Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
Q1: Why is this article not called "Climategate"?
A1: There have been numerous discussions on this subject on the talk page. The current title is not the common name, as is generally used for Misplaced Pages articles, but instead a descriptive title, one chosen to not seem to pass judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. A recent Requested move discussion has indicated that there is no consensus to move the article to the title of Climategate, and so further discussion of the article title has been tabled until at least June 2011.
Q2: Why aren't there links to various emails?
A2: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Misplaced Pages avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to Copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email.
Q3: Why is/isn't a specific blog being used as a source?
A3: Blogs are not typically reliable sources. Blogs may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Blogs should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.
Q4: Aren't the emails/other documents in the public domain?
A4: No. Some of the hacked documents are covered by Crown copyright, others by private copyright. The Freedom of Information Act does not affect copyright.
Q5: Why does the article refer to a hacking and to stolen documents? Couldn't this be an accidental release of information or released by a whistleblowing insider ?
A5: Misplaced Pages reports the facts from reliable sources. In their most recent statement on the issue, Norfolk Constabulary have said that the information was released through an attack carried out remotely via the Internet and that there is no evidence of anyone associated with the University being associated with the crime. Both the University and a science blog, RealClimate, have reported server hacking incidents directly associated with this affair. The University has stated that the documents were "stolen" and "illegally obtained".
Q6: Why is there a biographies of living persons (BLP) notice at the top of this page? This article is about an event, and the Climatic Research Unit is not a living person.
A6: The BLP applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages, specifically to all potentially negative statements about living persons. It does not apply solely to articles about living persons. The notice is there to remind us to take care that all statements regarding identifiable living persons mentioned in the article or talk page comply with all Misplaced Pages policies and with the law, per the BLP.
Q7: What do I do if I have a complaint about the conduct of other people editing or discussing this article?
A7: Follow the dispute resolution policy. It is not optional. Unduly cluttering the talk page with complaints about other editors' behavior is wasteful. In the case of egregiously bad conduct only, consider contacting an administrator.
Q8: I think there is inadequate consensus on a matter of policy. What should I do?
A8: There are several options. Consider posting the issue on one of the noticeboards, or starting a request for comment (RFC) on the question.
Q9: Why doesn't the article report that BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson received an advance copy of the leaked content?
A9: Because it isn't true. In fact, the only involvement Paul Hudson reports (see here) is that he had been the subject of emailed complaints from CRU climatologists concerning a blog article he had recently published, and that he was able to confirm that those emailed complaints which had been copied to him by the senders, and which later appeared in the zip file of stolen documents, were authentic. That is to say, Hudson received some of the later leaked e-mails, but only those originally also addressed to him or the BBC, which forwarded them. It appears that some blogs and newspapers have misinterpreted this. This was also confirmed by the BBC on the 27th November 2009 and on the 13th March 2010 when the issue arose again.
Q10: Newspapers have reported that this article and a lot of the global warming articles are being controlled and manipulated. Why don't we report that?
A10: The items in question are opinion columns by James Delingpole and Lawrence Solomon. Misplaced Pages's guidelines on self-references discourage self-referential material unless publicity regarding a Misplaced Pages article is determined to be significant enough to be included. This requires the Misplaced Pages coverage to be a major part of the controversy. There is no consensus that the two opinion columns meet this criterion. This does not preclude coverage of those writers' opinions on Misplaced Pages in other articles, such as James Delingpole, Lawrence Solomon, Global warming conspiracy theory, and Criticism of Misplaced Pages, but that would be a matter for the editors of those individual articles. On specific charges against an individual named by Lawrence Solomon and repeated uncritically by James Delingpole, please see this discussion on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.
The scientific consensus (sic) was changed completely
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The emails showed that the current scientific consensus (sic) is that there was a "decline" in the rate of warming despite massive increases in co2 which is easily apparent in the satellite lower troposphere measurements This dramatically changes it and disproved all of their previous models. It also proved that they wanted "hide" this decline which definitively did show misconduct. Editorial claims to the contrary are just claims. Facts are facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.65.126 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any credible sources whatsoever that confirm your "facts"? Can you please tell us where you're getting this from?Gireen (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
See this part, in particular: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. ” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.24.225.161.193 (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Forbes isn't a great source, particularly for science, the article's almost a decade old and that's a cherry-picked quote from an earlier private discussion. Outdated. And the article's not by Forbes staff, it's by James M. Taylor at The Heartland Institute, well known source of climate change denial.. . dave souza, talk04:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Meaning of 'trick'
The recent BBC TV film titled 'The Trick' is likely to arouse new interest in the meaning of this key word. The present article refers to an inquiry report by Penn State, which said that the 'trick' was 'a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion'. Is there a source for the statistical method used, preferably with some explanation that might be intelligible to a lay person? The impression given in the film was that Phil Jones simply decided that the proxy data after a certain date (I think he said 1960) was wrong or unreliable, since it conflicted with the instrumental data, and therefore omitted it from the relevant diagram. This may have been a correct judgement, and a legitimate decision, but it is not on the face of it a *statistical* method. Nor does it seem to justify the use of the term 'trick', which in a scientific or math context usually implies something especially neat or clever. Just cutting out data you think is incorrect may be justified, but it is not especially clever. There *might* be some statistical reason for excluding data from a graph, for example if it is an outlier known to be due to measurement error. If there is in fact some technical statistical basis for the 'trick', a reference would be helpful. 2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:28AF:6BB6:74DF:B930 (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
UEA is a largely unknown 'university' in the UK. Why such a furore over the hacking of this University's online data when there must be more 'credible' targets (such as Oxford, Cambridge, etc) who must have a huge trove of data on climate change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B11D:A35A:7923:574A:289E:EF41 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this still Misplaced Pages?
I admit it, I am not educated on the topic of "Climategate", so after hearing someone mention it today, I visited this article to learn what the supposed emails said. Having read the article, I still don't know. In paragraph after paragraph, I was informed that a laundry list of people and organizations disagree with "Climate Skeptics" interpretation of the emails, yet, outside of some vague "trick", I still have no idea what the emails said. As such, I don't what, specifically, they are disagreeing with. Furthermore, it really feels like the author(s) don't want me to know what they're disagreeing with ... only that they disagree, and disagree strongly. This may be the least informative article I've ever read on Misplaced Pages. It's just one breathless denial of Climategate after another, while doing it's very best to never mention what they actual claims were that they so vehmently disagree with. I am unable to believe that anyone could say with a straight face that this article is even remotely encyclopedic. All I learned was what a bunch of supposed experts thought of the controversy.
It's like going to an article about a 'Lion Controversy', where the content was:
Lion experts disagree with the Lion Controversy. 98% of good lion people agree that people who agree with the Lion Controvesy are very bad people, and deserve nothing but scorn and derision. NBC News called people who believe in the Lion Controversy "sad and pathetic people", and they state that the Lion Controvery dramatically overstated the real nature of lions. Leona Liontamer, the keeper of a lion herself, stated "I haven't found the Lion Controversy to be true with MY lions!", while Jack Lionlover said "The Lion Controversy is preposterous, and no one should talk or think about it ever again!" When asked if they would consider dating Lion Controversy believers, 102.85% of supermodels said, "No way, I don't find Lion Controversy believers to be attractive at all! In fact, every one I've ever known is poorly-endowed!" When asked if they believe in the Lion Controversy, 205% of non-racists said "No way!" while the tiny minority who did believe in the Lion Conteroversy lifted their hands in a nazi salute and shouted "Hail Satan!", before sacrificing, then consuming whole, two infant children. "No, really, I don't believe it either", said one, fresh infant blood still dripping from her fangs, "I'm just here for the infants .... you gonna finish yours?"
I can only surmise that none of the Sr. Misplaced Pages editors have gotten around to looking at this thing. At least I sincerely hope that's what it is. This is embarassing, and I'm holding out hope that, if nothing else, maybe it was an attempt at parody. If so, well done, except you may want to pull it back a little. There's a fine line between parody and absurdity and this one crosses a little too far into the latter, IMHO, and when asked by Newseek, 98% of Absurdity experts agree with me. Opie8 (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The second section of the article is titled "Content of the documents". It generally describes them, and includes specific details as relevant to the controversy (rather than everything about the contents) because this here article is focused on the "Climatic Research Unit email controversy". The very beginning of that section has a prominent link to the separate Climatic Research Unit documents article. That article goes into further detail about what they contain. DMacks (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
faq page Frequently asked questions
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Aristarchos_logo_small.png){kind=link}
