Talk:Climatic Research Unit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggestion

That last line could stand to be expanded upon at least a tiny bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.238.180 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

EMail Controversy

The Phil Jones quote gives undue weight to one side of the issue and is covered in the main article.Flegelpuss (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

On the ClimateGate Wikipedia page, there is information to the effect that "BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson stated that he received the chain of leaked e-mails on 12 October...." Wouldn't it be more correct to inform that while the upload to the Internet for wide-scale examination did not occur until 19 November, the hacking itself had to have taken place sometime (probably shortly) before 12 October? 71.125.159.106 (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

National Review

Stuff from mathgeek that no-one wanted
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Math.geek3.1415926 (talk · contribs) is quoting a National Review opinion piece to make an assertion of fact.[1] This isn't acceptable, as it violates a fundamental principle of WP:NPOV#A simple formulation: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." It's also not verifiable, as the cited words do not appear in the source. The statement that the CRU was "resisting requests" is an interpretation of a statement of opinion attributed to an opinion writer - not even a journalist, but a think tank staff member. The way to deal with this is to do what WP:NPOV says: "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." I've done this in this edit, where I directly quoted the writer's views and attributed them to him by name. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC) The edits I made that you reverted cited a book and the Guardian, rather than the National Review opinion piece as you claim. You are in violation of the three revert rule by having reverted sourced material three times. I improved the refs per the discussion, but you have removed sourced material three or four times now.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC) The book citation is useless - there is no page reference and no indication of what is being quoted. The Guardian source says nothing about refusals. It says: "There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land and sea temperature recordings that is "value added" by the unit before being used by the Met Office." You are misrepresenting it quite blatantly. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Clearly the statement in the article should include "after repeated calls including Freedom of Information requests" which would be WP:V as asserted fact by the Guardian writer and not a matter of opinion. Personally, I would suggest that not giving material "after reopeated requests" would be understood by most people to mean they declined the requests. Un fact, how else might one read it? Collect (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC) The Guardian article attests to FOI requests being made. It says nothing about FOI requests being "refused" or "resisted". It therefore can't be used to support a statement that the requests were refused or that the CRU has been "resisting" the requests. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Per request for outside opinion: the information is being slanted in a way not intended or directly stated by the source. This is wp:SYN. The source clearly states that the data set is confidential, but doesn't say why it's confidential or why the requests were denied. In fact, it implies that the requests were made for political purposes, not altruistic or scientific. There are lots of data sets in the world that have been requested but not released for various reasons (often just to create a stir by publicly demanding something that is illegal to obtain), so I'm not sure how notable this event really is. At the most, it might be OK to say that "there is a confidential dataset that was requested but not provided..." purely stating the facts. "Failing to" or "Resisting requests..." is clearly POV. T34CH (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC) As one of the emails clearly stated that the person hoped no one mentioned that the UK has an FOI act, it is reasonable to state that here. And the email which asked that a person delete all his emails also could be mentioned. Otherwise, why not accept tby consensus that the group did not respond to FOI requests? No one in any RS has claimed that anyone was told the material was "confidential" in response to the requests or that, indeed, any response was made, so that part is not particularly relevant as a claim. Collect (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC) What I saw as the relevant paragraph was: The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land and sea temperature recordings that is "value added" by the unit before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny. So basically "there's a confidential data set and someone is mad (or pretending to be mad) they can't see it. This irks some climatologists. They said so in the emails." What other information do you think the passage should provide, and what text should source it? As far as I can tell, this is all being blown out of proportion. Comments like this one suggest that this is just another one in a long string of sexed up media games. Are there sources that point to anything in the emails with enough context to actually prove anything? Because otherwise the whole paragraph should be restructured out of WEIGHT and BLP concerns, and suggestions that some scientists committed academic malfeasance should be backed up by verifiable RS sources, not sourced to some blogger's interpretations). T34CH (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC) This is basically being driven by people who have a preconceived view that the e-mails confirm the existence of a vast international conspiracy; they are not at all interested in weight and sourcing considerations. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Amazingly enough, it does not appear in the source that the group told anything to the people making the FOI requests that the data was "confidential." In science, moreover, data sets are not generally confidential as it is necessary for others to examine methodology etc. Dat can not be reviewed if they are secret <g>. Collect (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Your standard of amazing must be much lower than mine. The article also doesn't say that the group(s?) wasn't told the data set was confidential either. It also isn't mentioned that the group was or wasn't told it was a "value-added" data set, but it does say that's the reason it's confidential. Imagine there is publicly available data on the order of 1000's of terabytes, and somebody pays to have the relevant 2 megabytes distilled from that. The new data-set is value-added and not public. A much better direction for this talk page to take would be to ask, "where is the clear indication of wrong-doing?" T34CH (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

A comment and reversed edit: "Implying copyrights prevented release is inconsistent with the rest of the article". If so, then the rest of the article would be wrong. Midgley (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anything is being "implied". The CRU has stated explicitly that it can't release the data because it doesn't own all of it. This is reflected in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The article states that the CRU can't release the data, not that the CRU has stated that it can't release the data; this seems stronger to me than is justified by the sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the new flow does make more sense and is more accurate. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It now appears much of the raw data was destroyed -- making it hard to be released. Collect (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the data they "destroyed" is still available at NOAA. (ie. they deleted their copy) And that data isn't the same data that is being talked about in regards to the release (since it isn't part of the CRU temp. record) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly appears that much of the original data of the CRU was destroyed. NOAA has the "value-added data" and NOAA's own raw data. I find no place which asserts NOAA has the original raw data. And it is not the fudge-factored-data which is what scientists the world over would seek -- can you imagine if Darwin only left fudge-factored diaries to prove evolution? Or if Einstein had thrown out any notebooks which showed relativity had a problem? Yet, we are being asked on a "trust us" basis to accept that the raw data was strong and compelling? In which case, why add fudge factors? It is the known presence and uncertain size of those which are a large part of the furor, after all. Collect (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This of course is wrong since NOAA archives does have the raw data. (and it is stated by the CRU that NOAA has the data). Even if NOAA didn't have the data (which they do), the individual national met. offices have them. So your whole "fudge" soapboxing is baseless. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

NOAA only has the NOAA raw data -- I did not find any news article stating that NOAA has the raw data which the CRU said was destroyed. I did find cites for NOAA having the massaged data set. [2] makes it clear that NOAA has its own data-set, and its own graphs. "CRU is not the only group in the world that is tracking the change in global-average near-surface temperature. There are at least three other groups, two in the U.S. (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA), and one in Japan (Japan Meteorological Agency, JMA)." [3] from a person who is defending the CRU does not make the claim either. It says they "aggregated" data -- including their own raw data. They massaged the data, and it is that data which was furnished to others. No claim is made that the CRU's own raw data is extant except in the "aggregated" form. The reason this author gives for keeping data hidden is "any discrepancy at all is often used to shut down new explanations." Um -- it is "discrepancies" which are the most important data! "it will sharpen the rhetorical knives between how to communicate with people that are “ignorant” and those that are “deceptive'" sure sounds like it is the folks found with hands on the delete button who intend to go on the offensive on this. What we have? A person strongly defending the CRU can only say that NOAA has its own raw data. And that is the closest I can find -- the ftp site you give does not assert it is the CRU raw data, Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not just "NOAA raw data" - perhaps you missed the acronym GHCN (global historical climatology network), NOAA are the official keepers of the station data. NOAA has value-added data as well (and a temperature record, where they have calculated the global average, as has NASA and the british met office) - but you asked for the raw data. Of course they aggregated/value-added the data, thats what science is about! You are still going on as if the data is "lost" - it isn't - its there and you can fetch it if you want. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum -- the ftp site does not anywhere near include all raw data ( the files are not all that large, by the way) -- ut even makes a point that data which did not fit the pattern were deleted <g> as "erroneous." Yep -- delete data which do not fit in. Collect (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it - the data that they "discarded" is located in the file "v2.slp.failed.qc-1", specifically if some researcher finds that it is valid after all. As for the "anywhere near" comment - this is ASCII data mostly consisting of numbers, which compresses rather well, do try to download the data and decompress and check it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate data discarded

Editor Ratel reverted my new section, substituting what appears to be an irrelevant quote from Phil Jones: diff. Talk about it here if you disagree, please.

Sorry for the untitled rollback -- edit in haste, going out-of-town. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem irrelevant to me. Look at the source. Shouldn't we defer to the CRU rather than hearsay in newspapers on issues like this? ► RATEL ◄ 23:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Re [4] - CRU doesn't own any data, it doesn't do any raw obs. It only collects data from other sources, generally from national meteorological offices. They own the raw data, and are (at least in theory) responsible for keeping whatever raw data is required (or at least, I'm moderately sure this is so, though open to correction) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Times is pretty much the gold standard for reliable news reporting in the UK, and is unquestionably a reliable source. I don't think you can just discard their report -- as you (Ratel) just did, a second time.

Pretty clearly, we need both the Times report and CRU's reply (if any). The E&E report is earlier, and appears to be a different dispute, with CEI. I'm too tired to sort it out tonight, but what you have in the article now makes no sense, at least to me. The E&E article is also very confusing -- is this really a reliable source? It looks like a mishmash of competing press releases. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be about the same issue. In any event, if it's this opaque from the recent sources, it should not be on the 'pedia at all. NOTNEWS etc. ► RATEL ◄ 04:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Times is pretty much the gold standard for reliable news reporting in the UK - this was true in 1800, perhaps, but has long been false. As I've said, its wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• So -- Ratel & WMC -- are you willing to work towards making a consensus-acceptable section of this? What Ratel has posted is unacceptable on its own, not least because it is opaque to most readers. The Jones quote in the article cited (E&E) comes from a UEA press release, so we may as well use that. Unfortunately, the CRU website is operating "on emergency backup", with no access to recent stuff. So here's a draft:

First DRAFT Climate change data discarded (see 2nd Draft, below)

Discussion ended, no changes to content proposed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to The Times, the CRU has discarded much of the raw temperature data on which its predictions of global warming are based. The original data, stored on paper and magnetic tape, were dumped "to save space" when the CRU moved to a new building in the 1980s. This means that "other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years," the Times reported. The CRU was forced to reveal the losses following requests for the data under the UK Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In an earlier statement, CRU director Phil Jones disputed charges of data deletion, stating that: "The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends. When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends, so we've taken them out. Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks. We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC) It is really hard to know where to start. If you really think that makes any sense, then you simply haven't got a clue. the CRU has discarded much of the raw temperature data on which its predictions of global warming are based is twaddle - CRU does data, not models. It doesn't do predictions (or it may have a tiny sideline, but it isn't responsible for the ones you're thinking of). So they question is, do you realise how little you know about this stuff? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (e/c) Why, thank you, WMC <G>. The Times story is +/- the story I've heard over the last few years. Despite your previous snark, The Times remains a RS, and this is a serious effort to present neutrally a charge and a response. Deal with it. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC) William M. Connolley is right that the first phrase is wrong (or twaddle as he so trenchantly observes); the discarded data was used to calculate a temperature record, not to make predictions. Otherwise this seems basically good to me, and I really cannot see why people are being so difficult. Lighten up folks, and assume good faith. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC) You're right, I'm right. I'm quite prepared to *assume* good faith, but I've seen this stuff pasted around all too much. Well, this is Tillman's good faith test: is he able to admit that his first sentence is simply wrong, or is he going to keep repeating "The Times remains a RS"? Once we've got him past the first sentence, we can start talking about the rest. Or shall we just leave him behind stuck on the first sentence and continue without him? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Did you see the "DRAFT" bit, as in "invitation to mark up and correct"? And do you remember WP:No personal attacks? Pete Tillman (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Indeed, it is draft. So, I've pointed out what is wrong (with the first sentence) and your response was not "oh dear, yes I see I was wrong, thanks for correcting me" it was "The Times remains a RS, and this is a serious effort to present neutrally a charge and a response. Deal with it". So I am dealing with it: we can't have a huggy caring-and-sharing consensual edit-fest here unless I can carry you along in agreement. So, without changing the subject, can you actually answer the question psed above, viz, is he able to admit that his first sentence is simply wrong, or is he going to keep repeating "The Times remains a RS"? You see, the two are linked. JAJ and I agree that the first sentence is wrong. That, obviously, is not compatible with your source being reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC) William, I was assuming that Pete Tillman meant a reliable source in the sense of Wikipedia:Reliable sources; it seems to meet the criteria as far as I can tell, and our joint opinion that the opening of the article is wrong is arguably based on Original Research. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Perhaps William would like to propose a revised version of sentence 1? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I'm sure we can come to that. I haven't given up on Tillman yet. He is, basically, sensible. He *is* capable of admitting his first sentence is wrong. Give him a second chance; don't be impatient William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I've jsut noticed that PT has quietly struck the original assertion I was disputing [5]. It isn't a graceful way of admitting error, but it will have to do. That is all swept aside now; we can move on William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC) William, you're basically sensible too, when you're not trying to score silly points. Would you rewrite the damn thing the way you'd like to see it? I'm in the middle of something else. In haste, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC) That is alright, there really is no hurry about this I think. Indeed I've been trying to encourage people to slow down on this for a while. Finish what you're about and then get back to us William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Question I am having trouble understanding why the Times are not considered an RS, could someone explain please? Unomi (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Is anyone saying it isn't? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) It strikes me that on which their predictions of global warming are based. is a direct quote from the Times article and I haven't seen presentation of sources which contradict the statement. The objection to Tillmans draft seemed to be rooted in the position that the Times did not reflect the truth. Unomi (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC) There is a difference between the Times being reliable, and the article being reliable. In fact it raises quite a bit of red-flags. (1. is the prediction part 2. that other academics aren't able to test whether it has warmed (ie. forgetting that there are several independent Temp records) 3. stating that this is a new revelation (follows after the email thing) which is incorrect) 4. states that it is one of the main evidences for the IPCC (which it isn't either)) - see also the sections above. This is exactly what Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Science article in the popular press warns about. All in all, a significant number of red-flags which indicate sloppy reporting, and suggesting that we by editorial discretion shouldn't use it as a reference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 1. Looking at the publications of CRU it seems that they have indeed published predictions. 2. Are there for their aggregate data? 3. Placing the disclosure as following the email leaks does appear to be counter to evidence at hand, but such a timeline does not seem to be attempted to be inserted. 4. CRU did contribute extensively to the IPCC. See their full list and search for "ipcc" If you have sources which point other inaccuracies than the disclosure following the leaks it would be helpful to me as I am not privy to them. Unomi (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 1. Really? Cite us a few. 4. This is you proving that you don't understand (hint: that they contributed doesn't make this one of the main "evidences") William M. Connolley (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Please see CRU history: CRU has also played a major role in attempts to predict future anthropogenic climate change, and some of its consequences... CRU's work with these models led directly to the global-mean temperature projections given by the IPCC in 1990 and to corresponding projections of sea-level rise. .. This work by CRU was the first attempt to consider the full spectrum of anthropogenic influences on climate in an internally consistent way. This methodology has improved, but the same basic approach is still used and remains a vital tool used by the IPCC in the construction of future climate projections... Their own profile states CRU staff have been heavily involved in all four assessments, probably more than anywhere else relative to the size of an institution (see IPCC AR4 Authors).. WMC, as you seem to understand all this much better than anyone else, and presumably would know where to find indication that the Times article fails as an RS, could you perhaps give sources which contradict it rather than have editors in engage in OR to counter your, at this point, bare assertions. Unomi (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC) "CRU has also played a major role in attempts to predict..." yes, but it doesn't actually *do* the predictions. Look, even Tillman has given up no this point [6] - are you really still arguing for it? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) It does look like The Times article has problems, as both WMC & KDP have pointed out. See this analysis and commentary by Texas climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon, who doesn't appear to have any axes to grind: "I know this is going to shock y'all, but there was nothing unethical about CRU throwing away the raw temperature data. This is because CRU IS NOT THE ARCHIVAL SITE FOR THE RAW TEMPERATURE DATA. The individual nations that collected the weather observations are responsible for their archival. If things proceeded as they normally do, CRU wrote to Burundi, say, and requested copies of their climate of their climate observations. Someone in Burundi made them a magnetic tape or Xerox copies of the data and sent it to CRU. CRU processed the data and got it in the form they wanted. Having no need for the copies of the original data anymore, they tossed them. ... In summary, there's no evidence that they destroyed data. They destroyed extra copies of data that they didn't need anymore. The originals, as far as we know, were and are in other hands." --scroll down, this is a reply to readers asking about the Times article in question. So we need to refigure here. Nielsen-Gammon also notes that "Any regular reader of Climate Audit knows that McIntyre and his allies have struggled for years to pry information out of Phil Jones and his group, and that Jones has resisted at every turn." -- which isn't directly applicable here, but CRU is hardly off the hook. Enough for now, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC) And here are Roger Pielke Jr.'s comments on this, which are interesting: [7] This is turning into a research notebook. Anyway, it's not clearcut, fer sure. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC) And at the Nature science newsblog: [8]. Wikipedian Ron Cram's comment (pace, not usable here) outlines some problems with UEA's reponse. Cf. Monbiot's "trainwreck" remark. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Oh, you're back. But could you avoid adding new stuff until you've had time to address the unsolved problems above? If you're abandoning the old stuff as no longer viable, it would be helpful to indicate which: perhaps you could strike it out William M. Connolley (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I'm working on it. Patience, please. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Please read what I wrote: But could you avoid adding new stuff until you've had time to address the unsolved problems above? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC) William: I can read. I haven't added any new stuff since you asked. I'm busy, OK? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) What would you think about quoting the pre-Climategate CRU: Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data. Of course, this quote (post-Climategate) disappeared along with the page on the CRU Web site, but the quotes are preserved, for example, here. Dimawik (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC) There's a new statement from CRU that I thought we should use for the reply: CRU statement (DRAFT): No data has been lost. The collection of land surface air temperature data by the Climatic Research Unit goes back to a time when there was insufficient computing data storage capacity to retain all versions of data records on computer - unlike today when all versions may be kept thanks to greater storage capacity. ... Much of the earlier data exists in World Weather Records volumes (published by the Smithsonian Library) and, of course, original data will still be available from the appropriate national meteorological services. ref name=Natdat> CRU statement in response to 'data loss' claims (scroll down) at The Great Beyond, Nature (magazine)'s science news blog, November 30, 2009 I'm just not sure what this should be the reply to -- several things I guess, including the flawed Times story. I keep hoping someone else will post something.... I have some responses to this CRU statement (and the previous one), but haven't put them together yet. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I think we should quote both statements. Since they contradict one another, in one of them CRU is not telling the truth. Since we don't know which one is incorrect, why do you suggest to choose the latest? They both come from the RS of equal value (since it is the same RS), so WP should use both until the controversy is resolved. Balance of opinions here should be preserved. Dimawik (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Good point. There are actually three CRU statements, all of which seem self-contradictory. We should quote all three. New draft coming along, hope to post today. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Since they contradict one another or even all of which seem self-contradictory - undoubtedly this is obvious to your experienced eyes, but for the newbies here like me could you point out the obvious contradictions? PT, you said you weren't going to post new stuff till you'd answered above; alas it seems I cannot rely on your word William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Dear WMC, What you essentially ask me to do is OR - which is mildly surprising. I will not bite, instead, my proposal is to put two (or three?) excerpts together in chronological order so that the reader can figure out by him(her)self if these pieces are contradictory on not. We will put no OR comparing the statements in any way, positive or negative. From your point of view it wouldn't hurt, as you seem to assert that all CRU statements are non-contradictory - so I do not expect any objection from you. Am I correct? Dimawik (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC) No. It is clear that you want to quote them *because* they are, in your perception, contradictory. I've called you on that, and now you're backing off: suddenly what seemed to you so obvious is errm so hard to see that it becomes OR. Don't fear! This is the talk page, not the article page: you are allowed to lay out your arguments here clearly William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Dear WMC, Yes, in my opinion these releases are contradictory; I am not backing off. However, arguing the merits with you is useless in this case - as the results cannot be put into the article anyhow. I therefore propose a simple solution: three quotes and no OR, this balanced approach will allow the reader to judge him(her)self. It works for me, I see no reason why it should not work for you. After all, you stated that the three releases are not-contradictory; thus repetition will not hurt your position. Please argue your own side, not my (non-existing) backing off. Dimawik (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC) It sounds to me like an over-reliance on selectively reading primary sources - if there is some point about contradiction to be made and no reliable secondary source has picked it up and done the analysis for us, it seems there is nothing to say, so is this un herring rouge? --Nigelj (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I am not proposing any analysis; just three quotes that, according to WMC's statement above, are saying pretty much the same thing. In my opinion, they say different things - so let's simply put all of them into the article and let the reader judge. The sources (one source) are reliable; the same source is quoted elsewhere by WMC et al. without any reservations; why not use it here? Dimawik (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I think we need to have a look at WP:PRIMARY. It says, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Many of us here on the discussion page are educated with specialist knowledge, and we're not sure there's any point to be made by quoting all this primary stuff. If 'in your opinion' there is a point to be made, that is irrelevant. "Secondary sources are ... [used] to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." [ibid]. If there are no such secondary sources, then there is no point to be made, for the purposes of a WP article. --Nigelj (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I'm puzzled. Why should we add 3 quotes that all say the same thing? It's pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Why not wait til you actually see them? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU Data-dump faked?

Archived, no RS. Remove this if/when reliable source(s) pick it up.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See CRU’s Jones Supposedly Lost Data Used In 2008 and elsewhere, so far just in the blogosphere. "As I suspected and showed below, the raw data could not have been deleted. So now we have something to look forward to now that CRU as agreed on full disclosure." (same source). Indeed. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC) This is so obviously not a RS I wonder why you're putting it here. No, I wouldn't trust them to have understood. You're heading off into right-wing wing-nut black helicopters territory here William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Nope, just waiting for more info. Agree this isn't RS, disagree with your conclusions. And you're being silly, or are in denial, imo. Love, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Ah well, we'll see. But I don't think this is a good place to dump non-RS's. If you're gathering refs, could you use a sandbox on your own page? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Ordinarily, I'd agree. But this does have a bearing on the "data dumping" controversy, as I'm sure you realize. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC) It has the bearing that the poster hasn't realized the difference between having all the value-added data and having discarded some of the raw data. No one has ever claimed that CRU has dumped all data - just the data that wasn't relevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC) You may be right, but I thought he found some "middleware", intermediately-massaged data. There are certainly plenty of data-mangling software tools showing up in the leaked CRU files -- tho, of course, no proof they were actually used in published products. (Eric S. Raymond seems to be keeping track of them here, if you're curious.) This one needs some time to mature before becoming encyclopedic, or vanishing off into the blogosphere.... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Of course CRU doesn't work from raw data. It takes it and, in your words, "mangles" it in order to rule out data transcription errors, urban heat island effects, and any amount of other data errors. This isn't an issue. --TS 02:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC) The issue, of course, is if CRU's "value added" manipulations are defensible, and reproducible. Many outside observers are dubious. This may be something else we should add in the revamp article (but not by me, I'm sick of it.) Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC) This is verging on treating Wikipedia as a forum. We work from reliable sources. If reliable sources state as a fact that valuable data has been lost, or that the temperature data produced by the Climate Research Unit is irreproducible, then we report that. Meanwhile these "many outside observers" will just have to wait. --TS 03:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC) RS's: oh, to be sure. If I recover from the above effort, maybe I'll put something together -- if it exists (yet). Anyway, this bit has gotten a bit out of hand, I agree, and will hereby withdraw unless/until RS's appear.... Adios, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC) CRU didn't throw away the raw data. That's because CRU never had the raw data to begin with. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"some sceptics allege" vs. "it has been alleged"

I don't know if this needs discussing but I don't want to risk getting into an edit war over what seems like a fairly minor point so I'm bringing this to the talkpage. The sources cited give no indication that climate change sceptics are the only people making these allegations. George Monbiot, for one, has repeatedly made these claims. So 'some sceptics allege' seems like weasel-wording when compared to the impersonal passive construction.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Monbiot making that allegation. Can you quote, here, the text that you think does so? In the meantime, I put it back William M. Connolley (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The link was removed for some reason. Here it is. In the third paragraph: "some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV - which is a non-negotiable policy - requires us, when we discuss an opinion, to "attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion". Formulations such as "it is alleged" are weasel words. As the very first paragraph of WP:WEASEL says, "If a statement can't stand without weasel words, it does not express a neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If, on the other hand, a statement can stand without such words, their inclusion may undermine its neutrality, and the statement will generally be better off without them."

When discussing who holds a particular view of the stolen e-mails, we therefore have to attribute it. Not doing so breaches neutrality and is unacceptable. We cannot use sources which give a particular view as "examples"; we need a source that explicitly attributes a viewpoint to a particular party. I've therefore re-sourced the statement about who holds this view, as required by WP:NPOV, to a BBC article published today that addresses that specific point. The article says: "Critics of the scientific consensus have claimed that the e-mails undermine the case that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing global warming, and have dubbed the issue "ClimateGate."" This is the kind of source we need: it says who holds a particular POV and reports what they are claiming. An article that just presents a POV without attributing it to any party isn't much use for our requirements here. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The writers of the articles I cited are reporting that there is evidence of these actions. These are the 'who'. I wrote 'it has been asserted that there is evidence' but I could have written 'there is evidence' as this was what was in the articles cited, I was just worried it would strike you as POV and you would revert it again. Maybe you're right though, shall we go with 'there is evidence' instead? Verifiability or whatever? Here are the sources in question:

• Johnson, Keith. Climate Emails Stoke Debate The Wall Street Journal. 23 November 2009.
• Bailey, Ronald. The Scientific Tragedy of Climategate Reason. 1 December 2009</ref> a number of the leaked e-mails contain evidence that scientists had conspired to manipulate data.

Perhaps we could say "some journalists reported" or "some journalists are reporting," though it feels weird. I just don't want to give the impression that it is exclusively climate change sceptics that are viewing this as evidence of excluding scientists from the peer review data and of altering data since that's patently not trut.--Heyitspeter (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've fallen into the trap I described above of using sources as examples. The argument you're advancing is essentially your own and one that has not been published in reliable sources, which you're trying to source by combining other sources (which have problems of their own, since they're opinion pieces). This is original research by synthesis and isn't allowed on Wikipedia. What you need is a source that explains who makes a particular claim, not simply examples of someone making that claim. The source needs to be reliable and verifiable, obviously (so no blogs), and it needs to be a news report, since opinion pieces are really only useful for attributing a view to the author of that piece. The BBC News report I cited in the article meets those criteria: it describes who makes the claim, it's a news report, and it's from a very reliable source. You need to find something comparable to support the argument that you want to make. If you can do so and bring it here, I promise we can discuss whether it's usable in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Wall Street Journal citation with the relevant section quoted:

• Johnson, Keith. Climate Emails Stoke Debate The Wall Street Journal. 23 November 2009. "The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with."

--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern that writing 'it has been alleged' without specifying who looks a bit dodgy. But it would also be dodgy to suggest that climate change sceptics are the people alleging that the emails show evidence of attempts to exclude dissenting viewpoints and to prevent the release of data, as the article suggests now, when reliable secondary sources are reporting that the emails do show evidence of this (whether the evidence is definitive or not). I'm open to suggestions on how to word this.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU stuff: leaked or stolen?

Leaked or stolen?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm sorry (but unsurprised) that this stupid bit of edit-warring has been imported here from Talk:Climategate. As I pointed out there (in an archived comment), far more RS (then) used "Leaked" vs "Stolen." Since then, the developing consensus is that this was almost certainly an inside job, quite possibly by a whistle-blower. "Stolen" is now used largely by partisans who would prefer the public to look at the actions of the (supposed) hacker(s), rather than the implications of the leaked documents. Also, no credible evidence has (so far) been presented that any of the leaked docs were altered or fabricated. Therefore, using "stolen" in the lede of this section appears to be POV pushing, by those who hope the whole thing will blow over. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC) You are confusing the method of the theft with the fact of the theft. "Leaking" and "hacking" are methods. They are possible means by which data can be stolen. The fact of the theft is undisputed by any reliable source I've seen. The UEA is the owner of the data; it has stated repeatedly and unequivocally that the data was stolen. The method by which the theft was carried out does not affect the fact of the theft. Compare it to a bank robbery: whether the robbers use a getaway car or flee on foot, it doesn't change the fact that the bank's money was taken. As the owner of the stolen data, the UEA is the only party competent to state whether it authorised its release . I've repeatedly challenged editors on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (please note the correct article name) to provide any source to the contrary and to explain why any third party would be competent to dispute the UEA's statement about the violation of its property rights. So far, silence. I note that you've not provided any source either. Furthermore, your change to the article falsified what the cited source says; like the other reliable sources that address this point, it calls the data stolen. Please do not attribute speculative motives to editors and third party sources. It is discourteous and your comments border on a personal attack - please cut it out. We are guided by what reliable sources say, not by editors' partisan speculations. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC) "On Tuesday November 17, a substantial file including over 1000 emails either sent from or sent to members of the Climatic Research Unit (‘CRU’) at the University of East Anglia, was downloaded on the RealClimate website, together with meteorological station data used for research by CRU into the rate of the Earth’s warming, particularly over the past 150 years, and other material..." --from Sir Muir Russell to head the Independent Review into the allegations against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). So it's not so clearcut as you think -- IB this is the most recent CRU press release re the leak, and attitudes evolve over time, particularly with a new Director in charge. Mind, the next "Note to editors" reads "A police investigation is currently underway into the source of the theft." The point is, even CRU is not pressing the theft as the biggest part of their problem now. It is to "determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data..." (same source). --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Curious how you missed out the next line in that statement: "A police investigation is currently underway into the source of the theft." Selective quotation is not helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Dear ChrisO, I would like to use the opportunity to state that precisely this phrase is quoted by Pete Tillman literally few lines above your puzzling comment. It might be wise for you now to say "Ooops" :-) Dimawik (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC) "Ooops" :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC) NP. But a reminder that I do try to be honest and balanced re this stuff, regardless of my personal beliefs. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC) I agree with ChrisO. Whether an inside job or not, it was theft. even CRU is not pressing the theft as the biggest part of their problem now - well no, of course not. Dealing with crime is the job of the police (though I assume CRU are aware enough to realise that little is likely to be discovered). CRU are, reasonably enough, focussing on things they can do something about. But I can't see why that affects the fact of the theft at all William M. Connolley (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Whistleblowing is not theft. The leaked materials do not appear to be a random email archive, so some insider involvement, perhaps inadvertent, is extremely likely. We should not reach conclusions on the theft theory before a detailed investigation is completed. Before that, I would prefer therefore to qualify CRU's "theft" statements by saying, "according to CRU". For some reason, this phrase constantly gets stricken out without any discussion. Dimawik (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC) If property is taken without authorisation it is theft, period. "Whistleblowing" is a possible defence against charges of theft but it does not alter the fact that a theft has occurred. But that is irrelevant anyway, since there is no suggestion that a whistleblower was involved: the data was obtained by hacking CRU's server and its distribution was attempted by hacking RealClimate's server. On the face of it, it would seem to have been a rather crude attempt to frame RealClimate for "accidentally" releasing the files. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Hey, I was going to say that. But I'll say it anyway: Whistleblowing can be theft - and it would be in this case, if whistleblowing was ever used as a defence. Which is what it is, as ChrisO says - a public-interest defence against being prosecuted for theft William M. Connolley (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC) For Dimawit's benefit: Diebold whistle blower faces theft charges ► RATEL ◄ 00:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC) I don't know where did you folks get these ideas (other than CRU press releases). As far as I know, the break-ins into email systems in the US are typically prosecuted under US Title 18 Part I Chapter 121 — Stored Communications Act (SCA) law, which says nothing about either theft or larceny. Occasionally, the Privacy Act of 1974 is used, again the one with non-theft wording. I do not know about the British law, still, would you mind to substantiate your claims that the break-in (if it happened at all) constitutes theft? For Ratel's benefit: in the case you quote the theft charges were dropped, leaving just the "unlawfully accessing the company computer" charge, so your example works against you. Dimawik (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC) The whistelblower in that case, Stephen Heller, agreed to a plea bargain and paid a $10K fine. And you say this works against my point? How? ► RATEL ◄ 01:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC) I meant precisely what I said; leaving just the "unlawfully accessing the company computer" charge means just that, the theft charges were dropped. This does not contradict your (also correct) statement. See, for example, here (The LA County DA's statement says Heller pled to "unlawfully accessing the company computer in connection with its legal representation of Diebold Inc."). Once again, there were no theft charges at the end of the day. That said, the CRU is not in the US, and the circumstances will be different. Still, belief that reading someone else's email is theft needs to be substantiated. P.S. It might make sense to look up the definition of "theft" in Wikipedia to understand my concerns (there can be no intent to permanently deprive the owner ... of ... property, larceny on top of it requires stolen property to have value). Dimawik (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Was the data removed and disseminated without the University's permission? Yes. Was that an illegal act? Yes, almost certainly. Was it an "inside job"? Nothing to suggest it was, and much evidence to suggest an outside job. Has the incident revealed that AGW is a scam? No, not in any way (pending investigation outcome). What is the likelihood that the entire episode is a pre-Copenhagen smear paid for by big polluting industries that stand to lose billions from any carbon tax? Extremely likely (let's hope it gets exposed one day). ► RATEL ◄ 03:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Was the data removed and disseminated without the University's permission? Yes. - Agreed 100%. Was that an illegal act? Yes - again I agree, but, again this illegal act most likely isn't theft, so I prefer to either remove this word (and its derivatives) or attribute it to the CRU. Was it an "inside job"? Nothing to suggest it was, and much evidence to suggest an outside job. - There is no evidence whatsoever either way; CRU's statements (while it was still under prof. Jones) cannot be counted as evidence. Some experts in computer security say this seems like an insider job, common sense suggests the same (the archive has very little size - do we really expect hackers to sift through email before releasing them? do we really expect a hacker to name his or her file FOIA.zip?) Dimawik (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Too much OR. CRU says theft and stole. Nobody has proved otherwise. The rest is speculation. The "securoty expert" quoted is guessing, and his words could equally be interpreted to mean that deniers (who are insiders in the climate scene) were to blame. Basically, you are not allowed to bring your interpretations to the page, so the word you "prefer" is irrelevant. Your speculations about what hackers may or may not do are also irrelevant (but to answer your question: YES, I do expect hackers paid by polluting industries to sift through data looking for the most incriminating emails, and to know about the denied blizzard of McIntyre FOI requests. Duh). ► RATEL ◄ 08:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC) CRU says theft and stole. Nobody has proved otherwise. - this is precisely what I am asking for: change "data were stolen" to "according to CRU, data were stolen", nothing more. hackers paid by polluting industries - wow, a conspiracy theory in the alarmist camp :-) Dimawik (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC) It was their data, they own it. Nobody is in a better position than them to say whether they 'gave it away'. 'released it', 'accidentally exposed it' etc. What they say is that it was a theft and someone stole it. They called in the police. (It'll turn out to be a paid-for job, IMHO, but we'll see) --Nigelj (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC) There is actually no other possible source for the status of the data - since the UEA is the owner, it's the only party in a position to say whether it was stolen or not. I've repeatedly challenged editors to produce any source that would challenge that or to explain why any such source would be competent, but so far I've heard nothing but crickets. This whole "whistleblower" meme is based on nothing more than completely unsourced speculation. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC) I don't know where do you live, but in the UK the only party in a position to say whether something was stolen or not is the court, not the owner :-) Before that, credible allegations are usually made by the law enforcement. To see other problems with your reasoning, note that any of the intended recipients of an email has a full right to access it. For example, if prof. Jones had sent an archive of his emails to some person outside of CRU, this person can rightfully access them. Whether (s)he can publish emails is a different matter, but even if there is a non-disclosure agreement involved, this may be simply a (civil) contract violation, not a (criminal) theft charge. That's why saying "as stated by the CRU" or "alleged" before word "theft" is the only honest way to describe the situation. Dimawik (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Note also the problems with your use of the word "owner" here. In case of data, email in particular, it is hard to say who is the "owner" in the regular meaning of this English word. Definitely in case of email at least the sender and any of the recipients can do whatever they want with the email (limited, perhaps, by the copyright laws in the particular jurisdiction and some agreements in place). Most of the recipients are employed and (presumably) have signed some agreement with their employers regulating their use of email at work, so these employers have some say as well. Since most of the organizations involved are partially on either US or UK taxpayer's payroll, the corresponding agreements certainly introduce some government ownership in the results of the research, and the picture becomes even murkier. Add the Freedom of Information laws to the mix, and it is quite possible that the break-in simply finally delivered the goods to the rightful "owners", i.e., taxpayers :-) Dimawik (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC) This is all WP:OR and not a little bit of WP:SOAP. Have you a reliable source that says the e-mails were not stolen, but liberated by and for the people, their rightful owners? We should be talking about how to improve the article. --Nigelj (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Dear Nigelj, Note that you are the one using the word "liberated", not me. I also did not propose any of my text to be included; it was simply an explanation (it can be sourced - so it is not OR - it just does not belong to this article). To clarify: the crime clearly has been committed, just not theft. All I request is that CRU words about theft are presented as such, prefixed with "according to CRU". Why do you think that (100% truthful) clarification is bad? Dimawik (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Because that phraseology implies another legitimate viewpoint, e.g. that they have been liberated by and for the people. --Nigelj (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Until theft charges are at least filed, this ambivalence is indeed a correct position for WP, in my opinion. Quoting an accusation as a fact is not a good idea. Dimawik (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC) I think you are confusing the language used when talking about a specific person who is accused of a crime (e.g. Mr X allegedly stole...). There is no reason to use such language when talking about the existence of a crime. All the legit sources quote that CRU say that this is a theft. We have no legal reason to be coy about that. --Nigelj (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Not only have we no reason to be coy, but to couch the act in any other terms would require SYN, OR and/or weasel words. Dimawki needs to cease with the bloviational attempts to spin this as a humanitarian act by a whistleblower — a scenario that exists only in the wishful thinking of the blogosphere. ► RATEL ◄ 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Second drafts, CRU climate data-discard controversy

Following are two competing drafts, the later one first:

a. CRU climate data-discard controversy, draft by User:Ratel

The CRU responded to press articles that implied the unit had discarded vital climate data with this statement:

No data has been lost. The collection of land surface air temperature data by the Climatic Research Unit goes back to a time when there was insufficient computing data storage capacity to retain all versions of data records on computer - unlike today when all versions may be kept thanks to greater storage capacity. ... Much of the earlier data exists in World Weather Records volumes (published by the Smithsonian Library) and, of course, original data will still be available from the appropriate national meteorological services.

In an earlier statement, then-CRU director Phil Jones disputed charges of data deletion from others , stating that:

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends. When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends, so we've taken them out. Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks. We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world.

Climate Audit data requests

Barraged with numerous FOI requests for the original climate data from climate change sceptical non-climatologists (Nature reported that in the course of five days in July 2009 the CRU had been "inundated" with 58 FOI requests from Stephen McIntyre and people affiliated with his blog Climate Audit requesting access to raw climate data or information about their use), Jones refused them all, citing the confidentiality agreements regarding the data between CRU and the nations that supplied the data.

b. CRU climate data-discard controversy, draft by User:Tillman

According to The Times, the CRU has discarded much of the raw temperature data which it had gathered from weather stations around the world, and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The original data, stored on paper and magnetic tape, were discarded "to save space" when the CRU moved to a new building in the 1980s. This means that "other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years," the Times reported. The CRU was forced to reveal the losses following requests for the data under the UK Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The CRU responded to the Times article with this statement:

No data has been lost. The collection of land surface air temperature data by the Climatic Research Unit goes back to a time when there was insufficient computing data storage capacity to retain all versions of data records on computer - unlike today when all versions may be kept thanks to greater storage capacity. ... Much of the earlier data exists in World Weather Records volumes (published by the Smithsonian Library) and, of course, original data will still be available from the appropriate national meteorological services.

In an earlier statement, then-CRU director Phil Jones disputed charges of data deletion from others , stating that:

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends. When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends, so we've taken them out. Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks. We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world.

Still earlier, in August 2009, the CRU posted the following notice on its website, apparently in response to Roger Pielke Jr.'s FOIA request:

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

John Nielsen-Gammon, a climatology professor at Texas A&M, previously uninvolved with the CRU controversy, had this to ssay:

There was nothing unethical about CRU throwing away the raw temperature data. This is because CRU IS NOT THE ARCHIVAL SITE FOR THE RAW TEMPERATURE DATA. The individual nations that collected the weather observations are responsible for their archival. If things proceeded as they normally do, CRU wrote to Burundi, say, and requested copies of their climate of their climate observations. Someone in Burundi made them a magnetic tape or Xerox copies of the data and sent it to CRU. CRU processed the data and got it in the form they wanted. Having no need for the copies of the original data anymore, they tossed them. ... In summary, there's no evidence that they destroyed data. They destroyed extra copies of data that they didn't need anymore. The originals, as far as we know, were and are in other hands."

Climate Audit data requests

[PT note: as this seems the most cotroversial section, perhaps this should be greatly shortened or just dropped for now -- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)]

"Any regular reader of Climate Audit knows that McIntyre and his allies have struggled for years to pry information out of Phil Jones and his group, and that Jones has resisted at every turn."

Pielke, Jr. describes what he calls the "bizarre contortions" CRU went through to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre and Climate Audit. CRU first told McIntyre that he couldn't have the data because he was not an academic. His colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, then asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of FOI requests for the original climate data, Jones refused them all, saying that there were confidentiality agreements regarding the data between CRU and the nations that supplied the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language. Then Pielke Jr., who is also an academic, filed a request for the same data. CRU's response rejecting Pielke's (and similar) requests is quoted above, and was later reported by The Times, the first MSM account of the CRU climate data-discard controversy.

---

This is a manufactured controversy. As we know, no data has been lost, data which it had gathered from weather stations around the world is badly ambiguous. Anybody who wants *the original data* should ask the custodians of the original data, which is the appropriate NMS. So no, your proposal is unacceptable. I can make a counter-proposal for you to reject, if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also obviously undue weight on recent news. The coverage you're proposing is way excessive for its relative significance; it would completely unbalance the article. Summarise, don't write a sequel to War and Peace. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking, I discovered that the stupid Times quote was in the article already, so I've taken it out. In the precoess I've effectively done the counter-proposal [9] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a manufactured controversy in your opinion, William. Multiple WP:Reliable Sources disagree with you. Please edit the Times section to what you feel is accurate, while avoiding OR. The bit you question is almost a direct quote, and it's rebutted later, by CRU & the A&M guy. This is a "charge & response" section (as you know, W....). Nor is it at all clear that CRU's "Value added" records can be reconstructed, certainly not easily. Nor is it clear that the data was actually dumped -- see below.

As for WP:Undue Weight: please. The CRU aricle is in the midst of a major expansion, and this is a very important topic. But please indicate how to shorten it -- or just do it -- this is a draft, intended for markup & comment. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I agree it would be better to shorten this. But I think what I've written is accurate, and I'm tired of fussing with it. Your help would genuinely be appreciated on this. And you should see all the stuff I already took out! TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tweaked draft, shortened it a bit, added a subpara. for better readability. Chris & WMC, among the things I tossed were refs to the leaked emails, since WP:Not News. But there were plenty of them, and this topic is inextricably intertwined with the FOIA request section over at Climategate -- and that seems the place to pursue that angle, as the thing ages a bit. But this one isn't news at all -- CRU has been refusing to supply data to "skeptics" since (at least) 2005. As JNG notes in the draft, this isn't news to anyone who follows CA & RC . And it constitutes a good deal of the more-notorious of the leaked emails. McIntyre, Pielke Jr. and McKitrick are all mentioned in them, as is the (apparent) CRU strategy for denying their FOIA requests. All three (ims) have confirmed tht the (leaked) emails they sent CRU are authentic. Best, Pete Tillman (talk)

What it looks like to me is a one-sided story made up from very biassed and non-notable, or primary, sources. If we were to use it in the article, it would need at least as much again from 'the other side of the story' for balance. Then it would be ridiculously long. Much better to have a couple of sentences of pre-digested pre-balanced analysis from a sensible, reliable, secondary source. If no such source exists, then that is all the more reason to drop it until one does. --Nigelj (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nigelj, I tried to report both sides fairly & neutrally. If you look at the refs and word count, it looks fairly well-balanced to me. As for brevity, if I could remember the old saw about I'd have written a short report, but didn't have time -- well, you get the picture, it's not like I'm getting paid for this... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you still using the Times article - despite actually having agreed that it raises red flags about its reliability/research on this particular subject? (how can we trust it on FOIA then?) Other than that i agree with Nigelj above, and would add that its A) Too long B) Way too dependent on quotes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I think you're making too much of the Times bloopers -- these are typical reporter misunderstandings. Overall I think he got it about right. Do you have something specific from the Times that's still wrong in the draft? (as did WMC, fixed)

As for length & quotes, specific suggestions/edits most welcome! I like quotes, myself, and may have gotten carried away. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that:

1. This topic (data hiding/deletion) is too important to leave it out of the article. After all, Jones stepped down aside for some reason, and it is not email hacking. So intellectual honesty requires us to mention the data and FOI controversy in some detail.
2. To uninitiated people around the word who read the emails Jones sounds like trying to hide and delete data (personally, I think he was afraid to reveal his sloppiness, not malice - but very explicit attempts to hide the data are hard to explain in a benign manner), thus the subject is notable
3. The topic is important independently of the email leak; the allegations about precisely this type of conduct by CRU were made for years, the leak just provided some substantiation for these allegations.
4. It is unlikely that truly reliable secondary sources will appear soon (before the investigation is complete). Unlike the partisans on both sides, folks with truly analytical type of mind will be waiting on the sidelines to see the outcome of the investigations to avoid making an uneducated judgment.
5. Thus, we are stuck with primary sources for now. I see no harm in publishing a selection of quotes from CRU, and a lot of good. Anyone who feels the opposite should try to argue this "no harm" statement as opposed to simply trying to delay adding the quotes. How Wikipedia listing irrefutable information (from the CRU's mouth, with attribution) can contradict its goals or hurt the article when the alternative is just to censor the news? The balance of quoting the primary sources seems positive. Let's make the article better.
6. I therefore would like to see the critique of Pete's work to be constructive: let's either explain the harm that will be done by publishing the quotes, or argue about the quotes to be listed. Better yet, let's just edit Pete's draft above.

Dimawik (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones' didn't "step down" permanently, he temporarily stepped aside to avoid the impression of inappropriate influence during the investigations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correction. I changed my comment above so this transgression against the English language (I knew this detail about Jones) does not detract us from commenting on the substance of my post. Dimawik (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion died down; time to move text onto the page? Note that the first section currently also includes some of the information on the topic. My suggestion is to leave it as it is for now and discuss changes once the new section stabilizes. Dimawik (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. The clear consensus above was that it is a manufactured controversy, with undue weight on recent news and primary sources, reported one-sidedly without balance, too long, way too dependent on quotes and raises red flags. The fact that the author has argued back against every point raised, without substantially altering the text, does not mean that he won any of the arguments. Consensus is not about getting the last word in. Some of us are too busy to keep repeating ourselves. --Nigelj (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please present evidence to support your assertion that there is a "clear consensus" that this is a "manufactured controversy"? Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote "The clear consensus above was that it is..." then went through the discussion above extracting a phrase or two from each comment you had received, skipping over your answers to each. That, as you know, was one of them. --Nigelj (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Huh? I meant "consensus", as in WP:consensus against posting the draft, as Dimawik suggested we do. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As written by Pete Tillman, the section almost entirely consists of the quotes from the CRU's mouth. How can it be "manufactured"? If you disagree with suggested wording, please propose your own. The topic is clearly very notable, so we do a disservice to readers and WP by just omitting it. Dimawik (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• For this topic, there are no good secondary sources in the press yet that summarise it succinctly and accurately. Until such exists, it should only get the barest of mentions and should give Jones (per BLP) the benefit of the doubt. ► RATEL ◄ 00:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you folk want to start this discussion all over again, then I am going to be more brutally honest about the piece above. It is highly biassed, with excessive amounts of emotive language based on unacceptable sources and it's being proposed for the wrong article. It starts and sets the scene with a long quote from a blog that says, "...struggled for years to pry information out of Phil Jones and his group, and that Jones has resisted at every turn" (emotive, biassed language highlighted). It talks of CRU's "bizarre contortions" sourced from another blog. Etc. All it is about is a bunch of bloggers trying to extract megabytes of copyright, pre-owned, raw data from a government-funded research establishment, that does not own that data, by a concerted amateur bombardment. But it's mostly sourced to the bloggers themselves. Eventually they hit on FOI and were probably about to succeed, when someone hacked the servers. This is probably a story to be told, somewhere on WP, but in about two lines, based on a sober reliable source (or two) that has predigested all the bile and venom and then expressed the facts in ordinary English. We all made suggestions above, hoping that Peter or someone would tone down, cut down and re-source the proposal, but the wording has hardly changed at all during the discussion. Now, I have no energy to rewrite it as I believe that this is the wrong article for the story anyway: it will probably end up as a sentence or two in Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident after the official enquiry has put the whole story of that incident together. It is not part of the description of the CRU, but part of the news story that is unfolding as the CRUehi. Now, is that clearer, why the text above is not going in this article? --Nigelj (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nigelj, (1) This section is clearly relevant to the article, as a typical person aware fo the CRU knows it as the place where the Climategate happened. (2) There is a complete proposal for addition into the article. There are precisely three quotes that you identify as biased:

• ...struggled for years to pry
• Jones has resisted at every turn
• bizarre contortions

If these are reworked/removed, will you be OK with the text? If not, can you identify the pieces of the proposal you do not like - and the reasons behind your dislike - more precisely? Dimawik (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:HEAR --Nigelj (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nigelj, WP:HEAR talks about re-discussing the consensus. Perhaps, I missed the editors reaching this consensus. Would you mind to point me to the discussion where the said consensus has been reached? Dimawik (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary of data loss issue

Trying to read this an an outsider, all I can see are unsubstaniated charges of data deletion (with an implicit charge of covering something up) that have been comprehensively answered and refuted by the CRU. That is the only encyclopedic inclusion that should be allowed. Possibly two sentences, with the first sentence detailing the claims, and the second (and possiblly a third) giving the CRU response. Anything else gives undue weight to the denier blogosphere, and by casting aspersions of dishonestly on the CRU staff, contravenes BLP. ► RATEL ◄ 03:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that CRU in its original statements clearly agreed that there is some data lost, so the charge is quite substantiated. Later CRU changed its wording to indicate that no data was lost. I think all three statements of CRU on the topic shall be quoted showing (in my opinion) the 180-degree reversal or (in WMC's opinion) an extreme consistency. If indeed the data loss was "completely refuted" in CRU's statements, then quoting all three of them - as proposed by Pete Tillman - agrees with your position of "giving the CRU response", doesn't it? Dimawik (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreement with editor Dimawik (who should take a bow, for the idea of serially quoting all 3 CRU statements.) Ratel, do you agree? Shall we publish at least the (corrected) Times article quote and CRU's replies? Would this answer (for instance) editor Nigelj's (major) objections? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: I'd prefer to replace the (somewhat problematic) Times lede with another RS -- has anyone seen a better one? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with quoting large amounts of primary source quotes in the expectation that the reader will be able to do some kind of analysis in their heads while reading it. We should depend on a reliable secondary source that has analysed the whole situation and summarised a balanced overview for us (and our readers). I don't believe that such a source yet exists, and I think we will have to await the outcome of the planned enquiry into the whole incident.

One reason that this is a complex issue, and that each primary-source quote is heavily dependent on its original context, is that there have been several accusation related to 'data loss' levelled at CRU, and they have responded to each accusation separately:

1. In the 1980s some primary data may have been deleted from CRU databases due to the costs of storage at that time. No data was lost here as the original recording stations keep copies of all their data, it was only CRU that was trying to amalgamate all station data into one database. The Met Office has recently said it still has all the original data.
2. Some station data may have been found to be inaccurate during some time periods due to 'urban heat island effects' or 'discontinuities'. Some of these data may have been excluded (not 'lost') from certain summaries due to legitimate doubt about its validity, when compared to more reliable data.
3. There have been accusations that a piece of code found in the hacked documents could automatically discard a data point on some criteria and continue without logging the discard. It has not been made at all clear if that was prototype, test or production code, and if it was production code, which published papers, if any, relied on its output, and how many, if any, data points met the exclusion criteria.

With complexities like this, screaming "Foul!" at every mention of the words 'deleted' or 'removed' is far from fair. However, all of this is conjecture, synthesis and WP:OR until we find it in a reliable and informed secondary analysis of the whole situation. Expecting, by selective quoting of primary sources, to implant the ability to do all this analysis into every reader's mind is equally nonsensical. If science was that simple, we could all be scientists, which we are not. --Nigelj (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with using primary sources when secondary do not exist yet. Once the secondary sources arrive, I will support replacing primary sources with secondary ones. In the meantime, suppressing the information does not seem to be a service to WP. After all, a lay person who knows what the CRU is, most likely learned about its existence through following this controversy. Why not present the excerpts from CRU PR that (in WMC's opinion) clearly refute the allegations of the deleted data? Dimawik (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

PT, you asked what I'd agree to. I've edited it to show the version that I would endorse. ► RATEL ◄ 15:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm travelling, and (basically) offline (checking email at public library). First impressions: It's very odd to say "The CRU responded to press articles..." without citing any, don't you think?

"Barraged with numerous FOI requests for the original climate data..." McIntyre has rebutted this, ims, so should probably be quoted. If we use "barrage", it would have to be a direct quote or sounds POV (imo). Why did you toss the third-party A&M guy? He seems the most even-handed secondary source we have so far.

Thanks to Nigelj as well. Now I have a better idea of your objections. Agree it's a complex situation. Will work on this again when I return, probably Thurs 12-10. In haste, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

• I've posted both drafts so that they can be easily compared. Does someone care to create a third draft, for consensus? Pete Tillman (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest including neither. The hacking article has all the detail needed for this as a "news" story. For a scientific story, there is no content at all. Draft (b) is obviously wrong; draft (a) is better, but nonetheless gives more weight to this ephemera than it deserves William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, have to agree with WMC here despite my efforts at forming a draft, Pete. Suggest you wait until this all dies down as see if any of it sticks. At the moment less and less of it looks substantiated. WP is not a news portal anyway. ► RATEL ◄ 00:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent POV edits

Spoisp recently added some material to the article which is extremely biased and includes unsourced personal editorialising. The addition of "incriminating" is not supported by the cited source in that sentence, which says nothing of the sort. The remainder is badly sourced (using blogs, which are not reliable sources - see WP:RS) and grossly partisan. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." Adding claims of wrongdoing that are worded as proven fact is completely inconsistent with NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are serious biographies of living persons (BLP) problems with that added section. --TS 02:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Insertion of speculation of a "leak"

On this subject, see Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/FAQ Q5. --TS 00:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim of "hacking" is clear speculation. Wikipedia should stick to unbiased terms like "exposure" or "release." Answer Q5 clearly conflicts with the neutrality requirements expressed in answer Q1. --74.248.53.52 (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Lede

SBHB has changed the lede to include others in the compilation of data. While this is doubtlessly true, the basis for the changed sentence is this one from the CRU's site:

"Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models."

A new source would need to be referenced in order to make this change. However, since this article is about the CRU and not about the data bank of the world-wide climate community, perhaps we should revert back to the original. Surely the CRU has indeed developed some of the data sets itself. Thank you. --Yopienso (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Did Phil Jones delete emails?

Just for the record here--the source counted unreliable--Prison Planet--about Phil Jones's deletions of emails, was merely quoting from a Nature article. Here's the original. I'm not sure the little insinuation about his deletions belongs in the article, since everybody deletes emails, don't we? I should delete more! In retrospect it looks sinister, especially in the light of his indisputably wrong-headed email suggesting certain emails be deleted. But if the only trouble was sourcing, that's not a trouble. A trouble to me would be having it in this particular article; I'm not sure it's even noteworthy enough to be in the Jones bio or the email controversy article. --Yopienso (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)