Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:41, 15 April 2010

Template:Community article probation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Weather Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Climate change Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computer Security: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Climatic Research Unit email controversy was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 November 2009.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about anthropogenic climate change or associated disputes at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate"? A1: There have been numerous discussions on this subject on the talk page. The current title is not the common name, as is generally used for Misplaced Pages articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent Requested move discussion has indicated that there is no consensus to move the article to the title of Climategate, and so further discussion of the article title has been tabled until at least June 2011. Q2: Why aren't there links to various emails? A2: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Misplaced Pages avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to Copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email. Q3: Why is/isn't a specific blog being used as a source? A3: Blogs are not typically reliable sources. Blogs may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Q4: Aren't the emails/other documents in the public domain? A4: No. Some of the hacked documents are covered by Crown copyright, others by private copyright. The Freedom of Information Act does not affect copyright. Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ? A5: Misplaced Pages reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary have said that the information was released through an attack carried out remotely via the Internet and that there is no evidence of anyone associated with the University being associated with the crime. Both the University and a science blog, RealClimate , have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained". Q6: Why is there a biographies of living persons (BLP) notice at the top of this page? This article is about an event, and the Climatic Research Unit is not a living person. A6: The BLP applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages, specifically to all potentially negative statements about living persons. It does not apply solely to articles about living persons. The notice is there to remind us to take care that all statements regarding identifiable living persons mentioned in the article or talk page comply with all Misplaced Pages policies and with the law, per the BLP. Q7: What do I do if I have a complaint about the conduct of other people editing or discussing this article? A7: Follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional. Unduly cluttering the talk page with complaints about other editors' behavior is wasteful. In the case of egregiously bad conduct only, consider contacting an administrator. Q8: I think there is inadequate consensus on a matter of policy. What should I do? A8: There are several options. Consider posting the issue on one of the noticeboards, or starting a request for comment (RFC) on the question. Q9: Why doesn't the article report that BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson received an advance copy of the leaked content? A9: Because it isn't true. In fact, the only involvement Paul Hudson reports (see here) is that he had been the subject of emailed complaints from CRU climatologists concerning a blog article he had recently published, and that he was able to confirm that those emailed complaints which had been copied to him by the senders, and which later appeared in the zip file of stolen documents, were authentic. That is to say, Hudson received some of the later leaked e-mails, but only those originally also addressed to him or the BBC, which forwarded them. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. This was also confirmed by the BBC on the 27th November 2009 and on the 13th March 2010 when the issue arose again. Q10: Newspapers have reported that this article and a lot of the global warming articles are being controlled and manipulated. Why don't we report that? A10: The items in question are opinion columns by James Delingpole and Lawrence Solomon. Misplaced Pages's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Misplaced Pages article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Misplaced Pages coverage to be a major part of the controversy. There is no consensus that the two opinion columns meet this criterion. This does not preclude coverage of those writers' opinions on Misplaced Pages in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Misplaced Pages, but that would be a matter for the editors of those individual articles. On specific charges against an individual named by Lawrence Solomon and repeated uncritically by James Delingpole, please see this discussion on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.

Issues related to this article have been raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard on 21 November 2009 (archived) 28 November 2009 (archived) 31 December 2009 (archived) 6 January 2010 (archived) and at Neutral point of view noticeboard on 7 December 2009 (active as of December 15, 2009) and at Requested moves on 11 December 2009 (failed) 23 December 2009 (failed) 17 February, 2010 (failed) 17 March, 2010 (successful)

Way forward

Contentious BLP material has now been removed from the lead, awaiting consensus. As discussed at #Vindication is not yet properly reflected in the lede above, we had some degree of agreement about this version. Following discussions and various edits, this version attempted to meet the requirement of accurately showing various shades of views about the implications of the emails:

The emails prompted widespread publicity and allegations by climate change skeptics that they showed evidence that climate scientists manipulated data, withheld scientific information, and tried to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published. A few other commentators such as Roger A. Pielke said that the evidence supported claims that dissenting scientific papers had been suppressed. The university and CRU scientists issued rebuttals, and a number of academics, climate change researchers and independent reports stated that most or all of the allegations were baseless, though some expressed concern that scientists appeared to have avoided sharing scientific data with critics.

References

1. Hickman, Leo (2009-11-20). "Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-11-24.
2. Revkin, Andrew C. (20 November 2009). "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute". The New York Times.
3. ^ Johnson, Keith (23 November 2009), Climate Emails Stoke Debate, Wall Street Journal, retrieved 03 April 2010 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
4. Randerson, James (2010-01-27). "University in hacked climate change emails row broke FOI rules". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-01-28. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
5. ^ Fahrenthold, David A.; Eilperin, Juliet (05 December 2010), In e-mails, science of warming is hot debate, Washington Post, retrieved 03 April 2010 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
6. Moore, Matthew (2009-11-24). "Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims". London: The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2010-01-08. Retrieved 2010-01-08. said Lord Lawson, Margaret Thatcher's former chancellor who has reinvented himself as a critic of climate change science. "They were talking about destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act and they were trying to prevent other dissenting scientists from having their articles published in learned journals. "It may be that there's an innocent explanation for all this... but there needs to be a fundamental independent inquiry to get at the truth."
7. ""Climategate"". FactCheck.org. 2009-12-10, corrected 2009-12-22. Retrieved 2010-01-04. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
8. "Climategate: Science Not Faked, But Not Pretty". Associated Press. 2009-12-03. Retrieved 2009-12-29.

If editors can please provide reliable secondary sources showing any other views, we should be able to modify that wording to give due weight to the various views that have been expressed, to meet the NPOV and BLP requirements discussed above. Proposals welcome, . dave souza, talk 08:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref 2 also mentions Dr. Michaels who is not exactly a GW skeptic, just questioning the details of the science. If we're going to mention climate skeptics, we need to mention the non-skeptics mentioned in those articles, even if we aren't carefully selecting the references to support the AGW point of view.

Ref 6 (in the old copy of the article, Ref 8 here) (and the quote) also notes evidence for deleting E-mails, which should be mentioned in the text.

Ref 7 (in the old copy of the article, Reg 9 here) (factcheck.org) needs verification of credibility. It seems a partizan organization, and the "article" reads like an editorial.

Except for that, and possible selection bias in removing other references which support other points of view, the paragraph seems reasonable for the lede. (It being factually wrong is not a reason to adjust it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I've suggested in the section above that "climate change skeptics and other commentators" or similar language would effectively communicate the basics in the lead, cited to RSs for both. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to refer to Michaels as a GW skeptic, as discussed on his own wiki article. Regarding the evidence for deleting evidence in ref. 6 (to clarify, are you referring to Matthew Moore's 24 Nov 2009 article), I don't see it. It says "seem to show that academics on both sides of the Atlantic discussed deleting sensitive emails", i.e. that it only "seems" that there was a "discussion" of deleting e-mails. Still worthy of inclusion, but it needs to be accurate. I agree that a different source to factcheck.org may be warranted. (Having read more about factcheck.org and the article itself, I may have been a little unfair. It seems like a reliable source, but it might not be necessary to have three citations for the given claim. StuartH (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

Since there was a simultaneous edit-war over the inclusion of the parliamentary review findings, perhaps it is also appropriate to discuss exactly what is wrong with that section and how it can be approved, without confusing WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:BLP. StuartH (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

W.r.t. I think it is reasonable to refer to Michaels as a GW skeptic... : Sure, I suppose. Pielke is a tougher call. So are a few others that made accusations in the early stages of the controversy. As I said in the section above, don't know offhand how many don't clearly fall in the class of persons reasonably called "climate change skeptics" but it seems to me "and other commentators" ought cover it. Just my perspective on this. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• The important thing to do is to see what criticisms each made – Pielke is specifically mentioned in the cited source as one of a few, and his concern about problems getting papers through peer review. The issue is explored rather inconclusively in Part six: Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics | Environment | guardian.co.uk which has a rather inflammatory headline (presumably by the subeditor) but essentially raises the issue that peer review is about stopping publication of poor quality papers, as was clearly the case in examples discussed in the emails. By the way, it mentions "Sceptical climatologist and Cato Institute fellow Pat Michaels", the Dr. Michaels discussed above. Part 11: 'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review | Environment | guardian.co.uk mentions some of the scientists defending CRU's work, and also a number of critics including Judy Curry who comments on the openness of data, as well as Hans von Storch whose statements are a bit ambivalent. A point about FactCheck, it was raised early in the discussions as a trusted and neutral source, a non-partisan, nonprofit website. As for the article at the moment, it still lacks any indication of the range of views, only showing the sceptical allegations. Improvement is needed as soon as possible. . . dave souza, talk 14:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

CEI is non-partisan, as well, and the FactCheck article was partisan, even if the organization is nominally non-partisan, so it's inappropriate for the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought FactCheck.org fits the definition of a WP:RS and WP:SOURCES to a tee. Do we need to prove again on Talk by citing to other RSs that it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Anyway, no biggie, though it did provide reliable secondary-source support for the word "skeptics". Was part of the issue that they didn't explicitly say "climate change skeptics"? ... Kenosis (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's more that it's disputed, and in the lede, it was one of 3 RS's, so it doesn't seem necessary. All I can say is that that particular FactCheck page reads like a rant, rather than an article, so more detailed fact-checking seems needed. If they do fact-check and often make it read like a rant, that might be different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard previous. I've restored FactCheck without tags. My bad. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any big problems or issues here, it looks as though with minor adjustments we can have consensus on a version we can live with, and review in future for further improvement. Regarding Ref 6 (in the old copy of the article, Ref 8 here), it starts with the emails "also seem to show that academics on both sides of the Atlantic discussed deleting sensitive emails to evade Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics." so guess we can work in a mention. Amusingly, it has Lawson mentioned before producing that dreadful misrepresentation of a soundbite, "referred to a "trick" he applied to raw data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures"! It also of course says that "academics and climate change researchers have dismissed the allegations, saying that nothing in the emails proves wrongdoing" mentioning Dave Britton, a spokesman for the Met Office, and Kevin Trenberth of US National Centre for Atmospheric Research saying that "the correspondence had been selectively leaked and misinterpreted". If desired, we could mention these names in the body of the article. So, how about a revised version, with simple links to make it easier to find refs. which I've changed around a bit:

The emails prompted widespread publicity and allegations were made by climate change skeptics which raised questions from some others as to whether the emails showed evidence that climate scientists manipulated data, withheld scientific information, tried to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, and discussed deleting e-mails to evade Freedom of Information requests. The university and CRU scientists issued rebuttals, and a number of academics, climate change researchers and independent reports stated that most or all of the allegations were baseless, though there was concern that scientists appeared to have avoided sharing scientific data with critics.

Any problems or proposed changes? If not, we can modify the page shortly. . dave souza, talk 21:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• 'The emails prompted widespread publicity and allegations by climate change skeptics...'

This statement blatantly misrepresents the subject. As seperate statements (via distributivity), it reads as:

• 'The emails prompted widespread publicity by climate change skeptics...'

and

• 'The emails prompted allegations by climate change skeptics...'

The former is grossly inaccurate and as for the latter, while some of the more vocal allegations may have been made by those who have previously expressed doubt about the quality of science behind AGW, declaring they came exclusively from that mythical group of 'climate change skeptics' is impossible to verify. The content of the emails and data was suspicious to any objective viewer...to blanketly declare an intangible collective as being solely responsible for all the publicity and allegations would be bad form.
--K10wnsta (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. That was the initial proposal, but it's since been changed to "The emails prompted allegations by climate change skeptics and in turn widespread publicity in the media, raising questions whether the emails showed evidence that climate scientists " . As to the issue of "climate change skeptics" making the initial allegations, we've two reliable sources for this in the article, plus a third that was in the article but has since been removed on the grounds that two is enough. If you've any RSs for the contra, please put them forward here. .... Kenosis (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Technical Issue with FOIA File Deletion

Sorry if this is the wrong place or time; please move this thread to my talk page if necessary. I downloaded the FOIA files for a look. When I went to delete them by putting them in my trash, two files, sfwxlist and one other (forgot the name) wouldn't delete. No file extensions, zero file size. My fix was to run a dos prompt, go to that directory, and do a DEL *.* That was the only way that I was able to delete those files. I'm posting this here in case anybody else runs into the same problem. A google search showed me that I wasn't the only one. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the two filenames each end with dot (.), which is valid in Linux but just brings out bugs in Windows OSs. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/320081 'Cause 6'. No big deal, nothing to see here, just move along, folks. --Nigelj (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's rather alarming. When a file displays a size of 0 and can't be manipulated (ie. moved or deleted), it usually means it has a hook in the kernel and is being actively modified by an application or service. I'd double check the veracity of the source you got the package from. The interest it's generated among general computer users and the rather advanced nature of some of its contents are a dream come true for folks with malicious intent.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not really alarming given that the reasons have already been explained and it can be manipulated just not with certain utilities. And this sort of stuff is hardly uncommon, a few weeks ago I had a similar problem with a file called prn (or something) I copied from a FreeBSD system. Also most of all of the content are simple text files, there are no executables or anything else that would cause problems (there is some source code but if you know how to try and compile you should know how to check if it's safe, I'm not aware any of it's a compilable state anyway). Of course someone could maliciously add an executable or script or whatever, but that's no different from someone doing the same with alleged nude pictures of some random celebrity or phone calls from a married man having an affair or whatever Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I am going to revert the following edits by Peterlewis, for the reasons given (changed bolded)

• A number of academics, climate change researchers, and independent reports found that most or all of the allegations were baseless changed to A number of academics, climate change researchers, and independent reports found that some of the allegations were justified.
  • Major change in the meaning of the sentence - shifts from majority finding (baseless) to minority possibility. Gives undue weight to speculation.
• Three independent reviews of the incident and materials were initiated in the UK changed to Three independent reviews of the incident and materials have been in the UK
  • Ungrammatical - deletion of the word "initiated" leaves the sentence hanging - "have been" what?
• Addition of The whistleblower has so far not been identified.
  • Unsourced, and problematic since the "whistle blower" idea is unsupported speculation. Guettarda (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I followed the refs for the first statement, and found that they did not support the statement at all, but rather the reverse. Second revert is fine, but who leaked the emails if not a whistleblower? Presumably the police are on his trail, but readers ought to be told something rather than left in the dark. Peterlewis (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the source for the whistleblower allegation? Cla68 (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I followed the refs for the first statement, and found that they did not support the statement at all, but rather the reverse - Most were not/some were is, in essence, the same statement, but the switch in phrasing shifts the meaning from the majority finding to the minority finding. Emphasising the minority view while minimising the majority view puts undue weight on the minority view. ho leaked the emails if not a whistleblower? Reliable sources, for the most part, call it a hack. "Whistleblower" is blog speculation. Guettarda (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of the term whistleblower is very clear. The term fits. Removing is is a whitewash. FellGleaming (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It could just as well be someone who wants to hurt Phil Jones, the CRU or/and the public perception of climate science. By saying it is done by a whistleblower the article would be stating that there has in fact been wrongdoings, which has so far not been supported.83.86.0.74 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

New report to be released

As reported by the BBC a new report will be released shortly. I would at this early stage request that most if not all edits be discussed here first to support our collective mental health.130.232.214.10 (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The report is now out . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Such fun. So now lets all cherry-pick our favourite bit to go into the summary. How about We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal. which is the entirety of the first conclusion William M. Connolley (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Some more news coverage about the second inquiry: Guardian, Channel 4, BBC, Daily Mail, NASDAQ. Expect to see more by the end of the day and over the next few days. Something tells me though it won't be quite so widely reported as the original incident so be on the look-out for good sources about it. --Xyiyizi 12:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Also at the Telegraph which leads on Climate change scientists at the centre of an ongoing row over man-made global warming have been criticised for being "naive" and "disorganised" before finally noting that there was no evidence of "deliberate scientific malpractice", meaning the conclusion that mankind is causing global warming is probably correct. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In essence, this is another exoneration from charges of deliberate malfeasance which were never given much credence anyway. There seems to be some very sensible criticism of the research culture, though. I think this will make the university a lot happier than its critics so I would watch out for responses commensurate with a severe blow to the conspiracy theorists. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The report, moreover, makes no claim as to correctness of any conclusions from the CRU, only that there was no apparent deliberate wrongdoing. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists. does appear to be the relevant bit. Collect (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This finding has zero relevancy to allegations of deliberate scientific misconduct. The passage reproduced above can only be deemed noteworthy to people who now wish to forget what this controversy was originally all about―stepping off a pending train wreck at the nearest possible station―so that they can return to their old day job of sowing seeds of doubt. Wikispan (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny how statisticians always say that "it's very surprising that no one has collaborated closely with a statistician in this work". Yeah, it may be true. But it always looks awfully self-serving. Guettarda (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's in the nature of science that it depends not on single works or even on single institutions. The correctness of any scientific work can only be determined through the passage of time and the independent replication of significant advances in understanding. That's the way science works. The most we can ask is that scientists do their work with honesty and integrity, and the panel's conclusions on that score are vindications that will be most welcome to the university. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite so cheery for the IPCC however: CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature during the late 20th century, but presentations of this work by the IPCC and others have sometimes neglected to highlight this issue. I seem to recall that Keith Briffa was a lead author on AR4 WG1 Chapter 6. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The discrepancy is of more interest and more relevance to paleoclimatologists than to the IPCC. I don't see why this should embarrass them at all, though it is possible that many prominent scientists will spot some relevant link which I have not. Then we can report on it, whatever it may be. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the BBC News report, I suggest the following:

According to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, there was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit but the panel said it might be helpful if researchers worked more closely with professional statisticians. "We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians," the panel remarked in its conclusions. Lord Oxburgh said "We found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever. That doesn't mean that we agreed with all of their conclusions, but scientists people were doing their jobs honestly."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Much to much weight on the statistics issue, which is much more differentiated in the report (" in the CRU papers that we examined we did not come across any inappropriate usage ... although the methods they used may not have been the best for the purpose. It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results" and "As far as we can judge the methods which CRU has employed are fair and satisfactory". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, far too negative. And why no room for some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and dynamic nature of chronologies William M. Connolley (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is wrong to say that the panel did not agreed with all of their conclusions, without noting that the the report says, "The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct". (The panel would be concerned about the methodology followed rather than conclusions reached.) Also, while the finding about the use of statisticians should be mentioned, it should not be seen as a qualification of the report's findings. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I based my suggestion's bias on the bias found in the BBC News report. Please cross-reference my summary with this news report and note any descrepencies. Stephen, I did not read the report itself as that would open the door for me to inadvertantly introduce my own bias in deciding which parts of the report to emphasize/de-emphasize. Instead, we should let third-party reliable sources decide what's important and what's not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting side article in the Telegraph 'Hockey stick' graph was exaggerated reporting on comments by David Hand. If we're going to report Lord Oxburgh's off-report comments we should probably also include these. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It probably isn't too early to include the vindication of the researchers' methods in the article. The coverage of the statistics must be handled with care, because despite their recommendations the Panel actually commended the Unit's handling of the statistics, and a too-sketchy description might miss that.

For such detail, however, it might be best to hold off and see how this is reported in the news sections of Nature and Science and the like. Those would, I expect, be the obvious "goto" sources for this subject. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

On Hand's Hockey Stick comments, it's clear that he's saying nothing new about that but is merely setting the scene for his statement that he found no evidence of the Unit employing the kind of problematic methods that were found with the original MBH reconstruction.Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to use the report as a reliable secondary source for the article. After all it is an informed opinion about the actions of the scientists. (It is also brief.) If we prefer to use a summary from a reliable source, I would agree a scientiic publication would be a preferable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's important to take the comment about statistics with a grain of salt. Statisticians always say this. Right or wrong. Everyone always says "you should give more respect to my field of expertise". Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And note, it's very different to saying "the statistics weren't done right". Guettarda (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That one field of science isn't collaborating as closely with another field of science as might prove useful is hardly significant and most assuredly unremarkable. Consider how much more effective government would be if progressives and conservatives collaborated more closely, for example. Thus far, the CRU has been completely exonerated by all investigations. Only the ICO had something negative to say, and their comments were completely beyond their remit and highly inappropriate. I would conclude that there is no need for this article to talk about the "wish" for closer collaboration between the sciences on the basis that it isn't very significant and lacks any weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources, not on our opinions. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - Agreed. The preponderance of reliable sources are giving this particular issue little or no attention. Incidentally, Ars Technica has a good summary of the reports thus far, and it does briefly mention the collaboration-with-statisticians stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

UK sources are giving lots of attention to poor statistical methods, and a fair bit to collaboration. May be different outside the UK of course. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I have been reading material from all over the place, but mostly from the UK and US press (as an Englishman living in the US). I am not sure how you can argue that it is getting "lots of attention", when it scarcely warrants a sentence or two within reports of half-a-dozen paragraphs or more. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The BBC has it in sentences 4 and 5. The Telegraph has a statistical discussion in the second sentence. I guess it's the prominence I am thinking of, not the extent. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

They could have used better statistical methods, in some instances, according to the panel. That is not the same as saying statistical procedure was "poor". Indeed, neither the official report, BBC Online nor The Telegraph mention the word "poor" anywhere in their report. Therefore we must be careful not to twist this finding into a proactive statement of its opposite. Wikispan (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Telegraph says that they should have used better methods, which is significantly stronger than could. But I take you general point. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If the Telegraph represented the report as saying that CRU should have used better statistical methods, they misreported. A simple error. We should always be on the lookout for such errors in secondary sources. --TS 00:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The most reliable sources we have on the report are the report itself and the individual comments of the panel members, followed perhaps by the specialist press. The general press has been so lamentably unreliable throughout this affair that I wouldn't give their efforts much weight at this stage. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Revert

This edit shows a revert, without a proper summary, of an edit of mine that averted a misrepresentation of the sources. I have now extracted the relevant quotations from the citations showing that the "climate change skeptics" attribution is not represented by most of them. You can check these at the reference section: ]. I'd like to see the edit restored, and will do so myself pending a good reason not to.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that your version is more NPOV and better supported by the sources. Cla68 (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your version is both more neutral and more accurate, agreed. I'm sure the editor in question will self-revert it. FellGleaming (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert (here's a clue: I don't spell "sceptics" as "skeptics"). The "climate change skeptics" wording appears to have been in the article for some time - I don't know when it was added. My edit was to change "The emails prompted allegations by climate change skeptics" to "The emails were widely publicised and prompted climate change skeptics to alleged" as you can see here. Next time I'd appreciate it if Heyitspeter could read diffs properly before making unjustified accusations. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed at the utter disregard for an {{inuse}} template. Sure, it's not backed by policy, just basic courtesy. Guettarda (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, that is an excellent point. Almost every conflict on Misplaced Pages begins with a violation of basic courtesy in some way or another. If we can focus on upholding it, we can probably avoid most conflicts. See also: Misplaced Pages:Etiquette. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually this edit by Heyitspeter was incorrect. Edit summary = ("climate change skeptics" attribution not supported by the sources authored by Johnson, Fahrenthold, and Randerson. See those sources) The sources didn't include the ones by Johnson, Fahrenthold and Randerson, but rather those by Hickman in the Guardian and Revkin in the NY Times, both of which explicitly attribute the stir in the blogosphere to "skeptics". Plus, I'll put in one more RS for the same statement, and revert this passage back to the form it was prior to when ChrisO made it a bit too concise () such that it lost the sequence of (1) The emails being uploaded to skeptic websites, (2) climate change skeptics' allegations on the blogosphere, and in turn (3) widespread attention in the media (much of which used the word coined on the blogosphere--"climategate"). ... Kenosis (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The refuted accusations should only be mentioned in the lead in the context of their resounding dismissal

Nearly every reasonable commentator over the past five months has dismissed the wild accusations of data manipulation and other deceptive practices, and now two independent investigations that looked at those accusations have also dismissed them.

It is therefore past time this article stopped giving prominence to those blatantly false and damaging allegations in the lead, except to note that they were found to be false. They can still be covered in detail in the article, again giving due weight to the fact that they were found to be false. Tasty monster (=TS ) 22:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've shortened the line listing the allegations to the following: "The emails were widely publicised and prompted allegations of scientific misconduct and evasion of Freedom of Information requests." That summarises the two broad categories of allegations. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've made a substantial number of changes to the article to update various bits and fix some things. I won't bore you with the trivial stuff like spelling corrections, making the dates consistent and linking or delinking, but here are the main items:

• Updated Climatic Research Unit email controversy#University of East Anglia to state the Oxburgh review's remit and methodology.
• Modified Climatic Research Unit email controversy#UK Met Office to fix some awkward wording. The meaning is unchanged, just better worded.
• Moved the conclusions of the Science and Technology Select Committee from Climatic Research Unit email controversy#Parliament into a new "Reports" section (see below).
• Some rewording of Climatic Research Unit email controversy#Information Commissioner's Office to remove a few extraneous bits and make the wording more direct than before.
• The biggest change: added a new Reports section, incorporating the Science and Technology Select Committee report content formerly under "Parliament" and adding a summary of the Science Assessment Panel's report, the subsequent press conference and the UEA's response. When the Muir Russell report is out we can add a further section summarising its findings. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I should add that for sources on the SAP's report I've relied principally on the report itself, per Tony's suggestion, using the media as a source for quotes made by the panel during the press conference held earlier today. All of the quotes from the report that I've added have been quoted by the media, so they're not just quotes I've dredged up; I've used the media articles to identify the key quotes from the report rather than trying to make personal choices about which quotes to use. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement that "the CRU's statistical methods were also criticised" is incorrect. The relevant statements are:

• Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not have been the best for the purpose. It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results. The published work also contains many cautions about the limitations of the data and their interpretation.

• After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth, we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid. In the event CRU scientists were able to give convincing answers to our detailed questions about data choice, data handling and statistical methodology. The Unit freely admits that many data analyses they made in the past are superseded and they would not do things that way today.

• Like the work on tree rings this work is strongly dependent on statistical analysis and our comments are essentially the same. Although there are certainly different ways of handling the data, some of which might be superior, as far as we can judge the methods which CRU has employed are fair and satisfactory. Particular attention was given to records that seemed anomalous and to establishing whether the anomaly was an artefact or the result of some natural process. There was also the challenge of dealing with gaps in otherwise high quality data series. In detailed discussion with the researchers we found them to be objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda. Their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible. All of the published work was accompanied by detailed descriptions of uncertainties and accompanied by appropriate caveats. The same was true in face to face discussions.

In the above I detect much commendation of the CRU's use of statistics, and no concrete criticism. --TS 01:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice now that the same error is repeated in the body of the article, in the section "Science Assessment Panel", which incorrectly states: "The panel criticised the statistical techniques used by the CRU researchers."

I find these errors particularly surprising because I warned yesterday afternoon that precisely this kind of error would occur if care was not taken with the Panel's statements on the CRU's use of statistics, which are very positive--the Panel was obviously impressed both at the way the Unit handled statistics (whether in its publications or face to face) and at the way in which the Unit conscientiously updated chronologies in the light of new statistical methods. The Panel expressed surprise that the Unit didn't work with specialist statisticians. That is, at most, a criticism of their working practices, and only makes the Panel's impression of their statistical competence more significant. --TS 02:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I've reworded the relevant lines to cleave more closely to the text that you've highlighted above - see diff. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Serious, Serious, POV issues

Does no one really care to make a serious attempt at NPOV? Jones resignation is portrayed as a temporarily "standing aside", no mention of the FoI act illegalities that were only left unprosecuted because of statute of limitation issues, Jones' revelations about how he lost data, nothing about the harsh criticism from the Institute of Physics (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm), many other scientists who were sharply critical, or any real of the political fallout from this? Fell Gleaming 22:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Jones has only temporarily stood aside - he hasn't resigned. See , which makes it clear that his successor, Peter Liss, is only the acting director while the reviews are ongoing. See also this Daily Telegraph story, "Professor at centre of climate change email row stands down temporarily." We already deal with the FOI Act issue in Climatic Research Unit email controversy#Information Commissioner's Office. You should note that no wrongdoing of any sort, let alone "illegalities", have been proven; it's not simply that the CRU can't be prosecuted because of the statute of limitation issues, but they also can't be investigated because of the same limitation (so no guilt or innocence can be established in the first place). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this well-sourced statement, "Last week the Information Commissioner's Office – the body that administers the Freedom of Information Act – said the University of East Anglia had flouted the rules in its handling of an FOI request in May 2008." Fell Gleaming 23:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the sourced statement that the ICO later described as having been inaccurately described in the press, and the Select Committee found was not supported by adequate investigation, so they required the Muir Russell inquiry and/or the ICO to carry out a proper investigation. Prima facie evidence that it's a hyped up statement. . . dave souza, talk 23:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Fell, just suggest here what you would like to add, with accompanying citations, and we'll discuss it. Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We've got (yet another) quote from a random communications professor implying the whole thing is meaningless, but the statement from the 31,000 member Institute of Physics, specifically requested as part of the House of Commons investigations just happened to not get mentioned? And the lede written to imply that no scientists found any wrongdoing? Allow me to quote a bit from the IoP statement:

And no mention of the uproar in the British Press? Or any of the thousands of screaming calls for Jones' head on a silver platter? Even Warmists like Monbiot are calling for him to quit. How do things like that just accidentally get left out? Fell Gleaming 22:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly made your agenda clear. ("Warmists"? Does that mean we can call you a Denialist?). Might I suggest a less combative approach? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, please don't personalize article talk page discussions. If you are unable to comply with this, I suggest stepping away from the article. Fell, please add the other responses you mention to the "Other responses" section in the article. If any of them get removed, we'll discuss it here. Please make sure they are worded neutrally and cited to RS. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not personalisation to comment that Fell seems to have both a flawed knowledge of the facts and an unnecessarily combative attitude. I suggest that he should first seek some feedback from other editors before adding content that has doubtless been omitted purposefully. Fell, why not come up with a form of words and post it here for comments? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also curious that Cla68 chose to ignore FG's "warmist" jibe and instead to focus solely on your objection to it. Your objection should have been made in more dispassionate terms, but that doesn't excuse FG's original language. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My agenda is to create a well crafted article that accurately captures the situation. What we have here is a whitewash. The entire name of the article is wrong. Call a spade a spade. This should be the Climategate Controversy -- the name its known by. Did we forget WP:COMMONNAME when this article was created? Fell Gleaming 23:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please Fell, don't start that argument again. Even though I agree with you, it won't get us anywhere. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Some people did indeed lose their heads over this, but most kept cool and waited for the truth to come out. The dust is now settling and we have a much clearer picture of what happened. What one or two clowns have said in the meantime doesn't really matter. That's why inquiries are commissioned: to determine the facts and dispel misconceptions and rumor Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony, did you just call Monbiat a clown? That's a BLP violation. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Institute of Physics is "one or two clowns" ? Fell Gleaming 23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The submission was said to have been written by only one or two individuals in an IoP subcommitee, so... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The official APS position statement on climate change was written by three individuals in a subcommittee. I believe something similar is true for the AAAS statement. Do you then support removing their statements from the scientific consensus on global warming list? Fell Gleaming 01:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the IoP's controversial statement, we did have a paragraph on it but it was removed after discussion. We could always reinstate it: . . dave souza, talk 23:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The committee invited written submissions from interested parties on the three issues that it will examine, by Wednesday 10 February. It has published 55 such submissions received by that date. Submissions have been received from the University of East Anglia, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Met Office, several other bodies, prominent scientists, some global warming 'sceptics', some MEPs and other interested parties. Each submission includes evidence and viewpoints from the body or individual concerned as well as a declaration of their interests. The report submitted by the Institute of Physics expresses concern about the CRU's scientific integrity. According to this report, the emails reveal evidence of "determined and coordinated refusals" to comply with scientific traditions through "manipulation of the publication and peer-review system" and "intolerance to challenge". This report was used by climate sceptics to bolster claims that the problem of global warming is exaggerated. This forced the Institute of Physics to confirm that its position was that "the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change." Many experts considered that the correction was still inadequate, with climatologist Andy Russell describing the allegation of data suppression as "incorrect and irresponsible". The institute said that the statement had been prepared by their energy subcommittee, but would not reveal who had produced it. It did say that the subcommittee included an IOP official named Peter Gill, whose company provides services to the energy industry and who has written that for many people, the subject of anthropogenic global warming "has become a religion, so facts and analysis have become largely irrelevant". The institute said that Gill was not the main source of information and that other members of the sub-committee were also critical of CRU. Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat member of the Science and Technology Select Committee, said "Members of the Institute of Physics ... may be concerned that the IOP is not as transparent as those it wishes to criticise." However the institute told the Guardian that the submission was "approved by three members of its science board" and supplied comments from an anonymous board member stating "The institute should feel relaxed about the process by which it generated what is, anyway, a statement of the obvious... the points makes are ones which we continue to support, that science should be practiced openly and in an unbiased way."

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
2. "Science and Technology - Memoranda". House of Commons. Retrieved 27 February 2010.
3. 'Climategate' Scientist Admits 'Awful E-Mails,' but Peers Say IPCC Conclusions Remain Sound - NYTimes.com
4. Climategate scientist questioned in Parliament - environment - 02 March 2010 - New Scientist
5. Institute of Physics forced to clarify submission to climate emails inquiry | Environment | guardian.co.uk
6. Times Online - Energy consultant 'influenced climate evidence'
7. Climate emails inquiry: Energy consultant linked to physics body's submission | Environment | The Guardian

Fixing of reflist formatting will be welcomed. . . dave souza, talk 23:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The basic problem starts in the lede, which implies that no one found any evidence of wrongdoing. The position of organizations like the IoP and the Information Commmisioners Office should be reflected there, along with a statement about the tremendous uproar it caused. The lede implies there isn't any controversy at all. Fell Gleaming 23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But nobody has found any wrongdoing. That's the point I made above. There have been claims and allegations but the recent reports have rejected those.

On the IoP issue, I suspect this would probably be undue weight on what is really a very minor issue. The IoP's submission seems to have had little public impact and no impact at all on the select committee's findings, which repudiated at least some of the submission's claims. I don't really see why the IoP's rather contentious submission needs to be highlighted here. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"The IoP's submission seems to have had little public impact" What is your source for this? Fell Gleaming 00:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If the reverse is the case, then it should be possible to demonstrate significant public impact. If it isn't possible to demonstrate, we assume it hasn't had such an impact. --TS 00:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, so a statement from a phone interview with random communications professor had enough public impact to warrant notability, but the official statement of a scientific organization representing 31,000 physicists, commissioned specifically to report on the incident, did not? Fell Gleaming 01:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to Krosnick? Krosnick is no random professor, and he presented his findings in a briefing on at the Capitol Hill. As for the Institute of Physics, they seem to have changed their tune and today they simply reported that "The scientists at the centre of the row over the hacked climate emails have been cleared of any deliberate malpractice by the second of three inquiries into their conduct.". --TS 01:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you construe that as "changing their tune"? They have not retracted nor abrogated their original, official statement, nor does a clearing of "deliberate" malpractice excise the majority of the points the IoP raised. Fell Gleaming 07:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fell Gleaming refers to "thousands of screaming calls for Jones' head on a silver platter". There were indeed death threats, and these were and perhaps still are being investigated by the police. This information is no longer present in the article, presumably because the death threats were a transient phenonemon which quickly subsided once the police announced that they were investigating. --TS 01:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The death threats were still reported to be ongoing (at the rate of a few a week) when Phil Jones was interviewed by the Times a couple of months ago. There's an interesting related article by Clive Hamilton here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Clown circus rolls on

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.

Like all of us, CEI and Heritage Foundation take an interest in climate science and its implications, but this section does not seem to contain any actionable proposals bearing on content of our article.

From Mother Jones :

The Heritage Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute are planning an event on it later this week titled, "The Climategate Scandals: What Has Been Revealed And What Does It Mean?"

This may prompt some press coverage - worth keeping an eye on. Doubtless it's a pushback against the recent report findings. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris, are you sure that your personal feelings on this topic aren't too strong to allow you to cover it in an NPOV manner (Clown circus?)? Do you have any actual content issues you would like discuss? Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, perhaps you could set me right. I'm really confused about the purpose and relevance of those two partisan groups and why they have anything to do with this topic. Those groups claim to promote free enterprise, limited government, and individual freedom, but I can't see a single successful thing either of them have ever accomplished in regard to those three things, yet they continue to be funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. What does this topic have to do with the stated purpose of those two groups and why are they even involving themselves here? What am I missing? Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What do we care? We just report what the sources are saying. If we have an emotional investment in what's going on with this topic and it's effecting our editing and attempts at collaboration, then the wiki isn't working. As far as I can tell, there are no current content issues involving this group's upcoming shindig. If any develop, we should feel free to discuss it then. If you want to discuss our personal opinions on the Heritage Foundation we can take it up on our user talk pages. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no personal opinions; I don't even know who these groups are. Again, I'm asking, what do groups aligned with the stated purpose of free enterprise, limited government, and individual freedom, have to do with a topic about climate science? Please answer the question. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head I would assume that their interest is in the realm of public policy, as in how CO2 reduction efforts, like carbon trading and subsidies for renewable energy solutions, such as windfarms, might effect the price of electricity for consumers, among other things. In his book, Booker claims that UK government subsidies and taxes for building and maintaining wind farms has increased the cost of electricity in the UK. I imagine that political advocacy groups like the Heartland Institute would be interested in this area of the AGW debate. How does Climategate relate? Because the CRU is one of the main research units involved in research that the IPCC uses for its reports. Again, I don't see any current content issues related to this. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Booker an economist? (I don't know his background.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) "what do groups aligned with the stated purpose of free enterprise, limited government, and individual freedom, have to do with a topic about climate science?" Their interest lies in the fact that legislation being floated in response to climate science is considered to be a significant expansion of governmental power, and damaging to free enterprise. Fell Gleaming 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead is getting too fat

I think the balance in the lead section is more or less okay, but it's getting a little fat. The coverage should really be trimmed back to the main points in the lead, the main body is the place for any kind of detail. Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See what you think of it now (diff). Does that work better? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a small step in the right direction, but a lot more blather needs to be farmed off to the main body. For instance Oxburgh provided a lovely soundbite that summarises his report's findings: "the fact is we found them absolutely squeaky clean." That's the level of brevity we ought to aim for in the lead section. The details will still be in the article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the lead is already pretty small - three paragraphs for a substantial (61 Kb) article. I don't think it can really be reduced much further without losing sight of the need for the lead to summarise the article properly. The length is about that recommended by WP:LEAD#Length. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not so bad, I suppose. --TS 00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Institute of Physics

A submission to the Select Committee written by the Institute of Physics got a little attention in the blogs, some of the press and even here, perhaps because it seemed to give credence to serious allegations of impropriety. In the event the import of the Institute's submission was rejected, and even drew rebuke from members of the Committee. I'm not sure whether it merits cover, but I should say that it probably doesn't merit much cover, because its influence was nil. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the old reference to the IOP's submission seemed to be discussed in Archive 32 (just search on "IOP"). --TS 02:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate claim

Marknutley added the following claim:

The UEA was heavily criticised by Professor David Hand, the president of the Royal Statistical Society, over what he said "They used a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect ".

In fact, if you read the article properly, Hand's criticism had nothing to do with the UEA - it relates to the hockey stick graph developed by Mann et al, who of course doesn't work for the UEA. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It also says it criticised climate experts for failures in handling statistics so shall we put it back with that instead mark nutley (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It also says "The hockey stick graph was a key part of the scandal. In the e-mails, UEA’s Professor Phil Jones referred to a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures suggested by certain sources of data. A similar trick was used in the hockey stick graph". Looks like we have a reliable source to call it a scandal now as well mark nutley (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

See Tony's comments under #Recent changes above. I think he has a valid point. I'm mulling over how to respond to it. Note that David Hand was actually very complimentary about the CRU's use of data (see his comments here). Note also the tone of Lord Oxburgh's remarks - "he said the reviewers found that the scientists could have used better statistical methods in analysing some of their data" - which is rather different from saying that the scientists had failed. "Room for improvement" is not the same as "failure". As for "scandal", this has been discussed endlessly here - don't reopen that word to avoid, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, this definitely ties into the ClimateGate scandal (as the FT reporter himself concluded), but I don't see Hand "directly criticizing" the UAE here. That appears to be synthesis. Fell Gleaming 08:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The following passage from the report, highlighted above by Tony, is worth noting: Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not have been the best for the purpose. This is more a case of "could have done better" rather than "did something wrong". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure how you get did nothing wrong from this statement failures in handling statistics Failing is doing something wrong, do you mean nothing wrong in their refusal to share data or their methods? mark nutley (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem in this case is that, Hand's statement led with mitigatory language, which means leading with "criticism" doesn't appear neutral. Directly quoting that the methods "may not have been the best" would be better. Fell Gleaming 08:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

MN's statement reflects a lack of understanding of the science, and was correctly removed. It is regrettable that he is adding material that he doesn't understand. It cannot be a co-incidence that this suits the POV of his "side" William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Harvey, Fiona (April 14 2010). "Global warming graph attacked by study". www.ft.com. Retrieved 15 April 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Weather articles
• Low-importance Weather articles
• Unsorted weather articles
• WikiProject Weather articles
• C-Class Environment articles
• Mid-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• C-Class Computer Security articles
• Low-importance Computer Security articles
• C-Class Computer Security articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Computer Security articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists