Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:48, 3 August 2010

Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Environment: Climate change Stub‑class

This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

Template:Community article probation

News about Phil Jones and the CRU

2004: Jones, to an Australian climate scientist: "Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

August 2009: "The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data."

November 2009: "University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.110.130 (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a highly notable and highly documented event. Please stop censoring it.Flegelpuss (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

None of your sources are reliable, even for an ordinary article, let alone a biography William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The text you deleted sourced the BBC and the New York Times. Flegelpuss (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The alleged scandal is in the Daily Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal now.andycjp (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Links would help. --NeilN 00:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Reliable sources, but be aware of undue weight concerns about this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should add this to the article: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.199.212.146 (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

he's temporarily stepping down. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j_dt9Bjj5yVV7k1PAyDnVHKvKtgAD9CAM0VG0 --DHeyward (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LDR citation style

I added references using the WP:LDR citation style. Any questions, please ask.--SPhilbrickT 18:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

International Journal of Climatology prize

I add a citation for the International Journal of Climatology prize. Unfortunately, the best source I could find was a Word doc. I used the HTML conversion of the page; not sure which one is worse. I looked at RMETS but I didn't see a listing pf prizes prior to 2006. Maybe someone can find a better reference.--SPhilbrickT 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

CV?

I would think that the concerns of undue weight would be alleviated if we could get a pointer to Jones' CV to find out when he joined CRU and has he been associated with other institutions and what role has he played in all his associations. His UEA page might be a good start. TMLutas (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit

Ideally we'd wait more than 5 seconds to ref but I doubt there is any hope; at least it is now properly sourced William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Allegation of theft with respect to CRU hacking incident e-mail

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/FAQ

You removed the word "alleged" with regard to the Climate Research Unit hacking incident. Since the article cites specified that CRU alleges theft, not that a court has found a theft occurred, this appears to the observer to be either your point of view, original research, or a reference by you to a source you have not cited. I'm sure this is a case of the latter, and simply a good-faith oversight on your part. What is your source for the statement "no alleged about it", and can you add it to the article, please Thanks!

Also, with regard to, "and we don't need hide the decline either," I'm not sure I follow you. Can you explain what you mean by this? Thanks again!

DGaw (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that this is contentious, please provide a reliable source which claims that they were distributed with the permission of either the authors of the emails, or the UEA. Taking property without permission is theft. So unless you have a reliable source that says otherwise, the tag is clearly unwarranted. On the other hand, if you have a reliable source that says that they were taken with permission, we clearly need to consider it. Guettarda (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Theft and stolen are loaded words. They are loaded with both emotional meaning and legal meaning. If you want to split hairs, theft in English law (according to wiki): "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". On many levels of this definition "theft" and "stolen" would not apply to what happened without further evidence that it did. It is questionable that an e-mail is "property", it is questionable that "dishonesty" was used and it is hard to understand how redistributing an e-mail would in anyway qualify for "permanently depriving the other of it". The e-mails still exist. Perhaps there's a cybercrime, perhaps not. If someone had access that shouldn't have, they may be guilty of a hacking crime. If someone had legal access but distributed without permission, they may be in violation of internal rules or privacy laws. Without further information, the use of the word "theft" suggests a determination by the police or the courts which has not yet been made. (The victim's word on what happened is relevant only in reporting that they believe something to be stolen.) Calling it theft or stolen other than when quoting the victim would constitute original research or synthesis. It can certainly be stated (if cited) that the CRU says they were "stolen" but that does not make it so and it should not be reported as such at this time. HarmonicSeries (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Stolen, hacked, theft etc. are the words used in most of the reliable sources. Both the emails and the documents are the property of CRU. It is intellectual property for one. I'm sorry to say that your original research is not going to fly without some serious reliable sources to say so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the FAQ of the article on the incident, which outlines what all reliable sources on the incident have reported. --TS 15:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not on some editor to find a RS claiming the emails were distributed with permission, the burden of proof is on the editor using the unqualified term "stolen" to provide a reliable source in support of the claim. There are two citations in that sentence, one of which is currently not found. The other uses the word "stolen" but the report carefully characterizes it as a statement by the purported victim. It isn't the conclusion of the reporter, it is just a paraphrase of a claim. I won't be surprised if there is a better source in existence, but until someone finds such a source, the term should be qualified with "alleged". I'm making the change, if someone wants to track down an acceptable reference, they can change it back.--SPhilbrickT 16:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the FAQ A5 doesn't help. Police investigate claims of crimes all the time. The investigation does not prove a crime occurred, much less which specific crime. RealClimate's claims are not relevant to the issue of whether CRU's data was stolen.--SPhilbrickT 16:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, but when something is appropriated without permission it is theft. In this case data theft. Theft is neither alleged or in any other way controversial. Who the perpetrator is may be alleged or controversial, but the act in itself is not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is only one case in which the theft could be alleged - and that is if there is reason to doubt whether the CRU itself released them. No such doubt exists. But lets speculate: An insider released the information (the "whistleblower" hypothesis) - then it would still be theft, since he would have done it without permission. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I don't know whether you are a lawyer or not, but it doesn't matter. That statement (Sorry, but when something is appropriated without permission it is theft) is almost certainly wrong, but if correct, it is hardly obvious, so needs a reference. If I copy someonesomething I write to a website, and fail to secure it, and then you copy it, I haven't given you permission to take it, but it isn't theft. While that may not be the situation in this case, the single reference attached to the sentence doesn't preclude that possibility. If there are reliable sources saying it is theft, then please find one and add it to the article.--SPhilbrickT 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)--SPhilbrickT 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IANAL but in the case you hypothesize it is indeed theft under most laws. You cannot appropriate other peoples intellectual property or copyright just because it isn't protected. Just as in the real live world, where it is still theft if you steal an item from a house where the door was open. If the data isn't yours, then you are doing data-theft by appropriating/copying it. You might be "legally excused" for not knowing that the data was under IP or copyright - but if you know - then its theft. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep emphasizing that CRU didn't "release" the information. You haven't cited a single reference stating that theft occurs if something is taken without an affirmative release. I doubt you will find one, as it isn't true. Look, if I were to bet, I'd bet that we will eventually find out that someone accessed the files illegally. But WP is not in the business of citing as fact things that are likely to be true. We are in the business of citing as fact information that can be backed up by a reliable source. People say they exist, so why not just find one and add it?

"The burden of proof is not on some editor to find a RS claiming the emails were distributed with permission" - totally false. When no source disputes the fact, then we can't dispute the fact. We cannot introduce our own analysis into articles. Guettarda (talk)

You are missing the fact that there is no source in the article making the assertion. Find such a source, and problem solved. When Kim argues (incorrectly, BTW) that we can synthesize theft from facts that the material was distributed, and lack of facts that permission was granted, Kim is attempting to introduce analysis into the article. As you point out, we cannot do that.--SPhilbrickT 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How is that missing the fact? If you agree that there's no source that makes that assertion, then I think we're done here. Analyses by editors are irrelevant. If there's no source for your version, there's no way we put it in the article. There's no way we imply it in the article. Guettarda (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? "Find such a source, and problem solved"? My point exactly. Then why were you saying the opposite, above? Guettarda (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is NO source backing up the claim that the files were stolen, other than the COI paraphrase from the CRU, which is not reliable. WP is not supposed to be making assertions that cannot be backed up by reliable sources--SPhilbrickT 17:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A victim doesn't have a COI when stating that a crime has happened. Especially not if no one disputes that the crime hasn't happened. But just to placate your concerns - i've referenced the BBC for the single word "stolen". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No sources? WTF? Now you're just making shit up. That's clearly tendentious editing. If you're going to make nonsense up, please stop wasting people's time. Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Here I was happy that we finally reached agreement, and you post something like that. Please take a short break, then explain yourself. --SPhilbrickT 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Kim, I see that you reverted my edit without proving a source for the claim. That's very inappropriate. Please immediately find a source to back up the claim, or undo your reversion. Your analysis is flawed, and even if sound, is Synthesis. Everyone keeps saying there are reliable sources stating it was theft. Why the reluctance to providing such a source? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs)

OK, I think we're done here. When editors step over the line and start making prima facie false claims, I think that's stepping over the line into disruption. Guettarda (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd best be careful in your accusations. I'm happy to have another disinterested party look at this. It is not proper to accuse other editors of bad faith. The source that KDP has provided is not proper either, a paraphrased headline of a comment from CRU is not reliable in ascertaining that the e-mails were "stolen". There is a duty of care in editing this properly however little you may think it is necessary to be precise. If someone is killed, it may or may not be murder. You can say police are investigating a possible murder, you can say someone is charged with murder, you can quote people's opinions that the victim was murdered. The words "theft" and "stolen" have precise legal meanings and I see no reason to avoid precision in this case. Accusing others of bad faith and disruption is entirely inappropriate. HarmonicSeries (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Two editors made a good point in this thread. Specifially, DGaw pointed out that the existing source did not support the use of the unqualified phrasing, and HarmonicSeries made an excellent argument why it cannot simply be assumed that a theft occurred. I agreed, and added the word alleged. Kim reverted, but without a solid basis, just a vague reference to a FAQ. which doesn't contain any reliable sources, and a synthesized analysis which I believe is flawed. What is so hard about adding a reference to support the claim?--SPhilbrickT 17:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion re reversion

I removed "stolen". A theft has been alleged by the alleged victim, so hardly a reliable source. The alleged theft is being investigated. The investigation may be conclusive and then we'll know. But we may never know for sure. The "theft" may have been an internal leak, and, in either case, may not be a theft under fair usage and/or public interest provisions. My edit was reverted.

   * (cur) (prev) 02:38, 28 December 2009 Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) (8,428 bytes) (We report the fact from reliable sources. Not speculation. Undid revision 334428578 by Psb777 (talk)) (undo) 

The point is that the UEA is not a reliable source as it is the victim. Others report the theft is reported, not proven. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Misplaced Pages community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones and the ICO

The relevant part of the Information Commissioner's statement is this:

"The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information."

The full text of the statement can be found here, though not on the ICO's website for some reason. Oddly enough, the ICO does not appear to have contacted the UEA either. The UEA's vice-chancellor has issued a statement in reply saying:

"The university learnt the ICO had made a statement to the media regarding the university's handling of requests under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. We have not received any further information from the ICO although we are urgently trying to contact them. The ICO's opinion that we had breached the terms of Section 77 is a source of grave concern to the university as we would always seek to comply with the terms of the act. During this case we have sought the advice of the ICO and responded fully to any requests for information."

Note that the ICO's statement does not attribute blame to any individual, nor does the UEA VC's statement. Therefore it is original research and a clear BLP violation to attribute blame to any individual in this or any other article. The ongoing review by Sir Muir Russell will probably make findings about individuals, but until then we should steer clear of speculation. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --DGaw (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid speculation, but the findings of the ICO would be relevant to this biography I would have thought? Phil Jones is a climate scientist closely associated with a University climate department that has been found to breach the law. Thepm (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The ICO's statement has blamed the university, not the individual. Therefore using the statement to cast blame on an individual not mentioned in it would be original research, as it could not be supported by the source. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. We should be careful not to cast blame, but as I said, Phil Jones is a climate scientist closely associated with a University climate department that has been found to breach the law. I think that this fact is, at the very least, noteworthy within the guy's bio. Thepm (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Your argument would suggest that the ICO's statement should be reported in any biography of anyone associated with the CRU. But we come back to the original research problem - since the ICO has not mentioned any individual, linking the ICO's statement with a specific individual can't be justified. It would introduce an unacceptable element of innuendo by implying a link where none exists in the source. In any case, we only need to wait another three or four weeks until the independent inquiry reports - then we can reliably document who is being assigned the responsibility/blame. There's no need to rush to judgment before then. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones was not just any employee. He was the director. Not mentioning this just enhances Misplaced Pages's reputation for bias on climate change. Richard Tol (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making your biases clear. However, you want to read WP:BLP. Accusing someone of criminal activity based on a source that doesn't mention him is clearly unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, in good faith and trying to maintain a balanced discussion, perhaps I misunderstand Jones' role at the CRU. Please correct my understanding if it's wrong. I had assumed that he held a role equivalent to a General Manager (or something like that) of the CRU. Was he "a director" or "the director"? It seems the latter.

As a person in a leadership position of an organisation, I would have expected that his biography would mention that the organisation he led had been found to have broken the law. Naturally any comment should be careful not to implicate Jones directly, but there should be a comment on the fact that he the organisation that he led had been found to breach the law. Thepm (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Handled incorrectly"/"not dealt with as they should" is not the same as "breaching the law" - and since the ICO isn't going to rule on the issue, we will (probably) never know whether it was a "slip in bureaucracy" (paper handled incorrectly) or "fineable offence" (criminal). Under all circumstances while Jones was/is the director of the CRU, a mention of such, since it is a minor issue, is WP:UNDUE. Now you could argue that the issue currently is so "hot", in conflation with the emails, that it may warrent a mention - but then that would be merited by a misunderstanding of what wikipedia is and isn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The IOC Statement as reported here seems to indicate that the law was broken although prosecution was not possible due to the period that had elapsed since the incident. It says that "FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8 they were not dealt with in accordance with the act." So I don't think the distinction between "Handled incorrectly"/"not dealt with as they should" and "breaching the law" is very relevant. The law, being Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act was breached.

I also think that it's a bit of a stretch to call this a "minor" issue. It has certainly attracted a lot of press and I suspect, whatever the outcome, it will be more than just a footnote in the story of the CRU. Dr Jones was the director of the CRU at the time of this breach, so I think it entirely relevant that his bio at least mentions the occurrence. Whether that mention becomes a larger portion or not will depend on events over the next weeks and months. Thepm (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made several changes to the article, including some structural changes. I have included a short statement to the effect that the ICO made finding regarding the CRU. I have made this as a separate sentence so that it can easily be deleted, if that is the consensus, without affecting the other changes that I've made. Thepm (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"...prominent advocate of the view that recent Global Warming has anthropogenic origins"

• significant POV. Who says? Jones was rarely in the media. What makes him an "advocate"? His research?

"A hacking incident during Jones' period as director of the Climate Research Unit, led to the release of a number of emails and other documents in an incident that came to be known as Climategate."

• Is redundant (it is described later) and it displays a couple of POV problems that have been dealt with on talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident - specifically the "climategate" name, the "release" wording.

"The University of East Anglia initially ..." combined with "However on 1 December..."

• Classic synthesis and a rewrite of what happened. UEA said he didn't have to resign. Jones temporarily resigned of own will.

"Subsequent investigations into..."

• Has the problems that i mentioned above. WP:NOTNEWS,WP:WEIGHT and tangentially related.

All in all not a good edit imho. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please refrain from misusing NOTNEWS to keep recent information out of the article. UnitAnode 05:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  Enduring notability/content-value, as well as ensuring (as well as we can) that we do not carry information that, within a short period of time, might be shown as incorrect, is, and should be the guiding principles of an encylopedia. These points are summarized in WP:NOTNEWS, and derived from our content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOT and in this case also WP:BLP). If we sink to a level where we change our (long-term) content based upon the latest and greatest (based on POV) newspaper article, then (imho) Misplaced Pages has lost, and become WikiNews with just a tiny bit more context and background. There has been a (imho) terrible tendency lately to assume that just because something can be referenced to a reliable source, then it must be given room in articles. Weight and NPOV in general isn't an easy concept, but that doesn't mean that one can ignore it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones story in The Guardian

Before people start linking NOTNEWS at me, I feel we need to remember that NOTNEWS isn't a prohibition on including recent happenings. It's meant to keep every single news story from turning into a stand-alone article. So how about let's not start linking that improperly. UnitAnode 05:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar article in The Independent. Personally I think it should be mentioned in the article, along with the fact that he was head of the CRU at the time the CRU breached FOI laws. I'll bet that's not the consensus view though. Thepm (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, there's no way that "scientific consensus" can be invoked regarding this. UnitAnode 06:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Using recent stories in BLP is a bad idea; saying "don't use NOTNEWs" doesn't help, because NOTNEWs still applies. So: no, don't include this, at the very least yet William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTNEWS is NOT meant for that use. It's wildly misused on these pages, simply to keep out any negative information. UnitAnode 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A press release?!?!? You cite a PRESS RELEASE, as your rebuttal?!?!? UnitAnode 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Rebuttal"? And here i thought we had to ensure NPOV by addressing all reliable source? See also the above comment on attempting to ensure that content doesn't get invalidated within a short time period, and has an enduring notability. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the article, it does seems a bit newsy but because so there's so little actually content in the article. It should be balanced out with more biographical information including more on his career. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

On my reading, The Guardian and The Independent essentially are claiming that the 1990 paper was at best sloppy, but perhaps fraudulent. On the other hand, UEA's media relations have issued a press release of the sort that is not unexpected from a media relations department. Are there any other sources that discuss this specific issue? Thepm (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/climate-emails-sceptics William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't actually address the issue at hand. The Guardian article and a similar piece in The Independent discuss the 1990 paper specifically. They appear to claim that the 1990 paper published by Jones and Wang is, as I say above, at best sloppy, but perhaps fraudulent. The Guardian article in particular has been reprinted and/or rehashed a few times . I was looking for a response to these. The article that you've linked to is a more general apologia, commenting on climategate emails being taken out of context. Thepm (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So, are you going to respond to his real question, or just leave this non sequitur as your only response? UnitAnode 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarity

First sentence includes "this work figured prominently in the IPCC TAR SPM." I know the initialisms are wikilinked, but this is not exactly reader-friendly. Rd232 10:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also the lead is rather unclear about his status as director - when did his tenure begin? When will it end, if it hasn't already? Has he actually resigned, or temporarily stood aside? Is he merely stepping down as CRU director, or leaving the university? None of this is clear enough. Rd232 10:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with rd232. The average reader probably doesn't know what the IPCC TAR SPM is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the claim that his work featured "prominently" in the IPCC TAR SPM is sourced to this: . It's not obvious to me how the source backs up the claim. It appears to be one figure in the SPM; the source itself doesn't link that to Jones. Rd232 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert edits based on Timesonline article

Reverted edit that refers to article in Times. There is a similar article in Daily Mail. Both these articles say little more than that Jones had "suicidal thoughts" but has "got past that stage now". I think this is entirely unremarkable for a man under that degree of pressure. Comments of this nature should be discussed before they are made to the article. Personally I would have to see a very strong justification for any comments on this in the article itself before I would be agreeable to them. Thepm (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, CoM restored the text, with no attempt at discussion. I agree with you, and have re-removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The reader comments on that Times story are deplorable. It goes to show the depth of hatred the far right feels for this man. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert the content. I read the source and edited it so it accurately reflected the cited article's contents. The claims of a BLP violation are laughable misguided. Two reliable independent media sources have reported on the personal toll the scandal has taken on Phil with entire articles on that subject. If editors want to censor that information the same way they've excluded any notation of the official findings concluding that Phil engaged in illegal misconduct, then so be it.

In my experience, "I don't like it" is the siren call of POV pushers distorting Misplaced Pages's content for personal whims and propaganda purposes, but until admins step up to enforce our core NPOV policy and to rein in the abuses we'll have misleading, incomplete, and innaccurate information like we do in this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't say "laughable", you will make Lar sad William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I revised it to "misguided". I don't want to make Lar sad. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I read that item when it was added to this article. It struck me as singularly inappropriate. Thank you for removing it. It added nothing and, if it had remained, could only have succeeded in dragging Misplaced Pages down to the level of The Times. --TS 23:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably Cla68 has added another version of the same material despite the reservations that have been expressed here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a revert was altogether in order there. There are three points that Cla68 made that I think should go back. 1. The finding of the FOI breach. 2. Jones' statement of regret ("should have treated the requests for information more seriously") and 3. His statement of support for the work that was done. I'd like to put those points back, but will await others comments given that they have just been reverted.

As for the suicide business, I say again that I find it entirely unremarkable. Thepm (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To claim that The Times is unreliable because it has some kind of political bias is OR and inappropriate. The information I added was NPOV, giving Jones' side, including his claims of receiving death threats, as well as those who have criticized him or his team's actions. Is there more going on here or in the background that I'm not aware of? Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A better source

The article proposed as a source (from The Sunday Times rather than its sister paper The Times) was essentially a condensed version of a larger and more detailed article in the same day's paper. From a similar recent example, it's likely that the shorter story appeared on the front page with a "see more on page x" reference to the detailed article inside. That gives details of the pressures that led Jones to make unlawful proposals to resist what he saw as deliberate misuse of the FOI process, though also emphasising that they don't have data to destroy, the effect on him of the emails being published, and particularly what he agreed was "a David Kelly moment". Note the "agreed", the implication is that the reporter put the issue of thoughts of suicide to Jones. The fact that he thought of it a few times but was now over it may be worth noting, more significant is the parallel with Kelly. That has a lot of resonance in the UK, where a scientist was under pressure about an information leak under investigation and was hounded by the press, until he committed suicide and the press then turned on the government for not giving the scientist adequate support. It's also worth considering his emphasis that the CRU work is validated by comparisons with independent studies. . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That article has some good information. Please add something from it to this article. I'm sure that you can do so in a NPOV manner, and I mean that. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I just added the substance of the information to the article in a way that gives heavy weight to Jones' side, while still conveying the substance of the criticisms. Why couldn't any of you guys above have done this instead of just reverting? Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence in me, your condensation of the article did reflect its main points, but in shrinking it undue weight was given to criticisms that have been answered, while presenting Jones's arguments as "denial". This was obviously done in good faith. I've modified it to show the points Jones makes more clearly, while leaving the context clear. 'The Telegraph isn't a terribly good source on this issue, its reporting has been inaccurate and loaded. I've cited The Times on the Data Commissioner's opinion, which makes it clear that the opinion related to the way requests by one individual were dealt with by the university. . dave souza, talk 11:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP vio

I have removed this section since the first sentence fails BLP - it's negative info that's not supported by a citation. (It's not in the Times article). The rest of the para just doesn't make sense without the first sentence. Guettarda (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically: Jones appeared to direct his team to refuse to provide data for Freedom of information (FOI) requests. The source says The thieves’ eureka moment came when they found messages from Jones, the unit’s director, and others apparently encouraging climate scientists to refuse freedom of information (FoI) requests. "Apparently encouraging " is clearly not the same as "direct". In addition, "direct his team" implies that he was using his position as unit leader to direct his staff to do wrong. Not supported by the source. Quite a smear to add to a BLP. Guettarda (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the first sentence in question: "Critics have charged that the emails showed that Jones appeared to direct his team to refuse to provide data to Freedom of information (FOI) requests."

Here's the line from the source: "The thieves’ eureka moment came when they found messages from Jones, the unit’s director, and others apparently encouraging climate scientists to refuse freedom of information (FoI) requests from known climate sceptics, and even to destroy data rather than surrender them to anyone they feared might misuse them." and "Jones insists that is not the way it was, but concedes it was the way it may have looked. He now accepts that he did not treat the FoI requests as seriously as he should have done."

I'm having a hard time seeing how that first line doesn't match what the source says. Moreover, I don't understand why you didn't simply rephrase the first line to match what you feel the source says instead of simply reverting the whole thing. Please explain. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it per your suggestion above. Again, I have to ask, why didn't you just do it yourself instead of reverting the lot? Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And you're still misrepresenting the source. Guettarda (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• To begin with, we don't write about amorphous "critics" - it's horrible form. Who are these critics? Secondly, Girling isn't talking about critics. He's talking about thieves. So changing "thieves" into "critics" is a misrepresentation of the source. Probably could find another source that says "critics", though, of course, unless we're talking about film critics, it's a very poor choice of words. Guettarda (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, to settle this I went to Proquest NewsStand and found this: "The Information Commissioner's office ruled that UEA was in breach of the Freedom of Information Act -- an offence punishable by an unlimited fine. But it said it was unable to prosecute because the complaint was made too late. The ICO wants the law changed so that complaints made more than six months after a breach of the act can still result in prosecutions, it was reported. Stolen emails disclosed the university's Climatic Research Unit tried to block requests for raw data and other figures, and implied senior university staff had played a role in the refusal of the requests. Prof Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit, stood down while official inquiries were made. In an email, Prof Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007. He also told a co-worker he had convinced university authorities not to answer freedom of information requests from people with connections to a website operated by climate change sceptics."

Okay, I'll make it say exactly what it says here. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Accurately representing sources is not some sort of a concession. It's the bare minimum. Guettarda (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• First, there was never any "BLP vio" as the heading of this sub-section states. Second, why all the resistance to inclusion of something we know to be objectively true? UnitAnode 00:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• No problem. I fixed it. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• "hy all the resistance to inclusion of something we know to be objectively true?" Well, (a) I don't know that it's objectively true that Jones directed his team to do anything of the sort, and more importantly (b) we can't claim sources say things that they don't say. We can't just take anything we know to be True, find a source that says something vaguely similar, and claim the source says what we know to be True. It's dishonest, and it will earn you an zero on your paper. Guettarda (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a personal problem with the way you handled this, which I expressed on your talk page, which is the appropriate place for discussing personal issues with other editors. Otherwise, I think the substance of the controversy surrounding Jone's involvement in Climategate is now included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources to insert negative material into an article about a living person is a major offense. Guettarda (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Who did that? If you're accusing someone of doing that, please make it clear. Cla68 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Make it clear? I did make it clear (note the title of this section). I documented above how you misrepresented sources, and used that misrepresentation to insert negative material into the article. In response to that you first removed the unsourced smear, but replaced it with text that still misrepresented the source. Which I removed again. And then you replaced it with material from another source. Guettarda (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely used synthesis and I think the give and take improved what it said, but to accuse me of editing with the purpose of smearing the subject is a serious allegation, and you haven't provided any evidence for that charge. Why do you feel that my motive was to "smear" the article's subject, as opposed to an honest attempt to represent the source accurately? Can you back that up? Cla68 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what your motive was. I have no opinion on your motivation. I'm only commenting on your actions. Guettarda (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You did comment on my motivation by saying that I was "smearing" the subject, as opposed to "misrepresenting sources" or "making a mistaken interpretation." You used the word "smear." You also said that I "misrepresented sources in order to insert negative material into a BLP". You are commenting on my motivation. Do you take it back? If not, you need to provide evidence that my reason for making that edit was to insert negative information, and that I knowingly misrepresented sources to do so. Let's see it. Cla68 (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not commenting on your motivation, but rather on your actions. And, for what it's worth, you misquoted me. Good work, by the way. You're very good at turning a comment on your actions into an attack on the person who points out what you did wrong. Full points for "wrong and strong", as we say. Guettarda (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you said what you said, and you did comment on my motivation. Cla68 (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

W...T...F. This has gone from bad to worse. The Telegraph's text:

In an email, Prof Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007. He also told a co-worker he had convinced university authorities not to answer freedom of information requests from people with connections to a website operated by climate change sceptics.

Cla's text:

in an email, Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also told a co-worker he had convinced university authorities not to answer FOI requests from people with connections to a website operated by climate change sceptics.

(bold text shows differences between the two versions)

No quotation marks. No attempt at paraphrase. And it's a 416-word article - that's more than 10% of the text copied. It's credited, so I suppose it's just a copyvio and not plagiarism, but whatever it is, that kind of "editing" doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. Honestly, as bad as the last bit, this has me shocked. Guettarda (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the non-BLP vio version. I'll rewrite this one, to see if it works better. UnitAnode 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite follows:

Jones told a colleague to delete email messages having to do with a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also informed one of his colleagues that he had convinced university authorities not to respond to FOI requests from people associated with a website run by climate change sceptics.

UnitAnode 03:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've rewritten it, so that it's not in any way a copyvio. Yet, it follows the Telegraph's basic theme explicitly. Now, it needs to stay in. UnitAnode 03:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• The text was attributed, so it wasn't a copyvio. Again, why did you simply revert instead of trying to fix it? Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As above, I've modified this using a better source than The Telegraph which has rather lived down to its "Torygraph" nickname in reporting on this issue. . . dave souza, talk 11:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the message didn't seem to get through, Misplaced Pages is about more than rephrasing inaccurate politically slanted sources – the revised version cites a proper source on the FOI opinion. If we want to get into the detail of claims about refusing info to McIntyre and the like, Jones's explanation in The Times should be given. This is all rather excessive on the bio article, I'm not completely convinced this belongs here. . . dave souza, talk 11:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is pathetic. I come up with a version that is basically a simple (and very easy to read) paraphrase of exactly what the reliable sources say, and Souza still thinks it is UNDUE? Now he comes up with his own version that is so full of qualifiers, modifiers, and his own tortured wording that it's almost unreadable. And people wonder why non-WP folk have noticed a blatantly pro-AGW bias in these articles? First it's "BLP vio" (which was BS), then it was "Copyvio" (which was dubious, given that it was obviously sourced), and now it's "UNDUE" (which is just hogwash as well). This has to stop at some point. UnitAnode 11:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem pathetic. You're demanding that we paraphrase a notoriously inaccurate right wing newspaper instead of accurately reflecting more reliable sources, and portaying Jones as "denying" what are ill founded accusations, without giving his statement about these accusations. This article isn't the place for a blow by blow discussion of all the accusations about the emails, in my view, but if it's discussed at all we should take care to show Jones's views rather than giving priority to the claims of the anti-action on global warming critics. BLP obviously applies. And yes, we shouldn't be giving undue weight to fringe scientific views. . . dave souza, talk 12:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the "science", and I think you know it. I actually agree with the majority of the pro-AGW views -- though you'd never know it from the corner into which the pro-AGW group paints everyone who disagrees with them on anything. I just have a serious problem with the current obstructionism to anything that might even be perceived as negative. Your insinuation that the Telegraph is unreliable (even going so far as to name-call it as the "Torygraph") is inappropriate. UnitAnode 12:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have added some material from a source we both seem to find reliable. I've also moved a bunch of info from the overlong lede to the body of the article. UnitAnode 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  You need to stop, Souza. You want to include things that supposedly support your POV that it was all just a big misunderstanding, but keep out anything that points a different direction. What you're now trying to airbrush out is a direct quote from a source you agree is reliable. This has to stop. UnitAnode 13:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

<ec> You're adding unsupported editorial opinion as though it were fact, describing it as The Times noted". Not good. As it happens, the same Times story also notes that Holland "had been seeking information to support his theory that the unit broke the IPCC’s rules to discredit sceptic scientists." Holland was requesting e-mails rather than data, as shown by Jones's incriminating discussion about deleting e-mails. We can go into huge detail here, but I think it's inappropriate. It's also inappropriate to start giving competing newspaper opinions, though that might be more balanced than just giving one. . . dave souza, talk 13:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Then put that in the Holland article. Unless you're now saying that The Times is unreliable, the two very brief quotes I've included should stay. UnitAnode 13:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Without digging up the diff, I recall another editor commenting that since coming under News International, the Times has tended to produce rather sensationalist headings and introductory paragraphs. I share that concern, but accept the detailed content of its articles as reasonably reliable. . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of tortured logic for excluding some bits of a reliable source while including others. UnitAnode 18:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In all newspapers, care has to be taken to distinguish editorial spin from the hard news. In a discussion on a news item coloured by the heading in a reputable newspaper, the journalist responded to me that he didn't get to write the headings. So, as a sceptic I always look for any discrepancies or contradictions. This is an example. Didn't manage to check if it was in the early print edition. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Souza, we don't try to figure out what is going on in the minds of reporters and news editors. That's a slippery slope. We just report what the sources say. If we think that someone may dispute what a media sourc is saying, all we do is add the source's name to the information and then let the reader decide: "The Times states..." or "The Telegraph reports..." or "The NY Times claims...". If two sources disagree we say that: "The India Times states that...but the The Hindu disagrees, saying..." That's how we do things here. You should know that by now. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"'However' is deprecated"?

I used the word only to qualify the previous a bit. I don't have a real problem with its removal, but what does the above comment mean, and on what is it based? UnitAnode 14:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:WTA. Note also that your insertion of the word inadvertently reversed the meaning of the properly sourced statement. . . dave souza, talk 17:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As the condensed explanation still seemed to be causing confusion, I've clarified it a bit. Hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New bbc interview

] Quite interesting interview here, most interesting to me of course is that he says the MWP was warmer than todays temp`s and that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 95. mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, he does not say that about the MWP. And he points out that 15 years is to short to expect significance results. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same. Despite rereading the article several times, i cannot get to the conclusion that Mark comes to. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Buggeritmilleniumhandandshrimp, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today My bad, i missed the if :) but it reminds me of something on the wwp article so not a total loss :) mark nutley (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some articles on that now:

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

more at http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&source=hp&cf=all&ncl=dVSTyIWJqHlvbtMrhRYdXnSj_4AzM

This article should be updated...Smallman12q (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

making international news, clearly needs to be updated. 24.24.225.92 (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail's inaccurate and misleading spin travels fast, we need reliable analysis or careful reading of the original, as above. . . dave souza, talk 10:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv

I reverted an addition for the following reasons

• the suicide thing has been discussed and deemed inappropriate
• the fact that his office is "swamped with piles of paper" is utterly non-notable; how many academics offices are different?
• the statement that "colleagues indicated the Freedom of Information requests had not been honored because the raw data had been "lost"" is based on pure speculation by unnamed "colleagues", and the unnamed source does not say that the data was lost, but rather speculates that Jones may have lost the data. Not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Guettarda (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Article in The Daily Mail

He's admitted there's been no further warming since 1995. (Contradicting the CRU's last 15 years of "output") Daily Mail -Ho hum, nothing to see hear, move along, now. 173.168.129.57 (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. He said there has been no statistically significant warming in the period. That is neither new nor surprising, as it usually takes a 30-year period or so to generate enough data to show a global temperature trend, statistically speaking.Esben (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mangle. Meanwhile, NASA GISS: Research News: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade, and AFP: Heatwave roasts Rio, kills 32 in southern Brazil. Note the Brazil item is weather, and not a statistically significant indication of climate change. . . dave souza, talk 11:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this fact deleted? It is his own words. The circumstances and interpretations do not change the fact that he admitted there has been no warming since 1995, despite the claims that he himself backed up for many years. This information on the e-mail links ignore what the leaks revealed, and focus only on how they were leaked. End the partisan editing of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manic755 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he has not admitted that there has been no warming. This claim is wrong. He has stated that there has been a warming trend, but that, over 15 years, it is (barely) not significant at the 95% level. Do you understand the difference? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RC piece

This may be useful William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Who wrote that article? I only see the name "Gavin" at the top of it. Cla68 (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Gavin" is Gavin A. Schmidt aka Gavin Schmidt. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That will be Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller who "has published over 60 refereed articles in journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, and Nature." --TS 10:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the "contributors" bar at the top it leads you to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/ which will tell you who the contributors are William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Add Science (journal) 19.Feb.2010 Interview link

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5968/934/DC1 Add Science (journa) 19.Feb.2010 Interview link. 99.24.249.104 (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

News About Jones and Data Availability

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE Göran Ahlgren, secretary general Kungsgatan 82 12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougransom (talk • contribs)

And your source for this is...? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be the named Swedish official, though he didn't provide a URL. DanielM (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

M'learned friend advises that said "official" may be found at this URL, an organisation promoting such "Points for media" as "Contemporary climate changes are neither unique nor alarming" and "No relation between carbon dioxide concentrations and climate changes has been verified." So that's allright, then. However, the source of the statement is apparently the rather unreliable Anthony Watts, featured at McIntyre's Climate Audit blog. An interesting analysis is available at a more reliable blog. . . dave souza, talk 23:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the press release above ahs been cunningly written to look rather more official than it is. As you've noticed, reliable Blog Science analysis reveals all :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientific Misconduct

Would it not be prudent to place Phil Jones page in the category Scientific Misconduct, since there is certainly a lot of controversy about his behavior? Certainly there are widespread allegations of fabrication, and there are many links on the Scientific_misconduct page to alleged misconduct; The economic impact of climate science misconduct may be the most expensive misconduct in the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by no one cares (talk • contribs)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be prudent, as I don't know if it is prudent for those other "alleged" cases, given WP:BLP. Maybe it is appropriate, maybe not. I will say that this current page on Phil Jones does not seem to squarely address PJ's role in the climate emails controversy, in my opinion it seems downplayed and papered over. As well, the lede is curiously short at about 13 words, and encapsulates neither his career in climate science not his widely-publicized role in the controversy. DanielM (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not a newspaper. --TS 15:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said we were. The things I referred to relate to notability and are encyclopedic. DanielM (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in some doubt as to that. There is currently a bit of a freak show surrounding the hacking, and I'm waiting for the kerfuffle to die down before reviewing the articles on the scientists involved. It seems that I'm not alone in this view. --TS 23:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's bordering on libel. There are investigations being conducted, and we should wait for the outcomes of those investigations before assuming that any and all allegations are true. StuartH (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should wait for the outcome of the investigations.--SPhilbrickT 15:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Or indeed that any of it is true. Right now we have a lot of uncorroborated allegations being made by those with vested interests. This is not a reliable basis for any statements of fact. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

general comment before I weigh in here

This article has become an article about Climategate, rather than an article about Phil Jones. Given that it's rumoured that Dr. Jones is nearly suicidal at the moment after this awful Climategate scandal, and despite my view that he has done wrong, I think is punishment far outweighs his crime, and I feel sympathy for the man. Does no one here have any sensitivity towards how Jones himself must feel to see his entire career reduced in Misplaced Pages to the Climategate scandal? Like nearly every climate change BLP, this one is an utter disgrace. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just want to make clear what other editors here are saying (others have commented similarly to Alex): the situation you describe is that Jones is near-suicidal over the controversy involving his emails, and Misplaced Pages should therefore exercise extreme caution and perhaps refrain from covering in his article the controversy in which he is key. Let's just get that proposition on the table so it can be met head on, and we can try to identify any applicable policy on the point. Is that the position of the several editors here? DanielM (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's about more than that; we're talking about someone who's been an active scientist for decades, with a distinguished career in his field. It's undue weight to focus on the CRU emails controversy at the expense of everything else, particularly as there has been absolutely no finding of any wrongdoing on his part. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

DanielM, I agree with ChrisO, because it's precisely the same argument I have made when editors try to turn the biographies of skeptics such as Richard Lindzen into refutations of their positions on climate change. In order to write a neutral biography, you need to get balance right. Quoting WP:UNDUE, An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. See also WP:STRUCTURE. This article, when I saw it, had become an article about Climategate, not about Phil Jones. As such, I'll have to admit, it was even worse than Lindzen's article. Now, I am fully aware that it is a fairly radical position I am taking -- relative to what normally goes on in Misplaced Pages climate change BLPs -- but it is the right position. Sensitivity towards the subject is a requirement of the BLP policy, and it's also just the moral, right thing to do here. I would appreciate it if climate change skeptics would support me in applying Misplaced Pages policy here. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked a clear question about whether it is the position of the several editors that Prof. Jones's rumoured near-suicidal mental state, as they appear to have said, means that this Misplaced Pages article should be restrained and cautious in covering the climate emails controversy in which he is central, or refrain from it altogether, for fear of giving him further agony that drives him over the edge. ChrisO responded in a way that muddles the issue "it's about more than that." Alex at least points to WP:BLP and says "sensitivity." Looking at that policy, it appears to call for sensitivity in personal matters and don't be sensationalist, i.e. avoid eagerly pointing out that the actress' husband has been having an affair, etc.

I don't think the email matter is like that at all. They weren't personal emails. The issue is politically charged but I don't think that coverage of it is by necessity sensationalist. I don't think one has to be a climate change skeptic to recognize that the notability, the extensive media coverage, and the legitimate questions raised by emails from a (the?) lead climate change scientist that refers to a need to "hide the decline" and a "trick" (no matter if that word means innocent cleverness not deception) ought to be getting some coverage. In fact I think integrity suggests it ought to. And WP:BLP doesn't say don't cover it in my view. Yet perhaps the "but he's near-suicidal" contention means we shouldn't. It seems now though, that no-one really wants to get behind that contention. DanielM (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, I think Chris's response was right. I'll try to make it even clearer: our core content policy is WP:NPOV; all articles should be neutral. A subsection of NPOV is WP:WEIGHT and this policy insists that all material is given its due weight with respect to the subject's (i.e. Phil Jones's) notability. This criterion was violated with at least 2/3 of the article being about Climategate. It is not true that 2/3 of Jones enduring notability derives from his role in the Climategate scandal. Meanwhile, the WP:BLP policy insists that we are sensitive to the feelings of living people. Sure, it could be argued that that bit is rarely enforced, and I'd have to agree this is true. The main point, then, is that it wasn't neutral because it wasn't weighted right. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE emphasis on Climategate, WP:COATRACK

I have read the article carefully and I am unable to find any good reason for this Climategate material to be defacing Jones's biography. It seems clear to me that it hasn't been added with any view to producing an end-product that would be an encyclopaedic treatment of Phil Jones career as a notable scientist. I propose that a single short sentence should replace the entire Climategate section to the effect that "Phil Jones has recently been controversial for his role in the Climategate scandal." In depth discussion of Jones' role in the scandal should be deferred until there is in depth discussion of the rest of his career, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:STRUCTURE. This is a BLP and I have objected to this material in all sincerity and good faith. I trust no one is about to say that I'm a POV pusher from the left faction. Any comments? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the general thrust of what you're suggesting, but I dislike your wording. Let me come up with something suitable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, see what you think of it now. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, your wording is better. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we agree on something at last. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that the climategate scandal is an attack on the integrity of Mr. Jones' career in full, particularly on the merits of his primary work, and that it is furthermore the only reason most people would have heard of him at all, to fail to mention it would be folly and ostrichlike. Ray 22:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We mention it, and also mention that the first serious investigation has exposed the "scandal" as the media and propaganda circus that it was. Follies. . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack external link

Spiegel Online International A Superstorm for Global Warming Research – a dubious analysis at best, repeats inaccurate and exaggerated stories started by the Sunday Times, and is superseded both by the Select Committee's analysis and by poll analysis suggesting little impact on public perception and trust, despite denialist propaganda. External links should be biographical, not overviews giving false equivalence to the anti-science agenda. . . dave souza, talk 18:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubious language & cite in lede

I think the statement "He has since been exonerated by the British House of Commons," cited to a HuffPost article written by a partisan, is too simplistic and arguably POV. Our treatment of this topic at the Parliament section, Climategate article is considerably more nuanced. We should probably synopsize that section, and drop the HuffPost cite, which isn't used over there.

In general, I feel that Jones' involvement at the center of the Climategate controversy is skimmed over too lightly here. That's what most of our readers will know him for. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A better citation would be an improvement, but no need to expand on the issue here as there's a detailed article on the subject, plus a sub-article. There was no real case against Jones, as the Select Committee found, and the further issues are best dealt with in the other articles. . dave souza, talk 08:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Pete. The text about exoneration was a bit too positive and simplified, even given the positive Committee report. Looks like it has been changed now. I had to take a long blink when I read the Committee characterize "hide the decline" as an innocent "colloquial term" perfectly at home in a "private email." I also agree that this article doesn't examine the issue enough. Caution should be taken to be fair to PJ, but I think to the extent this matter is papered over it's a disservice to Misplaced Pages and its readers, and it won't assist the climate change environmental movement either because people will become skeptical. DanielM (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As a sceptic myself, I changed the citation and the wording. Your failure to understand the decline is irrelevant, and the detailed discussion of the science belongs in the relevant articles, not as a WP:COATRACK in this article. Everyone should become sceptical, so if this article encourages that, it's doing a good job. . . dave souza, talk 11:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good job if the article, by papering over the uncomfortable implications raised by that language, makes people skeptical about climate change science, and Misplaced Pages too. I well understand the exchange was about tree ring temperature extrapolations that didn't match temperatures recorded by various instruments. Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand, because there was evidently no "decline" at all, only some tree ring data that erroneously indicated one. You did after all write "decline" above as if you believed it were actual. WP:Coatrack warns against loading up an article with a "tangentially-related" side issue. IMO it's not tangential at all. DanielM (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is uninformed. See divergence problem and note, as the Select Committee did, that it was "hidden" by being published in scientific papers before the graph in question was prepared. As I say, it's well covered in other articles and your misconceptions are inappropriate for this article. Please be more sceptical. . . dave souza, talk 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bah, Dave souza, you haven't told me anything I don't know yet, or pointed out anything I was wrong about yet, so your uncivil criticisms about my "failure to understand" and the supposed uninformedness of my opinion and misconceptions are just rubbish talk. DanielM (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pete, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I agree with you that lots of people are interested in Phil Jones because of Climategate. But I'm going to disagree with you that Misplaced Pages should be catering to the needs of these particular people (and, hey, I'm one of these people). As I said above, I recognise that I have a radical position on Misplaced Pages BLPs. In fact, I'd say I am a minority of one in being a Wikipedian climate change SPA editor who actually cares about applying the BLP policy as written. So, I can fully respect you if you believe, say, on the contrary that the "law as practiced" as opposed to the "law as written" should apply here. Nonetheless, I think what I have said above is undeniably, unambiguously consistent with the BLP policy, and none of this stuff about Climategate can appear until such time as the rest of Jones's career is filled out (accurately, properly). Note WP:BLPSTYLE, and see that 'eventualism' is not meant to apply in the case of BLPs. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the BLP policy has been completely rewritten again in the space of a week. Eventualism does apply to BLPs, apparently. I have no opinion now until such time as I have read the new policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think whilst BLP policy is in its present state of flux we can look at WP:COATRACK#The_Attack_Article and WP:COATRACK#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22. WP:COATRACK show that we have got this Jones article to a respectably encyclopaedic state and further coverage of Climategate is completely inappropriate here. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "none of this stuff about Climategate can appear until such time as the rest of Jones's career is filled out." I don't think that's Misplaced Pages policy at all. If you're basing it on WP:WEIGHT I think you're wrongly interpreting the rules. The climate emails controversy has tremendous notability and Prof. Jones was at the center of it. It would amount to an indefinite veto at the caprice of any individual editor to interpret WP:WEIGHT as being okay to say for example "can't talk about A until J, K, L, and M are also discussed, so hop to it." I maintain that this article in its current state is a papering over of the notable issues involved with PJ's emails and actions. DanielM (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I don't think I am wrongly interpreting the rules and your own wording suggests that it's really the email controversy you're interested in and not Phil Jones per se. Agreed that the email controversy has tremendous (independent) notability. But this article is supposed to be the biography -- the life -- of Phil Jones. No, I am not misunderstanding the rules on that. This is supposed to be the biography of Phil Jones and yes there are some ABCs that need to go in before editors can come along and add 1,000 words on the Climategate controversy. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

1990 UHI paper

Jones' 1990 paper in Nature on the Urban heat island isn't mentioned in this article. First of all, this paper has been referenced, if I understand right, in all the IPCC reports on climate change. Also, I understand that FOIA requests by Stephen McIntyre relating to Jones' data that he used for that paper are at issue in the ClimateGate controversy. How should the article include some text on this paper? Cla68 (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Any such work should be done by people capable of spelling Climatic Research Unit email controversy William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot

We need to incorporate Monbiot's call for Jones' resignation into this article. I will work on it in the coming days. ATren (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

George Monbiot has since remarked that his call for Jones' resignation was hasty. "as I wrong to call, soon after this story broke, for Jones's resignation? I think, on balance, that I was." Please be aware. Wikispan (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I hadn't seen that. But Monbiot was still very critical: "He said some very stupid things. At times he squelched the scientific principles of transparency and openness. He might have broken the law. But he was also provoked beyond endurance. I think, in the light of everything I've now seen and read, that if I were to write that article again I'd conclude that Phil Jones should hang on – but only just." His original call and this later partial retraction should both be reported here. ATren (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we need neither. Monbiot made a mistake which he later retracted. Your enthusiasm for adding it in is duly noted William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"He said some very stupid things. At times he squelched the scientific principles of transparency and openness. He might have broken the law." -- Monbiot is highly visible in this debate and is frequently cited, so this needs to go in. Now it's just a matter of how to word it. WMC, why don't you take a crack at it? ATren (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Got another source for that argument, showing the significance of Monbiot to Jones? Looks rather coatracky. . dave souza, talk 22:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave, Monbiot is frequently sourced in other BLPs. His opinion is relevant. The criticism needs to go in. ATren (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ATren, why don't we clean up any unfair or unnecessarily negative information from any other CC BLPs first before we discuss adding criticism to this one? I'm sure WMC and Dave would be happy to help out with that. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tried that for 3 years. They won't budge. Solomon and Monckton were my last attempts to stop their POV push. So I'm switching gears: it's time to work on these and add the criticism they've been suppressing for years, to bring them into line with the others. NPOV demands it. ATren (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Climate row unviersity 'broke data law' Author: Nick Collins Journal: The Daily Telegraph ( London (UK) ) Pub.: 2010-01-28 Pages: 17

• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Science and academia work group articles needing infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Stub-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles