Talk:Climatic Research Unit documents

Source contributions

This page is split from Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, incorporating text from 28 January 2010 updated in certain sections to 14-53, 3 February 2010, before the "documents" section of that article was drastically reduced. . dave souza, talk 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: the parent article was drastically shortened in Hipocrite's edit of 6 February which omitted significant details and sources. After this sub-article was created, Hipocrite shortened the main article section to one brief paragraph per summary style. The latter change was subsequently largely reverted, with relatively minor differences from the 6 February version. See also Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Discussion of splitting article. . dave souza, talk 13:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy

I'm going to ask that this article be speedied, as it mostly duplicates a section of the parent article that is being revert-warred back in. Sorry. Hipocrite (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It has a lot more worthwhile information that was removed in your earlier bold trimming, and as such stands as a self-sustained detailed article which is useful in documenting this issue. Object, no good case for speedy. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. This article is completely covered by the parent article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The parent article still includes a concise summary of this larger article. The way forward is to agree a better summary on the main article. . . dave souza, talk 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that A10 only applies to a new article that "does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material." Splits with more info are ok. . . dave souza, talk 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely that's right - keep duplication out of the parent article, and allow this one to build, as more *notable* detail about specific documents comes out (there will likely be plenty of that when the inquiries begin to report) --Nigelj (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly, there is no duplication here. The CRU hacking incident page does not have any of the emails or any of the discussion of them. This page covers a related but separate topic. --Jfraatz

Quick question. If we were to delete this page I would like to ask all those in favor of doing so, which page they would prefer having the emails displayed on? I mean they obviously have to go somewhere. It would be silly to delete substantial stuff like this from a comprehensive encyclopedia. --Jfraatz —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

Removed material

I have just removed the following material from the 'Code and documentation' section. First it is far too quote-heavy, but secondly and more importantly it is irrelevant to the code obtained from CRU. The Guardian author is quoting results from a paper by Les Hatton published in 1997. This is not about this code in particular, but code in general. If the contributor of this material would like to start an article like Computer programming in scientific research, then this might be relevant there, but here it is confusing, as this distinction is not explicit, and it is undue WP:WEIGHT --Nigelj (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

<snip>

The Guardian has Darrel Ince commenting on programming code used in science, both commercial origin and in-house. His analysis is scathing.

"[Professor Les Hatton found] that interface inconsistencies between software modules which pass data from one part of a program to another occurred at the rate of one in every seven interfaces on average in the programming language Fortran, and one in every 37 interfaces in the language C. This is hugely worrying when you realise that just one error — just one — will usually invalidate a computer program. What he also discovered, even more worryingly, is that the accuracy of results declined from six significant figures to one significant figure during the running of programs.

Hatton and other researchers' work indicates that scientific software is often of poor quality. What is staggering about the research that has been done is that it examines commercial scientific software – produced by software engineers who have to undergo a regime of thorough testing, quality assurance and a change control discipline known as configuration management.

By contrast scientific software developed in our universities and research institutes is often produced by scientists with no training in software engineering and with no quality mechanisms in place. Computer code is also at the heart of a scientific issue. One of the key features of science is deniability: if you erect a theory and someone produces evidence that it is wrong, then it falls. This is how science works: by openness, by publishing minute details of an experiment, some mathematical equations or a simulation; by doing this you embrace deniability. This does not seem to have happened in climate research. Many researchers have refused to release their computer programs — even though they are still in existence and not subject to commercial agreements. An example is Professor Mann's initial refusal to give up the code that was used to construct the 1999 "hockey stick" model that demonstrated that human-made global warming is a unique artefact of the last few decades. (He did finally release it in 2005.)"

His bottom line is:

"So, if you are publishing research articles that use computer programs, if you want to claim that you are engaging in science, the programs are in your possession and you will not release them then I would not regard you as a scientist; I would also regard any papers based on the software as null and void.

I find it sobering to realise that a slip of a keyboard could create an error in programs that will be used to make financial decisions which involve billions of pounds and, moreover, that the probability of such errors is quite high. But of course the algorithms (known as Gaussian copula functions) that the banks used to assume that they could create risk-free bonds from sub-prime loans has now been published (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all). That was pretty expensive. Climate change is expensive too. We really do need to be sure that we're not getting any of our sums wrong - whether too big or small - there as well."[[1]] Darrel Ince is professor of computing at the Open University.

</snip>

Last sentence of the code section

"Similarly, the quality of code he uses to put together problems for physics undergraduates does not reflect the quality of results from the Large Hadron Collider.[48]"

This is poorly worded. Similar to what? Also since Meyer's is criticizing Graham-Cummings in the previous sentence, I mistook the "he" as a reference to GC and not to Meyers. Had to read through the ref to find the quote, which is a nonsequitor anyway. There is no RS evidence that the code was for educational purposes. JPatterson (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:TPG# re using ppl's names in headings. I think that since Myles Allen is the subject of the previous sentence, and he is the subject of this, its meaning is clear. As you say, the words here are almost all in the ref, so the statement is reliably sourced (and attributed) to its author. Similarly refers to the fact that we are talking in this sentence about physics undergrad teaching vs LHC results rather than (possible) climate science teaching vs the HadCRUT temperature record. Originally I had 'By analogy' in that place before changing it just before committing it to the page. Feel free to change it to that if you think it will be clearer. Any more, and I'd wonder what other readers think. --Nigelj (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the bad form, I wasn't aware it was a no-no. I'm afraid your explanation didn't help though. "Similarly" would normally be used to add a related by slightly different point to the one made in the previous sentence. The point in the previous sentence is the contention that the code was not related to HadCrut. The point of the last sentence relates to the difference in code quality one might expect in different contexts. These tow points are in no way similar. My rule for "he, it, this etc." is when in doubt be explicit. BTW, I have self-imposed an extension of my main article topic ban to this spin-off so for another week I am unable to edit the article itself. JPatterson (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Code and documentation broken

This section remains as broken as it ever was. Who likes it, and do we need to go back through the whole why-it-is-broken argument all over again? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We need something there. Personally I'm reasonably happy with the current form, but I know opinions vary. If I recall correctly most of the arguments about this are now stored in archived versions of a different talk page? Perhaps you could provide a link to these? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's probably broken, but at least it balances two published opinions and doesn't give undue weight to the issue. There does appear to be an issue here which needs a good secondary analysis aa a source. Maybe this will just act as a placeholder until the independent investigations are published. . . dave souza, talk 13:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But, Dave, it's not two published opinions, but one that forgot to ask what the code is for, and another that said, 'Hey, you forgot to ask what the code is for'. That's a published error, and a calling out of that error. (Not all the code on every university backup server was used for the preparation of graphs and predictions for peer reviewed papers) --Nigelj (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC: You say that the section is "broken". What's wrong with it? Please be specific. The last time I examined it, it was fine. Generalities don't help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Some stuff has been put back in that I don't think belongs. The Wash Times article is really poor, none of it has to do with the code although there's an oblique reference to harry readme file. The source they quote (using quotes no less) is not even named. The other reference goes to a broken link. The last sentence in that paragraph is talking about data not code. I would suggest removing "Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase and question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record.[49][50] In his CBS News blog, columnist Declan McCullagh stated that "East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way."[51]". I also think "He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code.[52]" is a non sequitur ans should be removed. JPatterson (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you need to have that comment explained to you? It seems clear enough to me. We have code of unknown provenance, and some sources reading that code without bothering to wait until they know more, and using it to discredit the quality of the work at CRU. This is a central criticism of the attacks on the CRU: that the people making the attacks cannot be bothered with due diligence. --TS 21:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you need to have non sequitur explained to you? His conclusion (criticism of the CRU code is irrelevant) does not follow from his premise (code used for educational purposes does not require the same quality standards as that used for real work) because there is no evidence the examined CRU code was used for educational purposes, and if you read the harry readme, there is plenty of evidence it wasn't. Secondly, as has been pointed out many times in the past, Allen's HadCrut comments are a red herring because the BBC review explicitly points out that the poor quality of the code doesn't necessary mean the final product was invalid. Nor does it claim that it was used in the creation of HadCRUT. The BBC report goes to the quality control and auditing processes in place at CRU, which given the data that's been misplaced and Jone's admissions re his lack of organizational skills, seems quite relevant. JPatterson (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually we have absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the code in question was or was not used for anything important. The critiques are tsimply time-wasting attacks because of this. No non sequitur is involved except on the part of those who use this code of unknown provenance and unknown purpose and go on to critique it as if it did have an important purpose. --TS 22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"This is a central criticism of the attacks on the CRU" Which is a great reason why it needs to be in the article. This is an article about a controversy. We would remiss in our duties as Wikipedia editors to not cover the subject of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It's easy to see what is wrong with this section. It has been extensively discussed in various places. After the first sentence, which introduces the code, the rest of the first paragraph (6 lines on my current display) describes details of the code on the assumption that it is important software. The next paragraph roundly debunks that assumption as no one knows what the code analysed was written for. This paragraph is only 4 lines long and one and a half of those lines are given over to Newsnight's lame defence of their unfounded assumption. So we have 7.5 lines about a false assumption (that is actually completely non-notable now that we know that they never checked what the code is for) and only 2.5 lines on the reality, which is that you can't judge research code quality on the basis of two randomly chosen snippets of code of unknown purpose and provenance that you find on a research dept's email server. The latter point needs more emphasis and the former point should be expunged or reduced to a short mention just to state the erroneous assumption. --Nigelj (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To be constructive, here is an optimised version of the same section, after much collaboration and discussion at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Archive 24#Modified Even shorter version. I doubt if we can improve on this here. I propose swapping the whole present section for this text, unless anyone has a really good reason why not, that they can summarise in the form of a better and better sourced alternative version here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Looks good to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

@Nigelj. The "optimised" version was a specifically shortened version designed to reduce the size of the parent article, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. The article we're working on here was created to allow for a greater amount of detail than was warranted at the other, so the longer (currently included) version is more appropriate.

It's the balance, not the length that I'm discussing here. --Nigelj (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was concern for length that prompted the change but rather a desire to come up with a version everyone could live with in order to stop the slow motion edit warring. I think the added material is not well sourced and detracts rather than adds to the quality of the article. YMMV. JPatterson (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

@WMC. I'm fine with going back through it it again if you'd like, but remember you've removed the section three times (viz., [2][3][4], leading to formal admonishment here), and each time it's been re-added (occasionally after discussion). It might be more productive to look over these sections of the talkpage rather than rehashing them again here.

@Both: please review and follow/understand WP:NOT#FORUM (really WP:NOT#OR, I thought these linked to the same place) and WP:V.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"The purpose of the code and its effect, if any, on the scientific conclusions reached by the CRU is unknown" What's the source for this statement? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• If you're paying attention, you'll see that this follows from the statement by Myles Allen that follows it. If anybody knows what the code is for, they're not saying. --TS 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I added that line. It paraphrases the BBC commentator and includes a bit of supportable synthesis from Allen. I think it is important that the reader understand that the criticisms can not be construed to be an invalidation of the CRU work product. JPatterson (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That source is an opinion piece and cannot be used for statements of fact. In any case, I don't see where in the source it says the purpose of the code is unknown or even why it's relevant. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question. The right question is: do we know how it was procured, who used it, and what they used it for? Reliable sources have plainly stated that it wasn't used for HADCrut. No reliable source has stated what it was used for. To fail to state this clearly would be very misleading. We don't need a source to say we are are aware of no sources. --TS 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:OR. If you can't find a source for that, it's out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. You have no source that says what the purpose or providence of this code is. And you need to read the rest of this discussion to see that nor has anyone else. And you need to learn a thing or two about discussion and consensus. This edit is counter-productive, unhelpful and tendentious. If I had time now I would take it straight to the enforcement noticeboard. Good night. --Nigelj (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere does the section say that the purpose of the code changes the scientific conclusions reached by the CRU. You appear to be addressing a straw man. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support Nigel's common sense proposal. This version gained broad support from both sides. Let's go back to it and move on in hopes that a more definitive analysis becomes available. JPatterson (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems sensible. It is the least half-baked version of the section on the code that I have seen. --TS 22:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, my bad for commenting above without checking. This article had the shorter version, with the extended version in history as a resource, but on 10 February it was changed to an extended version without discussion.[5] The shorter version as previously agreed is better as a placeholder, hope that more information will be published reasonably soon. . . dave souza, talk 22:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's conceivable that Muir Russell's people could investigate and comment on the code, but I wouldn't bet on it. The significance of the code is blog fodder par excellence, but nobody has so far suggested credibly that it has any bearing on the scientific output of CRU. --TS 22:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a horrible edit, adding terrible POV phrases and unsourced and badly sourced stuff we had discussed hard to remove and tone down in the past, all over the place. And done at 4 o'clock in the morning with the edit summary "Hooray! Everything is beautiful! Also, sorry." You could hardly get a less descriptive or more misleading edit summary! How come people on different timezones didn't just revert it on sight and request discussion? --Nigelj (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So, we've had no alternative version proposed, and no one has come up with any other source that they say sheds any more light. And we've learned that the present version was stuffed in with no consensus, no discussion and a very misleading edit summary in the recent past. We've also had here quite a few messages of support for the proposal above. So shall I just go ahead and put the well-argued consensus version above in? --Nigelj (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would. I didn't notice the hack until this discussion. Maybe we should lock this section until more RS info becomes available. I've scoured the internet looking for a good source and am convinced there's nothing else out there we can use. JPatterson (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. --Nigelj (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the last two sentences from the first paragraph. I suggest the following:

The CRU files also included temperature reconstruction programs written in Fortran and IDL, programmer comments and a readme file. In a BBC Newsnight report, software engineer John Graham-Cumming found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" because it lacked clear documentation or an audit history. Graham-Cumming also reported finding a bug in the code's error handling which, if it occured, would ignore data without warning.

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

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That is okay with me for now. We can argue about the original research issue tomorrow. --TS 23:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

FOI

I lost track of where this ended up, but I'm sure we argued about whether the FOI stuff broke the law. This has been clarified recently: the FOI office said no such thing: [6] and links therein William M. Connolley (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Their submission just indicates that a case has not been brought against them regarding a FOI violation by the ICO. The news articles never made that claim. From our own wikipedia article: "In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which — unless rebutted — would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact." So, what the UEA just said was that the ICO said there was evidence against them that unless rebutted would prove a violation. I think. Ignignot (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the direct link to the CRU statements could be of some value in the article? [7]130.232.214.10 (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Via the link provided by 130.232.214.10, there is the University's submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has a lot of information, in section 3.7, about FOI requests (including the DDOS inundation in July 2009), accusations, and the limitations on supplying data imposed by the Global Climate Observing System and others. --Nigelj (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

New thematic approach

I've tweaked the article to approach the e-mails in a more thematic way - instead of breaking them down by individual e-mails, grouping them together by theme. This has the advantage of being more user-friendly and also eliminates some redundancy, particularly concerning the several e-mails relating to FOI, where the same or similar information was being repeated in response to them in several sections. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't this part of Climategate?

Is there even a reason for splitting these articles up? Macai (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Climatic Research Unit hacking incident was too large, and the back-and-forth over the documents was drowning the article. People also wanted to include large chunks of email text, which was even more overwhelming. It was discussed at length in Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Archive 26 and Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_25. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, then maybe Climategate should link here. I know I already made the edit and it got reverted, but really, when people talk about Climategate, they're not talking about the hacking, but the content of the emails that got released and their impact (on any) of the credibility of the scientific consensus on AGW. Before you tell me that this is not the main article, and a redirect should therefore always go to the main page, I'd like to point out that if we want to comply with WP:UNDUE, the hacking should be the fork, not the document contents article. Now, if you think that the hacking is more notable than the emails themselves, we can certainly discuss that as well and form a fair way to find out which is most notable, and therefore which should be the main and which the fork. Macai (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The other article is the main article and coveres everything, per WP:SUMMARY. People interested in "Climategate" are not just interested in the documents, they're interested in the responses to the documents and the controversy, they're interested in the timeline - they want the broad, all-encompasing article. That article is the parent article - which links prominently to, and summarizes the content of this article. If you feel the summary isn't full enough, then please propose that change there. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. They don't want to know just about the documents. They just primarily want to know about the documents. The documents are the main issue, here, not the hacking. Making the parent Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and the child Climatic Research Unit documents implies that the hacking itself is more notable than the documents themselves. This is simply not the case, and is unacceptable per WP:UNDUE. Macai (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposals to rename articles are not acceptable on the talk pages of related articles. Hipocrite (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe we can profess to know what readers are looking for when they type "Climategate". All I know is Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is the logical parent article because it describes what happened, in some detail, from the very beginning. Wikispan (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's start from the beginning. Is there any reason that a wikipedia entry "Climategate" should redirect to this page, with no opportunity to create a page by that name? Climategate scandal redirects here also. Climategate science offers Climatic Research Unit documents, as well as this, but does not discuss the perceptions of scientific scandal. This controversy may or may not rival Cyril Burt's peccadillo, or perhaps even the Piltdown Man, but there is no option to deny the possibility.

Let's start from the beginning, and create an NPOV page entitled Climategate - which, after all, refers only to a perception, and a real perception, but not to a reality - which can provide links to the hacking/leaking of emails, and to the documents themselves. Oiler99 (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposals to create articles over protected redirects are not acceptable on the talk pages of related articles. Hipocrite (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Climate reconstruction graph" section needs graphs!

Surely we can supply a couple of fair-use ones? I recall seeing the graphs in question in one of the UK newspapers. The section is unintelligible for general readers without them, I think. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, the one Phil Jones was preparing is shown here, perhaps we could upload a fair use copy of it. We might be able to show File:Hockey stick chart ipcc large.jpg as Mann's graph, but that's a fair use image so there's possibly a bundle of hassle about using it twice. Ho hum. . dave souza, talk 00:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to see if you could prevail upon Dragons flight to make one. Guettarda (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dave. I uploaded the two CRU graphs as fair-use, and place them in the article, along with some commentary from the NY Times. What do you think? --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the graphs look good at first sight, but the added information introduces a bit of confusion as the Mann et al. graph used in the IPCC report, and the focus of previous arguments, does show the measured temperatures clearly. Some more info will be appropriate, I'll look into suitable sources. . . dave souza, talk 21:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove Orphan tag?

Can we remove the Orphan tag now that there are 4 links?--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You could remove it with one link. A spun out article like this is never an orphan, not as long as it is linked to by the parent article. Guettarda (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Mini revert war

With this edit, ChrisO reverted to a version by Dave Souza. Sounds like it's time to move to the talkpage. The problems I see with Dave's edit are as follows:

• It removed sources and violated WP:NPOV and WP:OR in changing,

"Newspapers, government organisations and bloggers variously alleged that the hacked e-mails showed climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, and deleted e-mails and raw data to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act."

to

"Climate change sceptics gained wide publicity in blogs and newspapers for allegations that the hacked e-mails showed climate scientists colluded in manipulating data, withheld scientific information, and tried to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published in peer reviewed journals.[no citation]"

• It violated WP:WTA with the 'but' connective in this sentence: "Independent reports said that the e-mails did not affect evidence that man made global warming is a real threat, and e-mails were being misrepresented to support unfounded claims of scientific misconduct, but there were disturbing suggestions that scientists had avoided sharing scientific data with sceptical critics."
• It violated WP:WTA with a later use of the word 'correction' where 'statement' more accurately reflected the source.
• It also described the findings of the Science and Technology Select Committee twice where once would be more helpful.

Hopefully we can work out a solution. I will make these changes should the underlying concerns not be addressed. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As to the first point, the sentence might avoid both constructions and follow the main article like so: "The emails prompted widespread publicity and allegations that they showed evidence that climate scientists manipulated data, withheld scientific information, and tried to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published."

One should note the variety of non-sceptic claimants represented by these sources.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Without going through this in detail, points I've raised here and here also apply to this page – note that we should show who is making the accusations, and the sources overwhelmingly point to climate change sceptics. There's going to be room for improvement in covering the minority scientific concerns, and in saying just who considers the allegations groundless in whole or in part. More later. . dave souza, talk 22:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Responded to your point at this diff. Sorry for the scatter.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think both versions are POV. You all are going to have to find a compromise. I suggest something along the lines of "Observers accused the CRU in the media of colluding to withold data, abusing the peer review process, and ..." That doesn't take sides, IMO. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How's this?:

"Observers stated the emails showed evidence that climate scientists manipulated data, withheld scientific information, and tried to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published."

--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you change the wording to "Observers suggested the emails showed...", perhaps no one will complain. Cla68 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What sources sasy "Observers suggested..."? The majority of sources attribute the allegations to climate change sceptics, as we've discussed before. A few "others" have been credited with some specific complaints, these appear to be sceptics or others promoting small minority / fringe views. "Observers" is inaccurate and misleading. . . dave souza, talk 23:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That is false, or more significantly WP:OR. The parent article contains a more fine-grained analysis that might shed some light on this for you.

The emails prompted allegations by climate change skeptics and widespread publicity in the media. The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to withhold scientific data and to ensure the IPCC include their own views and exclude others. Reason reported that the CRU evidently plotted to remove journal editors with whom they disagreed and suppress the publication of articles that they disliked. The ICO made a statement that the emails revealed that freedom of information requests were 'not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation' but that they could not prosecute due to statute of limitations. The BBC and Computerworld also raised concerns about the quality and accuracy of the CRU's coding methods as prompted by coding documentation released with the emails.

--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

References

External link to Der Spiegel analysis

Anticipating that this add might b contoversial, please see Science in the News

Science at the Top of the News for May 17-21 (email list) "The most-viewed article last week by subscribers to Science in the News Daily was an analysis by Spiegel of the hacked e-mails in the "climategate" controversy and what they actually reveal about climate science." --Pete Tillman 15:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, an interesting article but part 5 is blatantly incorrect and 6 & 7 look dubious. Rather a pity as the earlier parts seem to have some quite good info. It'll be interesting to see more informed comment on it. . . dave souza, talk 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed the article because the conclusion are not in agreement with the science. To much spin, see wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_climate_change Gise-354x (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Public documents?

I now understand that the reason that the CRU's data was subject to FOIA regulations is because the research was funded by US and UK taxpayer funds, making them subject to US and UK government regulations on public transparency and accountability. Since the CRU's email server fell under this funding, as the email communication between the scientists was to assist them in their research, doesn't this mean that the emails and documents are in the public domain? If so, that means that the texts are not subject to any copyright or privacy regulations. Cla68 (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We would need an (informed) opinion re applicability of UK copyright laws, since the hacked CRU server is in the UK, and hence subject to UK law. --Pete Tillman 20:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Never attempt to apply local law to understanding foreign affairs. For instance in Denmark, no one can ever turn over a copyright for a creative work to someone else - no matter the amount of legal paperwork involved. (which has made some rather fun situations where artists have protested (and gotten court relief) about where (or how) their paintings where presented, despite having sold them ages ago). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC) [see btw. Crown copyright. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: no. Not everything subject to a FOI requests is in the public domain, even in the US. Work done by US government employees, in the course of their official duties, is in the public domain. But that's a peculiarity of the US government. Nothing of the sort exists in the UK. More importantly, even for people who were US government employees, you'd have to establish that this was part of their "official duties". I'm sure there's case law that establishes what is and isn't covered, but I'm in no position to speculate about it. Guettarda (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the emails from US government employees' work email accounts, such as Thomas Peterson, Tom Karl, and Susan Solomon of the NOAA, are public domain? Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It all depends on whether what they were doing constitutes "official duties". I'm certainly not qualified to make that determination. I'd leave that to employment or copyright lawyers. Guettarda (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, US Government employees are not allowed to use their work email accounts for anything BUT official duties. Just like any emails that a private company employee sends from their work account belongs to their employer. So, any emails from US government employee's work accounts would automatically be public domain. Also, I notice in the FOIA instructions that were sent to the CRU staff by the UEA FOIA officer reminded them to keep their correspondence "professional." Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like original research and presumption on your part, Cla. Got a reliable expert source discussing this specific issue? . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope [8]. The position of the US government is that there is no right to privacy in emails. Even if the courts rule against the US government on this, which apparently hasn't happened, it means that the US Government treats its own emails as public communication. Cla68 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Courts have consistently held, however, that privacy rights in such communications do not extend to employees using company-owned computer systems, even in situations where employees have password-protected accounts." [pp. 5-6]. Cla68 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Right to privacy is irrelevant. Copyright is what Wikipedia cares about. Guettarda (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, we know that nothing the US Government or its employees do at work is copyrighted, so those emails from US government email accounts are clear. The question is still open on the rest. Cla68 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't know how "official duties" are defined. "From what I understand" is not a reliable source. We'd need a clear and unequivocal source that not only says that work email can only be used for official duties. And that still wouldn't answer the question of what happens when people use these email accounts for something other than their official duties - after all, you own copyright to your own creations unless you have explicitly surrendered those rights. So we'd need a source that specifically addresses the issue of copyright of email sent through government email addresses. Otherwise it's just speculation. Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Cla, did you read those articles you linked to? The first, El Reg, is about the government reading private emails, not you reading government emails. The second states "The constitutions of eight states16 explicitly protect privacy and offer greater protection of the rights of public employees than does the United States Constitution. However, as with the Constitution, these documents protect public employees and the protection does not extend to the private sector. 'The one and only notable exception to this rule is the state of California, that has extended its state constitution's protection of privacy to private as well as public employees'." So, your presumption of no privacy may be inapposite. IANAL. . dave souza, talk 19:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be updated

The following sentence in the lede indicates that this article should be updated:

An independent review of the allegations is being carried out by Sir Muir Russell, and the CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, has temporarily stood aside from his post during the review.

Refer to the main article, Climatic Research Unit email controversy, for more information. --TS 16:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Six enquiries have now reported, with detailed analysis of the issues in the quotes in the emails. Unfortunately priority here is given to RfAr and suchlike debates, and it's potentially another round of hassle to get the outcomes accurately represented. It's on my to-do list, but not the first priority. . dave souza, talk 16:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Also see

The independent review commissioned by the University of East Anglia will, inter alia, evaluate whether CRU's peer-review practices comply with best scientific practice.[43]

In response to allegations that CRU avoided obligations under the UK Freedom of Information Act, independent investigator Muir Russell plans to review CRU's "policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act".[46] --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to update it, and half-way did, but removed it instead. It isn't much (if anything) to do with the documents; and its better done on the main page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla's stuff

MN restored a pile of stuff from Cla that I removed [9]. So:

• we have no RS for In a 24 April 2003 email, Tom Wigley suggests that pressure be put on Climate Research's board members to fire von Storch so it can't be included
• the In July 2004 stuff isn't about peer review certainly and is of dubious relevance at all
• I can't see why the Michaels column is relevant. Its his personal opinion, and as the other cites show, he was wrong. It could go in his own article, perhaps

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• • The Hockey Stick Illusion is a reliable source for the text of the Climategate emails. If you check the Illusion article, you'll see that it has already been used as such in two academic papers.
  • When Jones declared that he wouldn't follow the peer review process in order to keep out the two papers, you don't think that is relevant to the peer review section?
  • The Michaels column is mentioned and linked to in Pearce's Guardian article, so it is relevant. Cla68 (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, HSI isn't an RS for anything. We've been over this elsewhere, with the same result. Jones didn't say "that he wouldn't follow the peer review process". Read it again. This kind of misleading paraphrase is a big problem. If you don't know what you're reading, please don't try to insert this kind of stuff (yet another reason not to trust HSI). Chain-relevance isn't good enough. Nor is "Michaels is mentioned by Pearce" a coherent arguemnt for anything William M. Connolley (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you point to a policy or something like that which makes it clear that HSI does not meet our definition of a reliable source? Also, I quoted Jones directly so, what is the issue over including his full statement in this article? Furthermore, could you explain why you feel Michael's article shouldn't be listed in the sources even though it was referenced in the Guardian article? Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans von Storch

He has a quote which is buried in a footnote. I'd like to exhume it.

• Hans von Storch […]East Anglia researchers "violated a fundamental principle of science," he said, by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They built a group to do gatekeeping, which is also totally unacceptable," he added. "They play science as a power game.""

Someone who would resign if there's any hanky-panky at a journal he headed would be interesting to quote about hanky-panky elsewhere. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No objection to improving this article and showing various statements in context.

Note that this comment by von Storch was made just four days after the emails were made public, in a report in the WSJ which has a history of promoting the pro-business tiny minority views of some opponents of the findings of research into paleoclimate. The WSJ said the documents "show that some climate researchers declined to share their data with fellow scientists, and sought to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals." Inquiries have shown the first point is false, and in the second "dissenting views" is better stated as "shoddy research". As in the example von Storch resigned over, not so much about "hanky-panky" as in the publisher's refusal to let him publish a retraction of the shoddy research that led Mann to doubt that the journal concerned, 'Climate Research', was a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. A well founded doubt considering the behaviour of the editor who'd allowed the poor quality piece in without adequate peer review.

As for "gatekeeping", is it "gatekeeping" to discuss with colleagues whether it is worth submitting papers to a low-ranked journal with a dubious track record? . . dave souza, talk 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hans is a well known german climate skeptic and repeats dubious debunked claims on his blog and during SPIEGEL interviews. Gise-354x (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Climatic Research Unit documents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091214045710/http://www.philly.com:80/inquirer/world_us/78395917.html to http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/78395917.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Climatic Research Unit documents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10612165&pnum=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703034849/http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0282488.ashx to http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0282488.ashx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829131139/http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0280033.ashx to http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fer_0280033.ashx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611224809/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/statement.html to http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/statement.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5AM4AH20091123pageNumber%3D2%26virtualBrandChannel%3D11617%26sp%3Dtrue

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Climatic Research Unit documents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130105031117/thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/111733-epa-rejects-climate-gate-bid-to-scuttle-carbon-rules- to http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/111733-epa-rejects-climate-gate-bid-to-scuttle-carbon-rules-
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5AM4AH20091123pageNumber%3D2%26virtualBrandChannel%3D11617%26sp%3Dtrue

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation 24 is original research

The hide the decline explanation relies on a press release from East Anglia University which violates WP:OR as well as being a primary source. There are many secondary sources explaining the hiding of the tree ring decline out there. I understand this page describes content but it still shouldn’t be OR. I am going to edit. Kapnkrunch337 (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)