Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

}

"stolen" data
It seems that RS, at least the AP, seem to agree that the data was "stolen" except for the fact that the rightful owners were never deprived of access to it, which is a key component to conventional theft. It is unfortunate that sources want to draw analogues between theft of conventional property and copying of data, because data piracy is a different thing altogether. Elizium23 (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So what? I think it is unfortunate that the reliable sources do not call the people who bought the stolen mails "fences".
 * Why is this on this Talk page? How is it connected to any suggested article improvement? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because we don't need to call them "stolen" if we can agree on a more accurate term for pirated data. Unless editors believe we should blindly follow the sources, or they are unanimous in this point. Elizium23 (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The meaning of words is determined by the people who use them, and if reliable sources say "stolen", they probably mean it. We have an article Data theft which points out The phrase data theft is actually a misnomer (without a source). The term is still used, and the article exists. I cannot see any problem with using the word "steal" here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Taxpayers?
'''Hot Spots From Twitter:

Toby Young on Twitter:'''

The Foreign Office is helping to pay for the rewriting of wikipedia entries on climate change to eliminate all traces of doubt about the claim that we're in the midst of a 'climate emergency'.

Sissy Willis on Twitter:

"The operation is being directed by the green activist group, the #StockholmEnvironmentInstitute (SEI), under a project titled ‘Improving communication of climate knowledge through Wikipedia’.

SEI is closely connected with the United Nations & the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a WEF ‘disinformation’  seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science & the world should know it.”

Recently, the U.N. Under-Secretary for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, told delegates at a WEF ‘disinformation’  seminar that her organisation had partnered with Google to ensure only U.N.-approved climate search results appear at the top. In chilling tones, she explained: “We are becoming more proactive, we own the science & the world should know it.”

Source:

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/16/british-government-funds-campaign-to-rewrite-climate-science-entries-on-wikipedia/

Any British taxpayer here for the comments? Kartasto (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * See The Daily Sceptic. If the article is correct, "The Daily Sceptic is a blog created by British commentator Toby Young. It has published misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines[9] and climate change denial". Looks like a waste of time. . . dave souza, talk 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Climate Deniers
This is a wrong description used throughout this site. The scientific consensus is not Science. Science is and always has been a process of proof. When the Climate change believers are asked simple scientific questions, which they cannot answer, they try to be-little the scientific question using derogatory terms in order to demean the other side of the discussion. If this article were to be balanced, please remove terms such as. 'Climate Deniers' and replace with 'scientific unanswered counter arguments'. I feel that this article is a white-wash of the real problems with using exclusive terms such as consensus and science in the same sentence. 86.21.163.120 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on your opinion. So, it is no problem for Wikipedia that your opinion and Wikipedia articles do not match, it is your problem.
 * If you had reliable sources that agree with your opinion, it would be a different story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The term "Controversy" was selected as better encompassing the subject matter in this case, but from reading this the possibility of a better title, should anybody find one, is still open. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE  18:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit email controversy → Climatic Research Unit email leak – 'leak' is more WP:NPOV about what actually happened: the mail leaked. The controversy part is what some hacker wanted to create by leaking them, but in the end there wasn't really any controversial content and the scientists were just doing their job fine. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, "leaks" usually mean an inside job, a whistle-blower. This was burglary. The "controversy" (such as it was) was the result of selective release of the messages with misrepresentation of their content. The effect was to undermine the political of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, causing an unforgivable delay in response to it. So the key factor was the effect; the method is incidental. I agree that the name is not great and should be reconsidered, but 'leak' won't do. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * >First, "leaks" usually mean an inside job, a whistle-blower
 * Yes, they were stolen by a hacker indeed, but that hacker then leaked them to the public, taking over the job that is usually done by the insider. I'd say leak is an appropriate term here.
 * Do you have any alternative suggestions? I'd be open to moving the page to a different name if there is a good alternative. Climate Research Unit email hack would be good to me as well. The page Category:Email hacking contains some title inspiration. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, that puts the emphasis on the hack as an exploit (which was almost insignificant) rather than on the deliberate disinterpretation of the messages and consequent reinforcement of the denialist conspiracy theory – which led to politicians failing to act on the IPCC report. "Controversy" has the benefit of focusing on consequences rather than the proximate cause. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.
 * Oppose It was never a great title but the controversy is what has mostly been written about and the controversy had an impact on climate change policy, as has been pointed out. So keep as it is in its imperfect way. Mikenorton (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)