http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environme...rming-data.html

One of the few items that seems to have escaped Wikipedia.



Nothing here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

although there was an attempt to remove it in the article about the Climatic Research Unit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=326977411

Wasn't Connolley associated with this at one point?

[edit] No, it was the British Antartic Survey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Antarctic_Survey

Connolley however did write the article on Phil Jones http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=41815138 the director of the unit who is accused of tampering with the evidence.



Caveat: I have no idea if the accusations are true. I normally stay well away from that controversy.

Connolley still busy on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=327072597

The Daily Telegraph is not a reliable source

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=327116059

(Perhaps he has a point, as I say I'm not taking sides).

Actually, it looks like it was the Daily Telegraph blog, and deleting that may be permissible under the rules of WikiMMORPGism. However, this desperate sanitizing will ultimately only work on Wikipedia. In the real world, the truth about the climate change ideology will inexorably out. For people who were paying attention, it has been out since Margaret Mead made the call for coordinated fakery in 1975:

It's in the Associated Press now, and there is more to come. It will be interesting to see whether this makes it into the big-league global warming articles at WP.

Some very ugly prose that is typical of the Wikipedia approach



You have have to say that sceptics say that X showed Y (and call them 'sceptics') then immediately follow that by a statement about 'what a scientist says'. This sort of thing may be appropriate for a newspaper, but not for an encyclopedia.

Completely misread. Mead is here suggesting technology used to provide warnings in place of innate instinct, rather like your TV weather channel or Tsunami warning buoys do.

Worse still, she was wrong about the powers of even instinct. Animals do NOT have such instincts in place of technology. Catepillars do NOT grow thicker coats before harder winters and squirrels do NOT store up more nuts. These are myths. Though perhaps not debunked yet in 1975, but myths all the same. Animals have no magic sense about weather prediction months away. It's intrinsically unknowable due to chaos. Climate is another matter (it can be predicted), but animals can't sense future climate change, either. There are a lot of drowning polar bears out there which illustrate this.

God there's a whole stupid article about the incident now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Rese...acking_incident

"Stupid" is actually a charitable word to describe this article. Is there any reason why that is a standalone piece?

They had some space for an article, freed up by the redirect of Carolyn Doran.

Possibly because it is mentioned on the front page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Friends and family members of mine who have worked in academe have told me that the kind of behavior shown in these emails is normal in the academic community. I've been told that because researchers are competing with each other for grants and recognition, they can get fairly nasty and competitive with each other. Of course, I don't know if that's necessarily the case here, it could be that the emails are being taken so far out of context that they are easy to misinterpret.

I've not read them but presume that anything in them is reprehensible purely because, contrary to the popular press, scientists are a subset of the human race, not a different species. It would be statistically improbable for a scientistperson to never send an email that was deemed offensive or inappropriate in some way.

Au contraire. Mead is proposing statistical fakery, like the "garbage in, garbage out" computer modelling of the Meadows and Forrester team back in the 70s, to stampede public opinion in the direction of a policy which Mead and her cohorts wanted for entirely other reasons. This is consistent with her entire body of work, including "Cumming of Age in Samoa," and also consistent with what is now being revealed in this University of East Anglia affair.

See WP:Content forking. Wm. Connolley and co. will go to WWIII to keep this out of Global warming (T-H-L-K-D).

Some of the backbiting and nasty comments may be normal. Colluding to get a journal editor dismissed because he approves articles that question your own is definitely not normal. Refusing to divulge raw data, when you have agreed to do so as a condition of publication and the research is taxpayer-funded, is not normal (although a brief period of exclusivity is often permitted). Coordinating "anonymous" peer reviews so that the same small group of people can be co-authors on some papers and give favorable reviews to the ones they are not authors of, may happen occasionally but it is unethical and a good journal editor will prevent it.

The emails show climate scientists may be nasty bitches and pricks which is no surprise as they are human beings. It also shows some are so pissed off by substandard papers being published in some journals that they are ready to utter phrases more fit to Wikipedia admin channel that peer review (saying that someone should not be allowed to publish at all or that someone else makes a fool of himself by discussing on climate skeptic blogs [their "attack sites"?]).

Some careers may be in danger but the emails are not what the press implies. No evidence of data tampering. However the climate skeptic blogs will boil for a long time.

"WILL go to WWIII?" Hah. They already are. Every global-warming nut on WP, on whatever side,
is diddling that thing over and over. The average seems to be one edit every 4 minutes.

That article will make a great example of how collaborative editing can go totally wrong.
And just for dramatic effect: even though I happen to think that GW is a real problem,
I still call for Connolley's admin bits to be yanked. The man is not a scientist, he's a lunatic.

Agree with you on every count. And look at the talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic...acking_incident

Nutcase city limits.

I'm not at all surprised that Connelley is in the forefront of trying to suppress the deeply damaging exposure of his friends' scientific malfeasance.

It gets to be bad when George "Moonbat" Monbiot calls for Phil Jones to be fired from CRU and apologizes for not being sceptical about their claims.

And entire squadrons of flying pigs have been cited sighted over Norwich.

I thought that perhaps Mr. Connolley would prove us wrong for once, but unfortunately, he didn't.

Why does his comment say 'NOTNEWS'. Surely it is news?

Did he get them back?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&group=&limit=1

No.

That's one of those 'WP:acronyms', referring to the idea that wikipedia isn't a news site, except when you want it to have up-to-the-minute coverage of positive stuff about groups you like or negative stuff about groups you dislike.



Why does it have to be other reasons? Why can't it be because they honestly believed there was a climate change problem and this was the only way to get anything done about it in time?

Even if they're wrong, why can't they just be wrong instead of being some sinister conspiracy to advance an unspecified agenda?

Well, it doesn't have to be for other reasons, but in the case of Mead and her colleagues, it happens to be the case. See also this post with recent quote from Daniel Callahan.


A most accurate description of WP:NOTNEWS. One of the sad aspects of Wikipedia is that if anyone took the stuff at WP:NOT seriously, it would be an entirely different project.


SOAY, you are destined to be disappointed as this story plays out, because the East Anglia scandal is only the tip of the iceberg [sic]. I like the recent statement made by Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (T-H-L-K-D) (Wikipedia says that he "has attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change.")

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12511

This was very funny and worth reading, thanks.

While it is true that there are many lines of evidence for global warming and these emails do not prove a massive conspiracy to "fake" it, there are some very bad things here.

1. CRU's dendrochronology is crap. Tree ring widths track with temperature over the history of the instrumental temperature record (beginning in 1880, more or less) except that over the last 40 years they don't, and they have no idea why. So instead of questioning whether tree ring data is a good proxy over thousands of years (if it is not good for 40 of the last 140) they exclude the most recent 40 years from their calculations and models. Furthermore, they can't even use their computer model to reproduce their published findings from the 1990s that the computer supposedly generated, because the data is the corrupt and the programs are full of bugs and poorly documented "adjustments." Finally, their most recent and highest profile dendrochronology paper relies on just 12 trees to make a hockey stick shape, and the emails reveal that they don't want to ask the guy who knows why to explain it publicly because he is not "reliable." (And yes, without the dendro there is other evidence for warming.)

2. Anonymous peer review that is neither anonymous nor a true independent review.

3. Collusion to keep people out of peer reviewed journals is bad. I'm not just talking about getting mad when a "crap" paper is published, but actively threatening journals that if the journal doesn't get with the program, they will stop submitting their own papers to it. Honestly, life sciences journals publish bad papers all the time that slip through peer review, and I have never seen a call to force out an editor.

4. Deleting emails and other files subject to FOI and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 is likely criminal.

Yes, it's POV-inspired news. For stuff you don't agree with, it's necessary to wait to see if the material passes "the test of time" (see "encyclopedic"), so you can find out whether or not it's just recent-ism.

Thus, WP is NOTPAPER when it comes to material which agrees with your own opinions. But WP is NOTNEWS when it comes to material which doesn't.

Duh. Rising CO2 concentration. It does make plants grow faster, doesn't it?

This story has legs. Obama Science Czar John Holdren (T-H-L-K-D) is now implicated:


Senator James Inhofe has sent letters to Federal agencies and outside scientists, warning them not to delete their own CRU-related emails and documents, which may also be subject to Freedom of Information requests. I'm holding my breath to see how long it will take for this to appear at Wikipedia.

There is now a predictably sanitized article called Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (T-H-L-K-D).

The article isn't too bad, but checking the history shows that a fairly vigorous tug-of-war is ongoing between the two sides on that topic. I suspect that the GW articles and the editors who frequent them will eventually come before the ArbCom, much like the Israel-Palestine articles did this past year. I think the most serious issue with the GWcab editors is the violations of BLP and other policies like COATRACK on the entries for Global Warming skeptics or dissidents. Those editors have yet to be held accountable for those actions.

Excerpts of the text of the open letter being circulated within the American Physical Society: