards a ridiculous bias in favor of uneducated media pundits who steer the conversation towards their own agendas by cherry picking, and Wikipedia's compromise with such absurdities only grants credence to what rightfully has none. Way to maintain a neutral point of view. 'Neutrality' is the first thing I think of when I see tinfoil hat sources cited. -- 66.188.84.217 ( talk) 09:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some crude misunderstanding: this whole affair is in no way about the plausibility of global warming. OT und Nigelj missed the point. 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 11:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me the guys that got their emails stolen were trying to screw the careers of those they didn't like, while trying to fudge data. Name one of them who has denied the emails, they haven't. So this stuff wasn't fabricated. Now this is a political issue no matter how you look at it, WP rules and regs notwithstanding. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to debate either controversy but some critics have pointed out the connection: It's about how some AGW advocates may have shot themselves in the foot and may have damaged their case. This blog post (which I suppose isn't a reliable source) wraps up the connection from the point of view of someone who is still on the mainstream side. [36] (Disclosure: Ilya Somin's POV is pretty much my POV, too.) The potential damage is not among people who know science and evaluate the science themselves -- it's among people who don't know science and therefore rely on the disinterested, fact-based scientific community to provide good, authoritative scientific opinions about global warming. If some top scientists are keeping their data from others and pressuring various scientific journals to stop publishing papers that would otherwise pass muster but for their opinions, it hurts the case that the scientific consensus is based on science and not politics. It seems to me that this is what the debate is all about and this is what we should be looking for in reliable sources. I've seen e-mails online where Michael Mann and others were purportedly discussing political pressure on various scientific journals, and then Mann (in public comments quoted in the media) was disparaging critics for not getting published in scientific journals. There are emails online purporting to be from Michael Mann stating that the RealClimate website was essentially in the pocket of the mainstream side and would skew online discussions unfairly to favor Mann and his colleagues. If the purported problems with the computer code means that some of the published conclusions can't be relied on, that directly damages the mainstream view (reliable sources haven't weighed in on that, so far). The conclusions I'm drawing about this so far are that these are significant issues, and as reliable sources weigh in on it, this should all be covered. It seems to me that reliable sources will inevitably cover all of this, eventually. JohnWBarber ( talk) 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)