Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Lawrence Solomon (2010-01-16). "Lawrence Solomon: Better off with Bing". National Post. after asking for "climategate" find themselves on a Misplaced Pages page entitled "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" that downplays the content of the emails and focuses on the "unauthorised release of thousands of emails

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

• 21 November 2009 (archived)
• 28 November 2009 (archived)
• 31 December 2009 (archived)
• 6 January 2009 (archived)

and at Neutral point of view noticeboard on

• 7 December 2009 (active as of December 15, 2009)

and at Requested moves on

• 11 December 2009 (failed)
• 23 December 2009 (Talk:Climatic_Research Unit hacking incident/Archive 14#Proposed page move

To-do list for Climatic Research Unit email controversy: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-12-23

1. "Climategate"

   1,711 hits in the past month.

2. "Climategate scandal"

   199 hits in the past month.

3. "Climategate controversy"

   29 hits in the past month.

4. "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident"

   1 hit in the past month, and that's from a source mocking the silliness of the title.

I could find no other results for potential titles, but I'll keep looking. UnitAnode 13:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Many of the Climategate articles also describe it as scandal or controversy. Ex. Climategate+near+Controversy gives 163 last month. What is good with our current title is that it gives a hit. The old one gives ZERO (all time) "Climatic+Research+Unit+e-mail+hacking+incident" Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Nsaa (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, pointless bit of GoogleDiving to waste everyone's time. There is no notability requirement for titles, and there are no policies that prohibit us from inventing an entirely unique title. As long as it is accurate, unambiguous and neutral we can pretty much have anything we like. Even if you could find 100 million GoogleNews hits for "Climategate" (or variations thereof) it would still fail the neutrality requirement. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. It's reliably-sourced, and much clearer than the hackneyed junk that currently constitutes the titling. UnitAnode 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's non-neutral. Saying it isn't won't ever change that fact. Stop wasting everyone's time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not "non-neutral" to call it what the reliable sources call it. UnitAnode 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Most reliable sources use the term in quotes, indicating it is not their choice of word. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Of the top 10 Gnews main results, 6 use it without quotes, and 4 use the quotes. UnitAnode 15:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of which most are blogs/op-eds/opinion pieces. Legitimate reports from legitimate reporters almost all use quotes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are simply a way of acknowledging that they didn't coin the phrase, not a statement on what they think of it as a neutral term. UnitAnode 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether "Climategate" should be the title, surely the present title is unbalanced? "Hacking incident" implies the controversy was about the supposed hackers; while in fact the main focus of this story has been the controversy about the alleged behaviour of the scientists (revealed, incidentally, by the alleged hacking).--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

An Analysis of Climategate vs "Climategate"

OK, I decided to collect some data regarding the issue of whether reliable sources use the term Climategate in quotes or not. Since there hundreds of articles on this topic, I decided to use a sampling size of 20 reliable sources as determined by Google's search engine. Here is what I found:

Climategate in quotes: 11

Climategate not in quotes: 2

Climategate both with and without quotes: 7

I spent about 5 minutes doing this. If there are any errors, please let me know and I'll correct them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I rejected any article from Fox News as they have a tendency to politicize come topics related to science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have also recommended rejecting the Telegraph too. It would be nice also to include some reliable sources which don't use the sensationalist term: and for example. Maybe do a search for "global warming" or "climate change" and then see what the reliable sources call the incident. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

is certainly an apologia for the UEA, while is behind a paywall. How do these show anything other than that Nature.com certainly has their own spin on what happened? UnitAnode 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals on the planet is not a reliable source regarding climate change-related issues, then I really, really encourage you to go to WP:RSN and see how far you get with that argument. I think that deserves a *rolleyes*. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't a reliable source, only that they clearly have their own spin on the politics of what's going on in the scientific community with regards to the CRU/UEA. UnitAnode 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Concure with SA. Nature is peer-reviewed, academic journal. Such sources are highly prized by Misplaced Pages. Please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages's policy on WP:NPOV does not mean that all viewpoints are presented fairly and with equal weight. It present viewpoints as they're presented by WP:RS. Since the scientific consensus is that AGW is the correct viewpoint, we're supposed to repeat that bias here. Maybe AGW really is the greatest scientific fraud since Piltdown man? Who cares? That's not our problem as Misplaced Pages editors. You're just going to have to accept that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When a pristine reliable source on science takes an unequivocal position on the politics behind that science, we give it no more weight than any other RS on the same political issue. UnitAnode 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Read the series of articles by The Guardian that I linked below, and then tell me that there aren't any politics going on behind the "scientific scene." UnitAnode 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So, I guess the answer is, "no". No, you aren't basing this deprecation of Nature on anything but your own POV. No, you don't have any reliable source criticizing Nature for being political. And you similarly failed in recognizing your premise/predicate problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay cut the crap. I haven't even implied that Nature is "deprecated." They're a great source for actual science, and the fact that they have a POV on the politics behind the science doesn't change that. And I notice how you failed to reply regarding the politics that go on behind the scientific scene. UnitAnode 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Great. Since you admit that Nature is a great source for actual science and global warming is actual science then they are a great source. Whether global warming is a political issue or not is irrelevant to the fact that the source I cited was discussing the presentation, conduct, and application of science (not politics which isn't the subject of either article). Since we need not intuit any political bias when none is explicitly mentioned in the articles in question and since you were unable to provide any source which indicated as much, we rightly rely on Nature for notable commentary on this issue. I'm glad we came to an agreement. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

False. The editor-in-chief is not the same thing as the publication itself. Nor is there any evidence from that Channel 4 piece that Philip Campbell is somehow lacking "independence". Only spin from naysayers. Removing the appearance of something that would call "into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task" is not the same thing as actually having a problem in that regard. Let me be clear: the panel is going to come to the conclusion that there is no smoking gun in these documents that makes anthropogenic global warming questionable. Similar to the DOE panels convened about cold fusion, for example. This is essentially a nice big fat red herring. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Above, you challenged the notion that Nature had been criticized for being political and asked for sourcing to support that statement. I simply submit the requested evidence in which Dr. Campbell admits he has made prejudicial statements and, quite rightly, disqualified himself from serving on an independent review panel. Is there any evidence that Nature is regarded as neutral in this dispute? Ronnotel (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a "prejudicial statement" at all. He was simply stating facts that should be obvious to more or less everybody. It is hard for anyone to be impartial when the skeptical position is so fringey. In that sort of climate (no pun intended), a reasonable statement can seem prejudicial. I doubt very much the skeptics would be complaining about the makeup of the panel if it included someone like Ross McKitrick, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I should be clear, marginalized and deprecated sources have questioned the political neutrality of Nature from time-to-time. But their protestations are not things worth considering. Think of people like Young-Earth-Creationists, Big-Bang-Deniers, Einstein-was-wrongers, Cold-Fusion-pathological-scientists, etc. Global-warming-denialists is just another branch on the tree of pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have regularly questioned the political neutrality of Nature Magazine: do feel free to call me a pseudo-scientific denialist, or whatever is the insult of choice these days, but you might wish to click through to my publication record before doing so. Now, can we please calm down and get back to the issues? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This insult-fest that ScienceApologist is engaging in needs to be ignored, I think. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also interesting: in http://www.cce-review.org/FAQs.php the word 'hack' is used 8 times and 'steal' is also used. --Nigelj (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is additionally interesting that they use the word ‘Climate Gate’ and say that "‘Climate Gate’ is being used by many people to describe a range of issues, including alleged wider consequences of the leaked e-mails for the fundamental science of climate change." This from the UEA's own independent review. Moogwrench (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

They don't use it, they use it in quotes. Seriously, there's a difference This may help people understand what it means to say something "in quotes" when it's not an actual "quotation" (nothing teaches quite so well as mockery). Either that, or track down this episode of '"Friends. Guettarda (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The FAQ mentions a separate appraisal of the science being conducted by UEA and the Royal Society. Has that come up here before? Anyone know anything about it? Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a few details here . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that the review's FAQ says unequivocally: "The incident saw an anonymous hacker steal 160MB of data from the UEA server (including more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents) and leak it online." No "alleged", no "whistleblower" fantasies. It also refers to the affair as the "Climate Change Email hacking incident". Presumably UnitAnode will be now complaining to them about their "hackneyed" terminology. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How is that an official confirmation when they didn't even complete their investigation? Indeed, is determining how the e-mails were leaked even part of its mandate? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's OR on your part. The review has said unequivocally that the files were hacked and stolen. We're not in the business of second-guessing how the review knows that. "Alleged" should not be in the lede - it's weasel wording and a word to avoid, and it was clearly added by someone with the intention of casting doubt on the reliably reported facts. Now we have confirmation that those facts are correct. "Alleged" needs to be removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Alleged" or "According to the Review" needs to remain. There's still no one investigating without a clear bias. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

{EC}The fact that the review has not been completed is not WP:OR, it's a verifiable fact: "The University of East Anglia has asked the Review team to submit its report in Spring 2010." That fact that the nature of the leak e-mails is not part of the mandate can be verified here.. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)To avoid confusing the thread, I want to withdraw, "According to the Review" as inadequate. What's on the site is a summary statement, not a conclusion. However, I also want to withdraw my accusation of bias. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Philip Campbell has just withdrawn from the review panel . An inauspicious start. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hounded out due to a "well-organised and highly-motivated campaign by climate change sceptics," it seems. No surprise that skeptics have already trashed the investigation before it has even got off the ground, as this reliable source seems to suggest. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I was forced to restore the above comment after AQFK deleted it. McIntyre is quoted in the source attacking the makeup of the panel, so there is no BLP vio in my comment. AQFK's heavy-handedness is quite troubling, particularly for someone who "has no dog in this race". -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your WP:BLP violation. The source you cite says nothing about McIntyre "trashing" anyone or anything. I kindly ask that you voluntarily remove your personal attack against me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This comment from one of Channel 4 News' interviewees is quite pertinent: ""The Review team need to be fair to all concerned, but they may ultimately have difficulty persuading people to accept a verdict that does not match the conclusions that they have already reached themselves." We will certainly see that on Misplaced Pages. In fact, I'd say we're seeing that already with the wilful refusal above to acknowledge the fact that the review has stated unequivocally the files were hacked and stolen. AQFK may claim to be someone with "no dog in this race" but the reality looks very different. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) (e/c)That is completely out of context - he resigned, providing the reason, "There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team." McIntyre's quote is only related to a request for review by scientists outside of Climatology. He didn't say a thing about Campbell. (e/c 1 PS) - I am not sure using words with vaguely negative meaning constitutes BLP. Ignignot (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec, to ChrisO) This is WP:SYN, but it's appropriate as commentary. They stated that the files were hacked and stolen, but they also stated that they haven't started investigating, and that only the contents of the documents are relevant to their review, not how they were hacked / liberated / escaped into the wild / ?? Which document are we to believe? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's WP:SYN, therefore it's not worth discussing. The Review has stated the facts as it understands them. It's not our job to dispute its understanding of the facts. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Bishop Hill" is not after 'scalps', but he wants to get Geoffrey Boulton off the panel too. And he wants to influence who the replacements are allowed to be! Maybe we'll need a whole separate article on the review alone if the politicking is going to be this intense before it even starts. --Nigelj (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The anti-science activists clearly want to discredit the panel in advance; as the Mann review shows, it's likely to reach conclusions that are not conducive to the anti-science cause. The Penn State review's exoneration of Mann was widely reported in favourable terms. Evidently the anti-science faction sees it as necessary to pre-emptively discredit the Muir Russell review so that it can dismiss the review's findings when they are released. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't be surprised to see more US politics-/mafia-style digging too: finding out that someone once had an affair with a science undergraduate, or exposing that someone else has a gay son etc. Doesn't it make you proud to be a member of the same species? --Nigelj (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone once referred to this style of politics as "the politics of personal destruction". You don't just object to your opponent's views; you try to ruin your opponent completely and destroy their lives. The Clinton impeachment was a case in point. Similarly the deplorable character assassinations and death threats against Phil Jones. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the SYN thing - if they are not a reliable source on what crimes may or may not have occured, then yes we can talk about it. The only real reliable source in that regard is the police and eventually the courts. Ignignot (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Sadly most crimes do not result in prosecutions, and an international crime such as this is even more difficult to prosecute effectively. The UEA is, as has been pointed out on this page many times, an impeccably reliable source as the victim of the crime. It was the UEA's server that was hacked and the UEA's files that were stolen; the UEA is thus in a better position than anyone else to comment on the violation of its rights. It's completely inappropriate for Wikipedians to try to cast doubt on the UEA's statement that it was the victim of a crime. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Not so, I'm afraid. The facts of 'hacking' and 'steal' are in their FAQ - that is not the place such an enquiry would put dubious claims. These are people much more involved than any blogger who tried to spin it as a glorious liberation of the files. --Nigelj (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this discussion is getting a touch off-topic? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, some of it is off-topic, I will admit - but we need to deal with this refusal to acknowledge the review's unequivocal statement about the hack and the consequent insistence by a couple of editors on retaining the POV weasel word "alleged" in the lead of this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is. This is us chewing over what parts of the article will or may be influenced by the new information that's available. I concede that some threading may be useful. I nearly added a subheading at one point, but the edit conflicts were coming so thick, it would not really have been possible. This discussion will spawn various article edits, probably a new article section, and subthreads here about other article edits. It's not at all off topic, just messy to begin with, till the main threads are clear.--Nigelj (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(to Nigelj) The Review board says specifically that they're not investigating how the documents escaped. Hence, although it's stated as "fact" that it's a "hacking" incident, it's (1) a statement about their investigation of the incident, (2) their willfully ignorant opinion, or (3) UEA's statement as to the scope of the Review. In any case, it's not a conclusion that they investigated.

(to ChrisO) The alleged victim of the alleged crime is not the best party to deny that they or their agents might be responsible for the release of the data, and that there is no crime at all.

(to ChrisO and Ignignot). It's WP:SYN, we are allowed to interpret statements made by reliable and unreliable sources to determine whether they contradict each other. An unreliable source can cast doubt on the reliability of a nominally reliable source; not to the point that we can state what the unreliable source says, but to the point that we can ignore a statement made by a nominally reliable source if it's not within their expertise, or is totally absurd, even if the only sources that point out that it's absurd are not what we consider "reliable". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you claiming that the UEA is lying? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) (e/c, jesus!)In any case, I think I was being too narrow in my definition of alleged - from the American Heritage Dictionary: Similarly, if the money from a safe is known to have been stolen and not merely mislaid, then we may safely speak of a theft without having to qualify our description with alleged. We should probably take the alleged out.Ignignot (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But we don't know if their server was even hacked. Early reports indicated an insider as do the latest reports. The fact is that we have no idea how these e-mails were released, and this particular investigation isn't even going to look into the matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Early speculation by anti-science bloggers, which was later picked up by some media outlets. But speculation has no bearing on the fact that the UEA, and now the review, have stated unequivocally that the files were stolen from a hacked server. Both parties are in a position to know. Speculating bloggers are not. Speculation and facts are not equal and it is not remotely acceptable to offset statements of fact with speculation from the blogosphere. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the UEA is an involved-party who hasn't finished its investigation and indeed won't even investigate how the e-mails were leaked. At best, it's only reliable for the opinions of itself, just like any other primary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(to AQFK) Isn't that UEA?

(to ChrisO, Ignignot) As for "are you claiming UEA is lying", no. At the moment, I'm claiming willful ignorance as to how the information got out, rather than lying. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would agree that you claiming willful ignorance would be justified... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not helpful.--SPhilbrickT 00:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AR: I often find myself skeptical of what I believe - and in cases where something akin to a reasonable doubt is called for, such as making suggestions of criminal activity - the line is very faint. But certainly in this case we can agree that they did not want the files and email available to the whole world, and that someone(s) did so against their will. Now is it absolutely certain that someone hacked in and got the data? No. But is it by far the most likely explanation? Yes. I don't think it is likely at all that a vast criminal conspiracy caused it - but that is neither here nor there. Most likely we will never know who did it, and we will never have a RS to say so unequivocally. Our job isn't to write an article on the truth, just give the most reliable and supportable explanation, with other significantly supportable explanations in a less prominent subsection. Ignignot (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO - "The UEA is, as has been pointed out on this page many times, an impeccably reliable source as the victim of the crime." Even if "impeccably" has, however improbably, been used, it seems likely that here as in some cases of rape, the allegation of crime may be used to deflect attention from the scandal of having been caught in flagrante delicto. Oiler99 (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope that was just a clever troll and not just an extremely poor analogy. Ignignot (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please acquire a sense of proportion. This is not revealed dogma we're talking about here, it's primate behavior. Oiler99 (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be a poor analogy, but the alleged victim of an alleged crime may not be the best entity to describe what happened. (Even if the police find it was hacked, and UEA doesn't officially have anything to do with it, the hacker could have been one of the participants in the activity, and deciding to personally satisfy the FOIA requests. This statement does not violate WP:BLP, although I don't know of a reliable source that states it as a possibility or denies it as a possibility.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If the hacker/s did not have permission to access the network and release the contents, they're still criminal/s no matter what their motives. Not dissimilar from if you murder someone because you know they commited a crime which would have received the death penalty but got away with it, you're still guilty of murder. People don't get a free pass because they took the law into their own hands. In fact it'll often be persued more vigirously to discourage people from doing it Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't know that the "hacker/s" did not have permission to access the network; we do know that, if they did, they were required by law to release the contents, whether or not they had "permission" to do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you a qualified lawyer, Arthur Rubin? If not, I would suggest that you be more circumspect when handing out free legal advice to potentially thousands of random readers of this talk page. Under English law, I don't see how the text of these emails were 'required' to be released. Please explain with reference to the Acts you have in mind, or maybe withdraw the comment. --Nigelj (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking the reference from the article and the Information Commissioner's Office that some information required to be released under the FOIA was not released; I assume it refers to some of the leaked information, as it's in this article. I'm only familiar with US FOIA requests, but, under that law, anyone (at the facility to which the FOIA was sent) who has (legal) possession of the information, and is aware of the FOIA request, is required to release it.

So, I suppose we don't know that the person releasing the information was legally required to do so. But the argument, although it cannot be presented in the article without a specific reliable source, is sufficient to make the self-serving statements by UEA that the server was hacked inappropriate for Misplaced Pages without a disclaimer, or if reported by a third-party source, such as the police. "Alleged" hack(ing) is absolutely required unless a third-party source, such as the police, unequivocally states that the server was hacked.

I'm not going to delete my comments above, although they constitute original research, but the discussion is not necessary to support the phrase "alleged hack", and to note that removal of "alleged" is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about US law, where I believe that everything that received government funding to create is automatically in the public domain (or something like that), but under English law, it seems unlikely in the extreme that if a university department has been the subject of an FOI request for temperature data, some of which they couldn't provide because it was bound by commercial non-disclosure agreements created by owners of the temperature data, then every member of public, worldwide, has not just the right but the legal duty to attack their mail servers and release megabytes of correspondence and other files onto the internet. I've heard of conspiracy theories, but that is extreme. The current use of the word 'alleged' for hack now has no justification, and the use of the words steal, stolen and theft should be reinstated elsewhere in the article as per the current reliable sources. No more notice should be taken of such spurious arguments. --Nigelj (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a spurious argument, but it is unnecessary, as no WP:RS has said it was a hack (rather than "reported hack" or "alleged hack") except those quoting UEA, and possibly the Independent Review board, which may also be quoting UEA. As no investigation is complete (and the Independent Review board is not investigating the question), "alleged" or "reported" is still appropriate.

And it's not exactly a conspiracy theory. UEA administration would know nothing about it, if the information was distributed by a single individual with legitimate access. The police might be able to track it down the account used to distribute the information if it wasn't a hack, or an IP address used if it was a hack, but even that might take a few weeks to determine even if the system wasn't used in the interim. However, if the information were downloaded to a portable disk at UEA, and that disk were then carried to the indiviual's home system, and distributed from there, that individual might have committed a crime (not data theft, but possible trade secret and/or privacy violations), but there's still no conspiracy, and the entire UK Internet isn't subject to direct monitoring.

This is speculation, but, in the absence of evidence, I don't consider it significantly less probable that a researcher has a conscience than that a hacker broke in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you seem to be missing the point. I wasn't arguing over whether we knew whether it was hacked. I was pointing out your statement "Even if the police find it was hacked, and UEA doesn't officially have anything to do with it, the hacker could have been one of the participants in the activity, and deciding to personally satisfy the FOIA requests" is somewhat irrelevant since if it was hacked, the motives don't affect the fact a crime was committed (they may affect the likelihood of the crime being prosecuted and of the sentence handed down for the crime although as I've pointed out people rarely take kindly to those that take the law into their own hands). Note that even your claim that they are 'required' to release the contents, is highly dubious (and also completely irrelevant since whatever they may be required to do after they've received the contents, doesn't change the fact they weren't allowed to access the contents in the first place), it implies that the hackers, after having broken the law and hacked into (illegally accessed) a computer network are additionally liable to release contents they shouldn't have in their possession and don't own the copyright for because of some FOIA request they aren't party to. (If they are the ones who made the FOIA request the issue of them releasing the contents doesn't come in to it.) Whether or not it was hacked, or we have sufficient evidence to say it was is not something I want to discuss at this point in time, as I've said I was solely replying to your suggestion that even if it was hacked, the motives of the hackers would somehow come in to it. (I'm somewhat doubtful that even the US legal system will take kindly to a person who hacked into the CIA to release contents that were supposed to be released under the US FOIA) Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of WP:RS: http://www.cce-review.org/FAQs.php the word 'hack' is used 8 times and 'steal' is also used in the Frequently Asked Questions of the official enquiry website. FAQs are not the place you put dubious claims or subtle points that depend on the outcome of the enquiry or police investigations. These are facts of which these informed and influential people have no doubt. --Nigelj (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

An entire article on the matter would probably have serious WP:WEIGHT issues. If it ends up getting filled out with all sorts of nonsense about "calls for resignations" from the climate skeptics, it will also become a POV fork. Wait until the report actually comes out, and then we'll see. I suspect the report will call for a few changes to adopt best practices, and it may well indicate Jones did not use the best of judgment, but that'll probably be about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT applies to neutrality, not notability. I doubt this sub-article would be any better or worse than any other article in this topic space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I know what WP:WEIGHT applies to. I have over 15,000 edits so I've become pretty familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, thank you very much. Creating an article that inflates the importance of the climate skeptic attacks on panel members will violate WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. The inquiry would have to become a really big deal with far-reaching consequences before it would warrant its own article. In the meantime, consider WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Creating an article that inflates the importance of the climate skeptic attacks on panel members will violate WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK" Where in the world did I ever suggest anything even remotely like what you just described? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

*History - Formation, resignation of Campbell, Boulton facing calls to resign - this sort of "filler" material is the problem. In the context of the article, they are trivial issues; however, if the inquiry gets its own article there will doubtless be a push to highlight this sort of material by the climate change skeptics who seem to think this sort of thing is important. As I said before, we need to wait until the report is released before we can make a judgment on whether or not this deserves its own article, but I suspect not. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so you ignored most of the different sections (Summary, Background, Mandate, Makeup, Conclusions, Reception) and then decided it was the one section you paid attention to that was the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ignore anything. Please assume good faith. Let me use plainer language in case you are having difficulty understanding my point. The only reason that I can see for splitting the inquiry off into a separate article would be to inflate the controversial aspects (such as the resignation) that I don't think are significant. That would be a POV fork. As I stated previously, I think the entire investigation will be easy to summarize in a single paragraph, or perhaps a section. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"I didn't ignore anything." Actually, you did. You ignored 6 out of 7 sections. And then made up some fantasy about the one section you didn't ignore.

"Let me use plainer language in case you are having difficulty understanding my point." There's no need to be condescending. I understand English just fine, thank you.

"The only reason that I can see" That indeed might be the only reason you can see, but I've suggested nothing of the kind. If you can't address what I'm saying then this discussion is not accomplishing anything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"made up some fantasy" - That's an assumption of bad faith right there. If you look down, I think you'll find you no longer have a leg to stand on. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this has been brought up above as being part of the reason that the Solomon piece can't be linked on this talkpage, I -- gasp! -- actually tested the theory, and searched both for "Climategate." Result: Bing ~51.8 million; Google ~3.7 million. That's far too large a gap to be coincidental. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What has any of that got to do with the price of carrots cherries? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good grief! YOU claimed that Solomon's Bing/Google analysis was basically nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Er... no. I didn't say anything about Bing. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) And this means...what? We know Google pretty much makes up its top-line numbers. How does Bing calculate its top-line numbers? And what's the point of comparing a meaningless number (Google's) with a number of unknown provenance? I don't get the point of this addition. Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This proves that Google is coluding with wikipedia? Great, I'm a semiregular on my page, I expect my payment in the post ASAP Nil Einne (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Gasp! And i get the opposite 16.2 million on Google and 1.98 million on Bing.... Whoa they are on to us! Can we please stay on-topic? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you even talking about? Scottaka UnitAnode 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You've just demonstrated that you have no clue whatsoever about how search engines work. I suggest you take your hypothesis to Conservapedia, where it's more likely to be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed to know about how search engines work. And I also am not conservative in any way. You'd do well to cut the personal attacks. I mean, "Clueless in Seattle" as an edit summary? It's not even particularly witty. Scottaka UnitAnode 20:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

←Oooh! Ask.com has only 339,000 hits for "Climategate", with Misplaced Pages being the first. Their collusion with Misplaced Pages must be even worse! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Those numbers are estimates, and irrelevant to our article — which is what we're supposed to discuss on this page. Moreover, if you actually try to search through the results (what is hit number 50 million, anyway?) you'll find that neither search engine will serve up results past the first 1000. Quirks in the two estimation algorithms render any large numbers suspect. Applying Solomon's specious reasoning, we find that Google is also attempting to suppress mention of the Bananaphone (500 thousand Ghits compared to nearly 30 million results on Bing: comparison) and the Star Wars Kid (9.6 million Ghits versus 52 million Bings). Is it possible that Bing's algorithm just turns out higher guesstimates for internet memes? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)It's actually a lot worse then you think. Google gives 93,900 for "irreducible complexity", Bing gives 400k. Google gives 5 million for 'september 11 conspiracy', Bing gives 10 million. 'abortion causes cancer' is 980k on Google, 2.2 million on Bing. Google gives 36 million for terrorism, Bing gives 92 million. 'dinosaurs living together with men' 447k for Google, 1.5 million for Bing. Google gives 25.2k for '"nil einne" is an idiot', Bing gives 124. Is there no end to Google's evilness? P.S. It was rather annoying finding these examples, I suggest you don't bother to try it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I just read the Solomon article and it should be noted that this discussion is about a distorted view of Solomon's argument. His thesis was NOT that Google returns few hits than Bing and therefore is suppressing Climategate news. Rather, Solomon says that at one point Google returned X number of hits and is now returning Y number of hits where Y is substantially smaller than X. He also says Google's autocomplete feature has changed during this time frame. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Google has been updating their autocomplete feature. While often useful and on point, its output is sometimes quirky and occasionally downright hilarious. (There's even a website dedicated to its more bizarre output: .) I also note that, as of this minute, entering 'c-l' is sufficient to get 'climategate' as an autocomplete suggestion; by the time I type 'c-l-i-m' it's the top autocomplete term.

As for changes in the apparent numbers of Ghits with time — that's entirely cosmetic algorithm tweaking. Neither site (Google or Bing) will allow you to retrieve more than the first thousand hits, so any number greater than that is pretty cosmetic. Solomon, frankly, doesn't know what he's talking about here, and he's abusing numbers that he doesn't understand to give a gloss of credibility to a very thin conspiracy theory. This is not a new approach for him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Not that whatever evils Google has are particularly relevant to the issue at hand anyway but even so most of the points are still somewhat relevant, Google changing their guesstimate doesn't really tell us much, it could be simply that during the initial stage of a rapidly developing event, the Google algorithm is generous since it's trying to extrapolate from a small number but resonable percentage of recent samples that suddenly use the term. And the changing, up or down could almost definitely be shown for other search terms (particularly developing ones and memes) if people could be bothered to monitor them. In other words, the crux of the issue, the fact that the number of guessed results went down doesn't tell us much remains true. It's not even clear what Bing did. As for the autocomplete thing, that seems to have gone back and forth, but at least for me, it's working now. Again, it wouldn't surprise me if you found something similar with other search terms if anyone bothered to monitor them. P.S. It's perhaps worth remembering how inaccurate the guesstimates are. Google gave me 25.2k for '"nil einne" is an idiot' because it thought there were 25.2k results for "nil einne" and basically ignored the idiot part. However there are only 302 when you go to the end of the results. And Google nor Bing will ever give more then 1000 results anyway so anything more then that is a somewhat moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)