![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
What is the article about? Why is the underlying topic significant? There seem to be several possible answers to that (not necesarily mutually excusive):
I think we would benefit by sharing our views of what elements are important and why. If we can come to consensus on this, I think we can more easily discuss what the proper scope and structure of the article should be. MarkNau ( talk) 13:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
An alternative suggestion that seemed to have some support was to start from the known facts:
Which matter to give more prominence is, as discussed above, a matter for discussion, and there may be facts to add to the list. Vague opinions such as "This is another event in a pattern of criminal harassment of climatologists" and outright falsehoods like "This exposed information that calls into question the validity of some climatology data" should be avoided. -- TS 15:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The weight of various aspect of this incident should reflect the focus each aspect is getting from the mass of reliable sources covering the incident.
So far as I can tell, the main focus in mainstream news articles is
Now, let me be clear about my personal take on this. I categorically reject the notion that Climategate is an appropriate term for use in the article. It is predjudicial and strongly implies the CRU scientists were engaged in no-good, which is not supported by any hard facts in the proponderence of reliable sources. Same with the use of the term scandal. Newspapers are looking for readers, and so will use more inflamatory language than we should.
But likewise, there is a real dearth of any mention of tracking down the hackers, the death threats, or past harassment of climatologists. My initial instinct was to say that mention of the police investigating and tracking down the hackers should be mentioned, but I'm having a hard time justifying that from the preponderence of RS coverage. And yes, I know there are other RS than news articles.
Note that pointing to several articles and/or dozens of RS blog entries is not enough to establish that the issue is receiving anything more than a slight side-show minority of focus. I'm not claiming to have researched this conclusively, but will be very doubtful of including anything other something getting a primary or substantial secondary focus from the mass of RS covering this. MarkNau ( talk) 23:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This new article from Associated Press has a lot of information that could be useful. Among other things, it says, "The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total. One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming... It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method." Grundle2600 ( talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article has been edited by TheDJ ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Those accused issued prompt refutations, and the CRU scientists have accused the sceptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit of December 2009,[10] and categorize the entire incident as a smear campaign.
This doesn't read very well. I suggest the following change:
CRU scientists issued prompt refutations and described the incident as a smear campaign, accusing the sceptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit.
Or something along those lines. Viriditas ( talk) 13:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The word "refutations" implies their lies-on-top-of-lies were able to refute anything.
A better word would be "responses." That's what we usually use to describe a lie covering another lie, anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.69.80 ( talk) 15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The word "refutations" seems correct in this case. A refutation is a reasoned objection to the truth of a factual claim, and we should avoid using vague words like "responses" where a more descriptive word is available. I like Viriditas' alternative wording. -- TS 15:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Support, but without "prompt" and with "refuted" replaced with an alternative (e.g. rebutal, response or something else). Prompt: I'm not keen on the word. Those in the public relations industries advocate a prompt response to negative publicity because a quick response can be perceived as a sign of innocence and a delayed response can be perceived as a sign of guilt; both probably with only very limited validity but people are what people are and they tend to have certain preconceptions.
So, with that in mind, "prompt" seems to me to have a POV bent to it - it's making a point that they were quick with their response, which some people might think implies innocence. To me though, prompt would mean the day after someone tells me something (possibly stretching up to the day after that) and, as TS's time line points out, that's not the case with the CRU's response.
Of course my opinion (and, I'm assuming, any other editor's opinion) on whether the response was prompt or not isn't particularly relevant; what we need to know is how reliable sources have characterized the response. Are there any sources that say it was prompt, or not prompt, or even say anything about the time frame of the response? If there aren't I suggest dropping the word.
Refuted: similarly, with the word "refuted", I perceive it to have a slight POV bent to it. The only times I've seen it used (or used it) are when the person believes they have overthrown or disproved the opposing argument - e.g. commonly on forum arguments and Wikipedia arguments. While the CRU scientists obviously believe they have refuted any criticism with respect to the emails (and I would mostly agree with them), Wikipedia should not be asserting that they have refuted (overthrown, disproved) them. Wikipedia should adopt neutral language and state the fact: that they responded (and obviously what their response was).
I don't particularly object to "skeptics" being used in the lead but note that it's the first time it's used in the article so I think it needs a qualification ("skeptics of what?", a reader might want to know). Also, the proposed change says that "CRU scientists [...] accused the skeptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit" but when I read the reference provided, it's actually Kevin Trenberth that is saying that. Is he a CRU scientist? If he's not, then it's not the CRU scientists that are refuting/rebutting/responding with that particular response, it's someone else. You could just drop "CRU" from that bit so that it summarizes scientists' responses in general, or you could leave CRU in and change the text to summarize what the CRU scientists' responses were, rather than what other scientists' responses were. Brumski ( talk) 03:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Place the following sentence in the lead to replace the sentence starting "Those accused issued prompt refutations..."
As of TS 11:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC), all issues raised below have been resolved.
-- TS 11:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December. [1] Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign. [2] [3]
I've altered the phrase "CRU scientists" to "Climate scientists" in the request, and put the request on hold. -- TS 11:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with the revised version that changes "CRU scientists" to "climate scientists". The sentence that will be immediately before this proposed text in the lead states that allegations have been made about climate scientists and this revised version of the proposed edit then makes clear that climate scientists have rebutted the allegations and gives one important example of how they have rebutted it; that seems to be a good way of putting it while being factually faithful to the references used. Note that, on reflection, I'm aware that my last objection to CRU scientists might be slightly pedantic so if others that have already agreed to this text (or yourself) would prefer CRU scientists rather than climate scientists I withdraw the objection; I understand what "CRU scientists" is trying to say and what it is trying to say isn't particularly contrary to the body of the article, even if the references provided with the text don't support it. With respect to Viriditas's version immediately above, WP:Lead says that the lead should be written at a greater level of generality than the body and I feel that version is a little too detailed. Also, the lead should reflect important aspects (that climate scientists reject the allegations) and the reader can read the article to find details of which particular scientist rebut them in which particular way (and that additional particular scientists have rebutted them in additional ways). Brumski ( talk) 13:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The suggested source is a blog by a person without relevant expertise, and cannot be treated as a reliable source.
Graphs showing data variation from icebergs over thousands of years have been left out of this article making it impossible for the ordinary citizen to come to his own conclusion regarding so called global warming. I would like to add the link from [4]
This link clearly shows what that the hockey stick is misleading and that the Middle Age warming period was ignored. The conclusion that the scientists involved committed intentional data massaging is unavoidable. Also there should be an inquiry into the financial relationships proponets of Global warming such as Al Gore have. Large corporations may be able to offshore factories into Asia or India to avoid having to purchase carbon credits in the US and hence be able to underprice their competitors. Oil companies may relish hiding the decline in oil production since 2005 (Peak Oil has already happened) by hiding behing a global warming agenda that rations oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livermore10 ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Did I say that Watts had any skills in meteorology? I don't think I did. As far as I'm aware he has no such skills. He was a TV weatherman. I assume this means he stood up in front of a map and waved his arms around a bit, like the character played by Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. I don't think we have enough evidence to describe him as a qualified meteorologist. Assuming he did, I find it improbable that he would be qualified to have an opinion on climate. -- TS 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
TV weathercasters are not prima facie experts in meteorology. Experts in meteorology are published in scientific journals and have advanced degrees. TV weathercasters appear on TV, and may or may not be published in scientific journals or have advanced degrees. Does this specific individual have an advanced degree or publications in scientific journals? Hipocrite ( talk) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever, as TS noted the material original poster linked seems to be clearly outside the scope of the article in hand. -- J. Sketter ( talk) 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Policy reminders have been added to the FAQ.
Disputes requiring administrative intervention, concerns about edit warring, editorial conduct, general content, BLP issues, original research, NPOV, and reliable sources should be filed at the appropriate noticeboard. This talk page is not the place for extended discussion about these topics. A navigation menu is available here. Viriditas ( talk) 03:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus to perform the edit proved elusive.
To help establish WP:WEIGHT, me and several other editors have argued to avoid including opinion pieces unless the opinion has also been covered by a third-party WP:RS. Currently, we reference the Nature editorial but don't have a WP:RS to cite. I'd like to add the following news article from The Chronicle of Higher Education [5] which references the Nature editorial. This seems to be a minor change. No content is being changed; my proposal is only for adding an additional cite to the end of the paragraph which talks about the editorial. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
We're agreed on the edit. The principle concerned should be discussed rather than taken for granted. -- TS 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Nature is a reliable source on the opinion of Nature, which is intrinsically relevant to any scientific subject. That's the status of Nature, at this point in time. -- TS 23:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If we are falling out over whether or not to include a reference to Chronicle of Higher education that agrees with and supports a reference to Nature, then I'm minded to report this to the list of lamest edit wars. As I said above, I don't think it's necessary but I see where Quest is coming from and am very happy that we have such a constructive contributor to work with here. Itsmejudith ( talk) 23:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me put it this way. When you see editors who:
That tells me there's probably a problem with neutrality. Maybe the editors don't even realize that they're doing this. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
No AQFK, you have not been assuming good faith, at least not in the last several days. You've repeatedly made (mostly unfounded) accusations of bad faith against other editors. You have also refused to take advice on policy from more experienced editors. In addition, you've been guilty of a heck of a lot of wikilawyering. This is just the latest and the most egregious. And it needs to stop. That's all. Guettarda ( talk) 01:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me just state for the record that I agree that the scientific consensus is that global warming is real and is primarily caused by mankind. I also agree that this controversy hasn't altered this consensus. However, this is not an article about global warming. It's an article about the controversy surrounding the leaked e-mails. We need to explain what the controversy is all about. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Interesting but scientifically flawed science backgrounder in a British tabloid newspaper known for its strong political bias
The green line in this graph, which shows a decline in temperature, mysteriously disappears during the duration when it showed a decline. This set of images should be included in the article. Grundle2600 ( talk) 03:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a very interesting piece and does contain some new information. However it's not pure news. For instance the writer David Rose overplays the prominence of climate scepticism and overemphasizes the significance (and perhaps the meaning--I would have to check the context myself) of legitimate doubts expressed in the emails. This is in keeping with the traditions of British journalism, where news stories are often slanted towards the opinions of the editorial staff and proprietors of the newspaper. Daily Mail, I should add, is a tabloid that has always been notorious for its extremely right wing politics. I'm not ruling out citing this piece, but we would have to find a way of circumnavigating the obvious editorial stance. -- TS 09:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Mail has a news Special Investigation with an excellent analysis, including an excellent description that references among others McIntyre's analysis of the "trick...to hide the decline" which I previously submitted above. So this is an unquestionably RS that describes that analysis. The graph and a summary of the description should be included in the article. Here are some excerpts:
Flegelpuss ( talk) 06:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Where did we get this idea that a newspaper is a reliable source on the science of climatology? This is entirely false. -- TS 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The problematic word has been replaced in the article.
The article claims that 'prompt refutations were issued'. This is evidentially incorrect as investigations are continuing. To refute means to disprove. No refutations presentaly exist, only denials do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.79.176 ( talk) 06:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The piece referred to antedates the hacking incident by well over 12 months. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiproganda on Global Warming
Hoggan and Littlemore cover Solomon in Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (2009). It's eye-opening reading. Viriditas ( talk) 04:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
[Adding this bit because of an e/c and because I think it's crucial point that needs to be made, over and over again, if we want to ever manage any kind of successful editing here]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Duplicate discussion topic ( #AP_review_of_stolen_data).
I had added Climate change in the United Kingdom to the See also section of this article but it has since been removed. I would like to have it put back, but in the meantime how about all the talking here is turned into expanding the stub page into a something better. Two hundred edits have already been made on this page today!!-- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 04:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Duplicate discussion topic ( #RFC: Death threats against climate scientists).
Sorry to bring this up again, but it looks to me like this is symptomatic of major problems here. After a long discussion, we agreed to remove death threats from the lead, but not from the article itself. Good decision, reflecting different opinions reaching a reasonable compromise. I see the issue was raised again, with a little more heat than light this time, but no consensus to restore the mention of death threats to the lead. yet there they are. I hope I missed something, and someone can point me to the consensus to this reversion – if so I’ll be happy to remove this section. SPhilbrick T 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(indentation reduced at this point)
No, we would not. See Wikipedia:Coatrack and WP:NPOV. Official investigations, police reports, review boards, ethic inquires into the actions of scientists directly related to the event, are all relevant. Viriditas ( talk) 02:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"The ongoing investigation into this incident is relevant". Yes, you're made your personal opinion abundantly clear. But our own personal opinions don't matter when determining weight. If you disagree with WP:V, that's fine, but this is not the venue to do so. Instead, you should bring this up with the editors of WP:V. If there are any relevent changes to WP:V, please let us know. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)4:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yet another personal attack [8] Please explain why this active discussion was closed down so quickly? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why was this section closed down prematurely? Was it because of Viriditas's repeated personal attacks? If so, isn't the proper course of action to report the personal attacks rather than close down legitimate discussion to improve the article? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW, if there's discussion relevant here, it should be discussed here and not on your personal talk page. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Speculative piece from a single source
More information has come to light regarding the accusation that the FSB were behind it. In the Daily Mail today we learn: -
“Now, it has emerged that IT experts specialising in hacking techniques were brought in by the Russian authorities following this newspaper’s exposure of the Tomsk link. They have gathered evidence about how and where the operation was carried out, although they are not prepared to say at this stage who they think was responsible. A Russian intelligence source claimed the FSB had new information which could cast light on who was behind the elaborate operation. ‘We are not prepared to release details, but we might if the false claims about the FSB’s involvement do not stop,’ he said. ‘The emails were uploaded to the Tomsk server but we are sure this was done from outside Russia.’”
It appears that the Russians know who did it and presume the UK authorities do as well and so this could be a possible blackmail attempt to keep the UK authorities on their toes and may well result in some interesting developments. It is for this reason that I would appreciate it for someone with ‘permission’ to edit the article could include the factual elements that are mentioned in this article regarding the FSB’s denial. Cheers 80.47.207.46 ( talk) 15:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Duplicate discussion topic ( #AP_review_of_stolen_data).
Associated Press spent some effort by assigning several of their reporters to sift through all the material and consult external expert, where required. Their analysis can be found here: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty. I#d suggest to add that under the media section once the protection is lifted.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 15:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See also the earlier discussion J.M. Archer refers to, at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive_9#"This_article_is_not...", and the formal move proposal at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Move_proposal: move this article to "Climatic Research Unit Incident"
The thread starter agrees that the natural process of editing has moved the article towards his ideal during the intermediate period between his first thread and this one.
Since I lacked the free time to return to the last discussion on this, I would like to clarify the points I attempted to make the first time. One of the earlier comments seemed to get the gist of what I was saying, but not quite. I've included his or her comment below:
In fact, I don't have a problem with either of these enumerated facts. What I do have a problem with is the fact that this article is squatting on the most appropriate title for an article specifically covering the controversy that so many people claim is being excluded from the article on the email hacking incident. I'm willing to accept that the "cartel" is justified in focusing this article specifically on the alleged criminal activity, but not with them appropriating the best namespace for an other article to do so.
Is there some reasonable justification for appropriating the "Climategate" page--that being the most commonly accepted name for the controversy stemming from this alleged crime--for no reason other than to have a more search-friendly redirect (I'm assuming there is no more nefarious motive) for the (apparently) completely unrelated email hacking incident chronicled here?
J.M. Archer ( talk) 16:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that other people hold views similar to mine has nothing to do with whether or not I spent the whole weekend putting a new floor in my parents' house.
I fail to see how moving the article to another similar title would alleviate the issue I raised above--although edits while I was not looking have helped to some extent. I think the article still attempts to draw a few more conclusions than are actually warranted for an encyclopedia, but it's much improved over the past few days. I still question the goal of squatting the other title, however: if an article on oranges is not intended to discuss apples, why redirect "apples" to "oranges"?
J.M. Archer ( talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a broader article here -- and that is being prevented two ways:
Now, to be honest, I could care less about what the title of the article is, but I would like to see the article broadened. Specifically, the controversy that has ensued -- whether it is a factually supported controversy or a controversy masterminded by Glenn Beck and right wing lemmings, I simply do not care -- it has been evident through this talk page that if this page is not the place to discuss the controversy then perhaps it should have its own, leaving this page to discuss simply the hacking (and lets be honest, every RS I've read has reported it as hacking, not a release or a leak) incident.
The problem with broadening the article, it seems, is that editors have used one of the two tricks (not tricks like the everyday, commonplace, use of the word, but tricks as defined by Mann :-) ) to restrict that content. Now I am assuming good faith and that the edits, which technically fell outside the scope of the title and the article were indeed just that, outside the scope of the title and the article and thus removing the content seems logical.
My question is this, would these editors have a problem with a page separate from "Climate Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" (this page) called something like one of the following where these discussions that fall outside the scope of the hacking incident can take place? (Please don't nitpick about my decision to use "Controversy", the spirit of my question should be clear.)
Thoughts? jheiv ( talk) 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Working from Tony's outline,
Tony's outline |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
An alternative suggestion that seemed to have some support was to start from the known facts:
|
I would see the article developing something like this:
Summary of the major points of the article
Why the CRU is significant here, mention of/links to the hockey stick issue, and the FOIA issue (if we can find reliable sources for all of that); context with Copenhagen. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident
Theft of the docs; posting to RC and all that. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident
Accusations and death threats. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident
Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident
Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident
Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident.
Guettarda ( talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
That's impressive, I think we can work with that. Read 'what they "really" mean' as "what scientists say they mean". A lot of people have had a go at interpreting the statements of the CRU scientists in email, so it's as well that we clearly distinguish between interpretations by those who have relevant expertise from those who do not. -- TS 12:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I've heard that Trenberth's email linked to the article he had written on the same subject. Can anyone verify that? Evercat ( talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotect}} In the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Jones_email_of_2_Feb_2005 section replace
<ref>{{Cite news|title=Climate Science and Candor|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|pages=1|language=English|publisher=Dow Jones & Company|date=24 November 2009|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html|accessdate=10 December 2009}}</ref> ....<ref name="urlA climate scandal, or is it just hot air? - Climate Change - NZ Herald News">{{cite web |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10612165&pnum=0 |title=A climate scandal, or is it just hot air? - Climate Change - NZ Herald News |format= |work= |accessdate=2009-12-10}}</ref>.. <ref name="urlUniversity in climate flap details inquiry - Climate Change- msnbc.com">{{cite web |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34257159/ns/us_news-environment/ |title=University in climate flap details inquiry - Climate Change- msnbc.com |format= |work= |accessdate=2009-12-10}}</ref>
with
<ref name=wsj_2009-11-24/> ... <ref name= "NZ Herald 28 Nov"/> ... <ref name=msnbc_2009-12-03/>
and the following added under the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#References section
<ref name=wsj_2009-11-24>{{Cite news | title = Climate Science and Candor | newspaper = The Wall Street Journal | pages = 1 | publisher = Dow Jones & Company | date = 2009-11-24 | url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html | accessdate = 10 December 2009 | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m3AzrwzS | archivedate = 2009-12-15 | quote = }}</ref> <ref name=msnbc_2009-12-03>{{cite web | url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34257159/ns/us_news-environment/ | title = University in climate flap details inquiry reach – Outside reviewer named, will eye e-mails for data 'manipulation' | publisher = [[msnbc]] | date = 2009-12-03 | accessdate = 2009-12-10 | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m3AamBR3 | archivedate = 2009-12-15 | quote = }}</ref>
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Accusations of bad faith that have turned up repeatedly on this discussion page are bad for the atmosphere of discussion, and are explicitly banned from all Wikipedia discourse. Please avoid this discussion-killing tactic.
Faq #1 reads "Why is this article not called "Climategate" or have the word "scandal" in its title?" If someone were to come to this page and ask the question, is there any other answer they would get? Now, I should note that the FAQ does not preclude someone from, yet again, proposing that we rename the article. I will go ahead and modify the FAQ to make that clear. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A clear consensus has not emerged for this edit.
This is pretty minor, but in the "Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009" section, we mention that Trenberth wrote the e-mail twice in the same sentence:
"An email written by Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussed gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," Trenberth wrote.
I looked at all the other quotes in the article, and none of them have this trailing attribution. I propose we remove the trailing "Trenberth wrote". A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It seemed innocuous so I did it, but I hadn't seen your opposition, so I've reverted it back to the way it was. Evercat ( talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please avoid launching broad-brush attacks on other editors.
AQFK added the following to Question 1 in the FAQ:
I'm curious about this addition. For one, there was no prior discussion. More importantly, it's misleading: the quote added was not from the NPOV noticeboard, but rather from this page. It's also the opinion of an anon. The IP address has no other edits, and I see no reason why so much weight should be given to any single person, let alone someone who understands either the underlying issues (for example, the IP says "A Google search for +"Climategate" yields 3,050,00 pages", when in fact, if you click through you get about 650 actual hits), nor does the person appear to know anything about our page naming policies.
I strongly feel that this does not belong in the FAQ. Given the recent discussion, I think that AQFK's actions here are extremely inappropriate. Guettarda ( talk) 04:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the NPOV notice fromt FAQ question 1 because we already have a notice about this (two, in fact) at the top of this talk page. How many times do we have to mention the NPOV noticeboard in connection with an article? -- TS 10:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion stalled two days ago and there is nothing to suggest that a productive proposal will arise.
The so-called climate change "skeptics" are actually deniers or contrarians. They are a small, but vocal minority, and the media provides them with a lot of airtime. There are a number of very close similarities between the relationship the contarians have with the media and the vocal anti-vaccination movement. I suggest that the word "skeptics" should not be associated with these contrarians, as it implies that their skepticism is based on actual science. Viriditas ( talk) 06:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"Skeptic" might not be the best word to use, but nevertheless, it is the term that reliable sources are using. It's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
A much more neutral, and in my opinion, emotionally appealing wording, could be "climate change opponents" or "AGW opponents" or whatever, depending on what exactly you're talking about. It happens to be exactly what this group of people is; they're opponents of climate change. It doesn't whitewash the nature of the subject and it's not like we're insulting them, either. Macai ( talk) 17:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal - collapse this section as irrelevant. This section is a monumental waste of time. Viriditas with a nonsensical claim, "The so-called climate change "skeptics" are actually deniers or contrarians". Nonsensical, because the targets aren't even identified. Impossible to prove or refute, and irrelevant to improving the article. I suggest this section be collapsed so others aren't forced to waste their time reading it. Any objection?-- SPhilbrick T 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we call conspiracy theorists "truth sayers" or "truthers"? I hope not, nor should we use the word sceptic here. Denier and contrarian has indeed been used in the literature. However, in the interest of neutrality I think the suggestion by Macai is a good one: "AGW opponents" or "opponents of AGW" etc.
—
Apis (
talk)
03:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the problem of semantics does not end there. The most responsible scientists and journalists take it as a matter of professional pride that they should be skeptical of claims, of new findings, of new evidence…of virtually all the information that comes across their desks in the course of their work. To these individuals, being called a “skeptic” is a badge of honor.
So what term do they then use in referring to that small but often vocal cadre of scientists and others who consistently rebut what many climate scientists have come to accept as settled scientific conclusions concerning the warming of the Earth and the factors contributing to that warming?
Many scientists refer to those who do not accept the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change as skeptics, but there is also a sense among the scientific community that the term has been misappropriated. To address this confusion, climate scientists have suggested a variety of different terms to describe this small group of people who reject the science of climate change. These terms include "contrarians," "deniers," "denialists," and even "professional skeptics."
For the purposes of this report... The term "contrarians" will be used here as an alternative to "skeptics," given the applicability of the former word to the scientific and journalistic communities alike.
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
What is the article about? Why is the underlying topic significant? There seem to be several possible answers to that (not necesarily mutually excusive):
I think we would benefit by sharing our views of what elements are important and why. If we can come to consensus on this, I think we can more easily discuss what the proper scope and structure of the article should be. MarkNau ( talk) 13:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
An alternative suggestion that seemed to have some support was to start from the known facts:
Which matter to give more prominence is, as discussed above, a matter for discussion, and there may be facts to add to the list. Vague opinions such as "This is another event in a pattern of criminal harassment of climatologists" and outright falsehoods like "This exposed information that calls into question the validity of some climatology data" should be avoided. -- TS 15:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The weight of various aspect of this incident should reflect the focus each aspect is getting from the mass of reliable sources covering the incident.
So far as I can tell, the main focus in mainstream news articles is
Now, let me be clear about my personal take on this. I categorically reject the notion that Climategate is an appropriate term for use in the article. It is predjudicial and strongly implies the CRU scientists were engaged in no-good, which is not supported by any hard facts in the proponderence of reliable sources. Same with the use of the term scandal. Newspapers are looking for readers, and so will use more inflamatory language than we should.
But likewise, there is a real dearth of any mention of tracking down the hackers, the death threats, or past harassment of climatologists. My initial instinct was to say that mention of the police investigating and tracking down the hackers should be mentioned, but I'm having a hard time justifying that from the preponderence of RS coverage. And yes, I know there are other RS than news articles.
Note that pointing to several articles and/or dozens of RS blog entries is not enough to establish that the issue is receiving anything more than a slight side-show minority of focus. I'm not claiming to have researched this conclusively, but will be very doubtful of including anything other something getting a primary or substantial secondary focus from the mass of RS covering this. MarkNau ( talk) 23:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This new article from Associated Press has a lot of information that could be useful. Among other things, it says, "The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total. One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming... It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method." Grundle2600 ( talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article has been edited by TheDJ ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Those accused issued prompt refutations, and the CRU scientists have accused the sceptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit of December 2009,[10] and categorize the entire incident as a smear campaign.
This doesn't read very well. I suggest the following change:
CRU scientists issued prompt refutations and described the incident as a smear campaign, accusing the sceptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit.
Or something along those lines. Viriditas ( talk) 13:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The word "refutations" implies their lies-on-top-of-lies were able to refute anything.
A better word would be "responses." That's what we usually use to describe a lie covering another lie, anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.69.80 ( talk) 15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The word "refutations" seems correct in this case. A refutation is a reasoned objection to the truth of a factual claim, and we should avoid using vague words like "responses" where a more descriptive word is available. I like Viriditas' alternative wording. -- TS 15:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Support, but without "prompt" and with "refuted" replaced with an alternative (e.g. rebutal, response or something else). Prompt: I'm not keen on the word. Those in the public relations industries advocate a prompt response to negative publicity because a quick response can be perceived as a sign of innocence and a delayed response can be perceived as a sign of guilt; both probably with only very limited validity but people are what people are and they tend to have certain preconceptions.
So, with that in mind, "prompt" seems to me to have a POV bent to it - it's making a point that they were quick with their response, which some people might think implies innocence. To me though, prompt would mean the day after someone tells me something (possibly stretching up to the day after that) and, as TS's time line points out, that's not the case with the CRU's response.
Of course my opinion (and, I'm assuming, any other editor's opinion) on whether the response was prompt or not isn't particularly relevant; what we need to know is how reliable sources have characterized the response. Are there any sources that say it was prompt, or not prompt, or even say anything about the time frame of the response? If there aren't I suggest dropping the word.
Refuted: similarly, with the word "refuted", I perceive it to have a slight POV bent to it. The only times I've seen it used (or used it) are when the person believes they have overthrown or disproved the opposing argument - e.g. commonly on forum arguments and Wikipedia arguments. While the CRU scientists obviously believe they have refuted any criticism with respect to the emails (and I would mostly agree with them), Wikipedia should not be asserting that they have refuted (overthrown, disproved) them. Wikipedia should adopt neutral language and state the fact: that they responded (and obviously what their response was).
I don't particularly object to "skeptics" being used in the lead but note that it's the first time it's used in the article so I think it needs a qualification ("skeptics of what?", a reader might want to know). Also, the proposed change says that "CRU scientists [...] accused the skeptics of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit" but when I read the reference provided, it's actually Kevin Trenberth that is saying that. Is he a CRU scientist? If he's not, then it's not the CRU scientists that are refuting/rebutting/responding with that particular response, it's someone else. You could just drop "CRU" from that bit so that it summarizes scientists' responses in general, or you could leave CRU in and change the text to summarize what the CRU scientists' responses were, rather than what other scientists' responses were. Brumski ( talk) 03:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Place the following sentence in the lead to replace the sentence starting "Those accused issued prompt refutations..."
As of TS 11:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC), all issues raised below have been resolved.
-- TS 11:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December. [1] Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign. [2] [3]
I've altered the phrase "CRU scientists" to "Climate scientists" in the request, and put the request on hold. -- TS 11:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with the revised version that changes "CRU scientists" to "climate scientists". The sentence that will be immediately before this proposed text in the lead states that allegations have been made about climate scientists and this revised version of the proposed edit then makes clear that climate scientists have rebutted the allegations and gives one important example of how they have rebutted it; that seems to be a good way of putting it while being factually faithful to the references used. Note that, on reflection, I'm aware that my last objection to CRU scientists might be slightly pedantic so if others that have already agreed to this text (or yourself) would prefer CRU scientists rather than climate scientists I withdraw the objection; I understand what "CRU scientists" is trying to say and what it is trying to say isn't particularly contrary to the body of the article, even if the references provided with the text don't support it. With respect to Viriditas's version immediately above, WP:Lead says that the lead should be written at a greater level of generality than the body and I feel that version is a little too detailed. Also, the lead should reflect important aspects (that climate scientists reject the allegations) and the reader can read the article to find details of which particular scientist rebut them in which particular way (and that additional particular scientists have rebutted them in additional ways). Brumski ( talk) 13:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The suggested source is a blog by a person without relevant expertise, and cannot be treated as a reliable source.
Graphs showing data variation from icebergs over thousands of years have been left out of this article making it impossible for the ordinary citizen to come to his own conclusion regarding so called global warming. I would like to add the link from [4]
This link clearly shows what that the hockey stick is misleading and that the Middle Age warming period was ignored. The conclusion that the scientists involved committed intentional data massaging is unavoidable. Also there should be an inquiry into the financial relationships proponets of Global warming such as Al Gore have. Large corporations may be able to offshore factories into Asia or India to avoid having to purchase carbon credits in the US and hence be able to underprice their competitors. Oil companies may relish hiding the decline in oil production since 2005 (Peak Oil has already happened) by hiding behing a global warming agenda that rations oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livermore10 ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Did I say that Watts had any skills in meteorology? I don't think I did. As far as I'm aware he has no such skills. He was a TV weatherman. I assume this means he stood up in front of a map and waved his arms around a bit, like the character played by Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. I don't think we have enough evidence to describe him as a qualified meteorologist. Assuming he did, I find it improbable that he would be qualified to have an opinion on climate. -- TS 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
TV weathercasters are not prima facie experts in meteorology. Experts in meteorology are published in scientific journals and have advanced degrees. TV weathercasters appear on TV, and may or may not be published in scientific journals or have advanced degrees. Does this specific individual have an advanced degree or publications in scientific journals? Hipocrite ( talk) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever, as TS noted the material original poster linked seems to be clearly outside the scope of the article in hand. -- J. Sketter ( talk) 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Policy reminders have been added to the FAQ.
Disputes requiring administrative intervention, concerns about edit warring, editorial conduct, general content, BLP issues, original research, NPOV, and reliable sources should be filed at the appropriate noticeboard. This talk page is not the place for extended discussion about these topics. A navigation menu is available here. Viriditas ( talk) 03:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus to perform the edit proved elusive.
To help establish WP:WEIGHT, me and several other editors have argued to avoid including opinion pieces unless the opinion has also been covered by a third-party WP:RS. Currently, we reference the Nature editorial but don't have a WP:RS to cite. I'd like to add the following news article from The Chronicle of Higher Education [5] which references the Nature editorial. This seems to be a minor change. No content is being changed; my proposal is only for adding an additional cite to the end of the paragraph which talks about the editorial. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
We're agreed on the edit. The principle concerned should be discussed rather than taken for granted. -- TS 22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Nature is a reliable source on the opinion of Nature, which is intrinsically relevant to any scientific subject. That's the status of Nature, at this point in time. -- TS 23:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If we are falling out over whether or not to include a reference to Chronicle of Higher education that agrees with and supports a reference to Nature, then I'm minded to report this to the list of lamest edit wars. As I said above, I don't think it's necessary but I see where Quest is coming from and am very happy that we have such a constructive contributor to work with here. Itsmejudith ( talk) 23:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me put it this way. When you see editors who:
That tells me there's probably a problem with neutrality. Maybe the editors don't even realize that they're doing this. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
No AQFK, you have not been assuming good faith, at least not in the last several days. You've repeatedly made (mostly unfounded) accusations of bad faith against other editors. You have also refused to take advice on policy from more experienced editors. In addition, you've been guilty of a heck of a lot of wikilawyering. This is just the latest and the most egregious. And it needs to stop. That's all. Guettarda ( talk) 01:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me just state for the record that I agree that the scientific consensus is that global warming is real and is primarily caused by mankind. I also agree that this controversy hasn't altered this consensus. However, this is not an article about global warming. It's an article about the controversy surrounding the leaked e-mails. We need to explain what the controversy is all about. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Interesting but scientifically flawed science backgrounder in a British tabloid newspaper known for its strong political bias
The green line in this graph, which shows a decline in temperature, mysteriously disappears during the duration when it showed a decline. This set of images should be included in the article. Grundle2600 ( talk) 03:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a very interesting piece and does contain some new information. However it's not pure news. For instance the writer David Rose overplays the prominence of climate scepticism and overemphasizes the significance (and perhaps the meaning--I would have to check the context myself) of legitimate doubts expressed in the emails. This is in keeping with the traditions of British journalism, where news stories are often slanted towards the opinions of the editorial staff and proprietors of the newspaper. Daily Mail, I should add, is a tabloid that has always been notorious for its extremely right wing politics. I'm not ruling out citing this piece, but we would have to find a way of circumnavigating the obvious editorial stance. -- TS 09:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Mail has a news Special Investigation with an excellent analysis, including an excellent description that references among others McIntyre's analysis of the "trick...to hide the decline" which I previously submitted above. So this is an unquestionably RS that describes that analysis. The graph and a summary of the description should be included in the article. Here are some excerpts:
Flegelpuss ( talk) 06:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Where did we get this idea that a newspaper is a reliable source on the science of climatology? This is entirely false. -- TS 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The problematic word has been replaced in the article.
The article claims that 'prompt refutations were issued'. This is evidentially incorrect as investigations are continuing. To refute means to disprove. No refutations presentaly exist, only denials do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.79.176 ( talk) 06:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The piece referred to antedates the hacking incident by well over 12 months. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiproganda on Global Warming
Hoggan and Littlemore cover Solomon in Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (2009). It's eye-opening reading. Viriditas ( talk) 04:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
[Adding this bit because of an e/c and because I think it's crucial point that needs to be made, over and over again, if we want to ever manage any kind of successful editing here]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Duplicate discussion topic ( #AP_review_of_stolen_data).
I had added Climate change in the United Kingdom to the See also section of this article but it has since been removed. I would like to have it put back, but in the meantime how about all the talking here is turned into expanding the stub page into a something better. Two hundred edits have already been made on this page today!!-- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 04:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Duplicate discussion topic ( #RFC: Death threats against climate scientists).
Sorry to bring this up again, but it looks to me like this is symptomatic of major problems here. After a long discussion, we agreed to remove death threats from the lead, but not from the article itself. Good decision, reflecting different opinions reaching a reasonable compromise. I see the issue was raised again, with a little more heat than light this time, but no consensus to restore the mention of death threats to the lead. yet there they are. I hope I missed something, and someone can point me to the consensus to this reversion – if so I’ll be happy to remove this section. SPhilbrick T 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(indentation reduced at this point)
No, we would not. See Wikipedia:Coatrack and WP:NPOV. Official investigations, police reports, review boards, ethic inquires into the actions of scientists directly related to the event, are all relevant. Viriditas ( talk) 02:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"The ongoing investigation into this incident is relevant". Yes, you're made your personal opinion abundantly clear. But our own personal opinions don't matter when determining weight. If you disagree with WP:V, that's fine, but this is not the venue to do so. Instead, you should bring this up with the editors of WP:V. If there are any relevent changes to WP:V, please let us know. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)4:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yet another personal attack [8] Please explain why this active discussion was closed down so quickly? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why was this section closed down prematurely? Was it because of Viriditas's repeated personal attacks? If so, isn't the proper course of action to report the personal attacks rather than close down legitimate discussion to improve the article? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW, if there's discussion relevant here, it should be discussed here and not on your personal talk page. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Speculative piece from a single source
More information has come to light regarding the accusation that the FSB were behind it. In the Daily Mail today we learn: -
“Now, it has emerged that IT experts specialising in hacking techniques were brought in by the Russian authorities following this newspaper’s exposure of the Tomsk link. They have gathered evidence about how and where the operation was carried out, although they are not prepared to say at this stage who they think was responsible. A Russian intelligence source claimed the FSB had new information which could cast light on who was behind the elaborate operation. ‘We are not prepared to release details, but we might if the false claims about the FSB’s involvement do not stop,’ he said. ‘The emails were uploaded to the Tomsk server but we are sure this was done from outside Russia.’”
It appears that the Russians know who did it and presume the UK authorities do as well and so this could be a possible blackmail attempt to keep the UK authorities on their toes and may well result in some interesting developments. It is for this reason that I would appreciate it for someone with ‘permission’ to edit the article could include the factual elements that are mentioned in this article regarding the FSB’s denial. Cheers 80.47.207.46 ( talk) 15:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Duplicate discussion topic ( #AP_review_of_stolen_data).
Associated Press spent some effort by assigning several of their reporters to sift through all the material and consult external expert, where required. Their analysis can be found here: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty. I#d suggest to add that under the media section once the protection is lifted.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 15:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See also the earlier discussion J.M. Archer refers to, at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive_9#"This_article_is_not...", and the formal move proposal at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Move_proposal: move this article to "Climatic Research Unit Incident"
The thread starter agrees that the natural process of editing has moved the article towards his ideal during the intermediate period between his first thread and this one.
Since I lacked the free time to return to the last discussion on this, I would like to clarify the points I attempted to make the first time. One of the earlier comments seemed to get the gist of what I was saying, but not quite. I've included his or her comment below:
In fact, I don't have a problem with either of these enumerated facts. What I do have a problem with is the fact that this article is squatting on the most appropriate title for an article specifically covering the controversy that so many people claim is being excluded from the article on the email hacking incident. I'm willing to accept that the "cartel" is justified in focusing this article specifically on the alleged criminal activity, but not with them appropriating the best namespace for an other article to do so.
Is there some reasonable justification for appropriating the "Climategate" page--that being the most commonly accepted name for the controversy stemming from this alleged crime--for no reason other than to have a more search-friendly redirect (I'm assuming there is no more nefarious motive) for the (apparently) completely unrelated email hacking incident chronicled here?
J.M. Archer ( talk) 16:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that other people hold views similar to mine has nothing to do with whether or not I spent the whole weekend putting a new floor in my parents' house.
I fail to see how moving the article to another similar title would alleviate the issue I raised above--although edits while I was not looking have helped to some extent. I think the article still attempts to draw a few more conclusions than are actually warranted for an encyclopedia, but it's much improved over the past few days. I still question the goal of squatting the other title, however: if an article on oranges is not intended to discuss apples, why redirect "apples" to "oranges"?
J.M. Archer ( talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a broader article here -- and that is being prevented two ways:
Now, to be honest, I could care less about what the title of the article is, but I would like to see the article broadened. Specifically, the controversy that has ensued -- whether it is a factually supported controversy or a controversy masterminded by Glenn Beck and right wing lemmings, I simply do not care -- it has been evident through this talk page that if this page is not the place to discuss the controversy then perhaps it should have its own, leaving this page to discuss simply the hacking (and lets be honest, every RS I've read has reported it as hacking, not a release or a leak) incident.
The problem with broadening the article, it seems, is that editors have used one of the two tricks (not tricks like the everyday, commonplace, use of the word, but tricks as defined by Mann :-) ) to restrict that content. Now I am assuming good faith and that the edits, which technically fell outside the scope of the title and the article were indeed just that, outside the scope of the title and the article and thus removing the content seems logical.
My question is this, would these editors have a problem with a page separate from "Climate Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" (this page) called something like one of the following where these discussions that fall outside the scope of the hacking incident can take place? (Please don't nitpick about my decision to use "Controversy", the spirit of my question should be clear.)
Thoughts? jheiv ( talk) 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Working from Tony's outline,
Tony's outline |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
An alternative suggestion that seemed to have some support was to start from the known facts:
|
I would see the article developing something like this:
Summary of the major points of the article
Why the CRU is significant here, mention of/links to the hockey stick issue, and the FOIA issue (if we can find reliable sources for all of that); context with Copenhagen. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident
Theft of the docs; posting to RC and all that. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident
Accusations and death threats. Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident
Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident
Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident
Comments and reactions that are relevant to this portion of the incident.
Guettarda ( talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
That's impressive, I think we can work with that. Read 'what they "really" mean' as "what scientists say they mean". A lot of people have had a go at interpreting the statements of the CRU scientists in email, so it's as well that we clearly distinguish between interpretations by those who have relevant expertise from those who do not. -- TS 12:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I've heard that Trenberth's email linked to the article he had written on the same subject. Can anyone verify that? Evercat ( talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotect}} In the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Jones_email_of_2_Feb_2005 section replace
<ref>{{Cite news|title=Climate Science and Candor|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|pages=1|language=English|publisher=Dow Jones & Company|date=24 November 2009|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html|accessdate=10 December 2009}}</ref> ....<ref name="urlA climate scandal, or is it just hot air? - Climate Change - NZ Herald News">{{cite web |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10612165&pnum=0 |title=A climate scandal, or is it just hot air? - Climate Change - NZ Herald News |format= |work= |accessdate=2009-12-10}}</ref>.. <ref name="urlUniversity in climate flap details inquiry - Climate Change- msnbc.com">{{cite web |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34257159/ns/us_news-environment/ |title=University in climate flap details inquiry - Climate Change- msnbc.com |format= |work= |accessdate=2009-12-10}}</ref>
with
<ref name=wsj_2009-11-24/> ... <ref name= "NZ Herald 28 Nov"/> ... <ref name=msnbc_2009-12-03/>
and the following added under the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#References section
<ref name=wsj_2009-11-24>{{Cite news | title = Climate Science and Candor | newspaper = The Wall Street Journal | pages = 1 | publisher = Dow Jones & Company | date = 2009-11-24 | url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html | accessdate = 10 December 2009 | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m3AzrwzS | archivedate = 2009-12-15 | quote = }}</ref> <ref name=msnbc_2009-12-03>{{cite web | url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34257159/ns/us_news-environment/ | title = University in climate flap details inquiry reach – Outside reviewer named, will eye e-mails for data 'manipulation' | publisher = [[msnbc]] | date = 2009-12-03 | accessdate = 2009-12-10 | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m3AamBR3 | archivedate = 2009-12-15 | quote = }}</ref>
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Accusations of bad faith that have turned up repeatedly on this discussion page are bad for the atmosphere of discussion, and are explicitly banned from all Wikipedia discourse. Please avoid this discussion-killing tactic.
Faq #1 reads "Why is this article not called "Climategate" or have the word "scandal" in its title?" If someone were to come to this page and ask the question, is there any other answer they would get? Now, I should note that the FAQ does not preclude someone from, yet again, proposing that we rename the article. I will go ahead and modify the FAQ to make that clear. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A clear consensus has not emerged for this edit.
This is pretty minor, but in the "Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009" section, we mention that Trenberth wrote the e-mail twice in the same sentence:
"An email written by Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussed gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," Trenberth wrote.
I looked at all the other quotes in the article, and none of them have this trailing attribution. I propose we remove the trailing "Trenberth wrote". A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It seemed innocuous so I did it, but I hadn't seen your opposition, so I've reverted it back to the way it was. Evercat ( talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please avoid launching broad-brush attacks on other editors.
AQFK added the following to Question 1 in the FAQ:
I'm curious about this addition. For one, there was no prior discussion. More importantly, it's misleading: the quote added was not from the NPOV noticeboard, but rather from this page. It's also the opinion of an anon. The IP address has no other edits, and I see no reason why so much weight should be given to any single person, let alone someone who understands either the underlying issues (for example, the IP says "A Google search for +"Climategate" yields 3,050,00 pages", when in fact, if you click through you get about 650 actual hits), nor does the person appear to know anything about our page naming policies.
I strongly feel that this does not belong in the FAQ. Given the recent discussion, I think that AQFK's actions here are extremely inappropriate. Guettarda ( talk) 04:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the NPOV notice fromt FAQ question 1 because we already have a notice about this (two, in fact) at the top of this talk page. How many times do we have to mention the NPOV noticeboard in connection with an article? -- TS 10:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion stalled two days ago and there is nothing to suggest that a productive proposal will arise.
The so-called climate change "skeptics" are actually deniers or contrarians. They are a small, but vocal minority, and the media provides them with a lot of airtime. There are a number of very close similarities between the relationship the contarians have with the media and the vocal anti-vaccination movement. I suggest that the word "skeptics" should not be associated with these contrarians, as it implies that their skepticism is based on actual science. Viriditas ( talk) 06:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"Skeptic" might not be the best word to use, but nevertheless, it is the term that reliable sources are using. It's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
A much more neutral, and in my opinion, emotionally appealing wording, could be "climate change opponents" or "AGW opponents" or whatever, depending on what exactly you're talking about. It happens to be exactly what this group of people is; they're opponents of climate change. It doesn't whitewash the nature of the subject and it's not like we're insulting them, either. Macai ( talk) 17:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal - collapse this section as irrelevant. This section is a monumental waste of time. Viriditas with a nonsensical claim, "The so-called climate change "skeptics" are actually deniers or contrarians". Nonsensical, because the targets aren't even identified. Impossible to prove or refute, and irrelevant to improving the article. I suggest this section be collapsed so others aren't forced to waste their time reading it. Any objection?-- SPhilbrick T 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we call conspiracy theorists "truth sayers" or "truthers"? I hope not, nor should we use the word sceptic here. Denier and contrarian has indeed been used in the literature. However, in the interest of neutrality I think the suggestion by Macai is a good one: "AGW opponents" or "opponents of AGW" etc.
—
Apis (
talk)
03:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the problem of semantics does not end there. The most responsible scientists and journalists take it as a matter of professional pride that they should be skeptical of claims, of new findings, of new evidence…of virtually all the information that comes across their desks in the course of their work. To these individuals, being called a “skeptic” is a badge of honor.
So what term do they then use in referring to that small but often vocal cadre of scientists and others who consistently rebut what many climate scientists have come to accept as settled scientific conclusions concerning the warming of the Earth and the factors contributing to that warming?
Many scientists refer to those who do not accept the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change as skeptics, but there is also a sense among the scientific community that the term has been misappropriated. To address this confusion, climate scientists have suggested a variety of different terms to describe this small group of people who reject the science of climate change. These terms include "contrarians," "deniers," "denialists," and even "professional skeptics."
For the purposes of this report... The term "contrarians" will be used here as an alternative to "skeptics," given the applicability of the former word to the scientific and journalistic communities alike.