Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Subpage

response to email from the blog
it is not quite clear to me who is responding in whose name? was a 'blogger' also the author of the email? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added to main talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot respond because I don't understand the question. Which email is referred to here, and which blog? --TS 22:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * email from this section. who is the author of the blog post 'response'? who is the author of the email? same person(s)? or different ones. if different, why is a response relevant? why not include other responses also? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * also, i don't understand why is there a separate 'emails' section, when criticism in 'incident' section deals also with emails. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The source referenced in our article indicates that the blockquote from the RealClimate blog is a "group" post, authored by several of the RealClimate bloggers.


 * The emails section you refer to is part of a general section dealing with the actual content, or rather, analysis of the content, of the stolen and leaked documents. Several of the reactions to the incident refer in more general terms to the emails, so they're mentioned there too. --TS 11:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * is anyone from this "group" author of the email? if not, why is their response more relevant than responses of some other scientists? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * i think that analysis of some scientists of the part of content that deals with deleting data in light of Freedom of Information requests is far more relevant than analysis of the decline of temperatures... 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To the talking point of if it was hackers or if it was leaked - A reporter at the BBC "recieved" this info 5 weeks before it was made public, and sat on it. That to me says it was leaked from an internal source, and when the BBC didn't write about it, then it was released to the public via Russian servers. We are not talking about a middle of the night hack, and by the morning it was public knowledge, we are talking about a 5 week period of time, in which the BBC had these emails and documents in their possession - AND DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. The "hacker" story was put out as DISINFORMATION, to discredit it, and make it unadmissable in court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.20.250 (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speculation. And, to remind everybody: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.  --TS 03:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * speculation that might be reported in the news. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * and here's a news source (although it lacks above interpretation ;0) 93.86.205.97 (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you read the very next BBC blog post, then you'd find that the reporter was part of the email coversation, and thus could compare the emails directly. (hint: he didn't have access to the info 5 weeks before). Can we please do away with the speculations? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * i don't understand what you are saying... 93.86.205.97 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the journalist had copies of some of the emails because he took part in the email conversation. Therefore when the emails got released on the russian site, he was able to verify that the emails he already had (without hacking) were indentical to the emails that were in the hacked ones. It wasn't because the hacking took place earlier. Read the linked posting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * you got it wrong. he got few emails forwarded because of his article few days earlier. he didn't took part in the conversation, but was mentioned (along with his article) in the conversation by other scientists who didn't like his article. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly i believe Hudson (the person in question) more than i believe the Guardian who seems to have gone out on half a wind. Hudson states "These took the form of complaints about its content, and I was copied in to them at the time. " - that is a direct referral to either have been Cc or Bcc'd in the mails at the time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * i see now. it's an expression i didn't know. thanks for clarification. :) 93.86.205.97 (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * and this is his mention from emails: "“Extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. It’s particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black.” 93.86.205.97 (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is there an article on this topic?
Uh, Wikipedia. You seem to have left out the important part, you know, why there is concern over this horrible, horrible crime of stolen e-mails. OK, since you might not actually know, it's because there was a lot of sexy details involving scientists and lab equipment. Just kidding. No, it's because some of the leading climate scientists were exposed as frauds--definitely scientific frauds, and quite possibly criminal frauds as well. It's hard to take Wikipedia seriously if the first paragraphs of the article say that Climategate is really just a "hacking incident." "Climate change sceptics have asserted that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to withhold scientific information," says the article. Oh, really? Just "climate change sceptics"? This is also a deeply important political event, as you can see from all the political commentary on the political scandal, and you don't get to that until very far down in the article. JusDeFax (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The notion that fraud has been exposed has been used to defend the theft since the first days. No credible instance of fraud has emerged. --TS 11:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there actualy any proof that these e-mails/code etc. were stolen by a hack? If you realy think about the content of the data, it looks more like a leak.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.255.194 (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 21:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes according to UCR and some news repports. It's being investigated by the police. And there is other indicators such as the hack of RealClimate...

Computer code
The article makes no mention of the computer code. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml 71.156.37.48 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of the source code contained in the hacked documents. These codes are much more incriminating than the emails themselves. The fortran source code used to produce the CRU's data make absolutely no sense. Therefore the data itself has no credility at all. This is the real story, its like creating a dictionary with an alphabet that has been randomly thrown together in order to create a definition that fits their belief system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.127.243 (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it doesn't make sense because you don't have the knowledge to understand it? Our article does mention the existance of the section code, the reason why there's little discussion of the code is because there's few sources discussing the code as has been mentioned in other discussions on the main talk page. Perhaps because real programmers with credibility know it takes time to analyse code and don't just spent a few hours and then say 'it doesn't make sense so it must be wrong' Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How much time did Harry spend analyzing the code? Is Harry's opinion relevant?  -- SEWilco (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember that this page is for discussing improvements to the article. --TS 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If discussed in multiple reliable sources then maybe. So far all we have is one blog post Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 06:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For anyone to make a serious analysis of the data would take a long time (as well as the e-mails btw), and so far there is just speculation and accusations. If there is a serious analysis by a relevant expert it would likely show up in reliable sources, and then it will most likely be mentioned in the article.


 * At the moment Harry has done the most reviewing. However, HARRY_READ_ME.txt has commentary and code fragments about all CRU files available to Harry.  There is no overall review yet of the leaked code collection, which is a fraction of what Harry was dealing with.  -- SEWilco (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * None of those sources really describe anything significant for the article. None of them really appeared to have carried out in depth analysis of Harry's work/commentary nor do they appear to have attempted to contact Harry for further information. All they really tell us is that Harry reviewed the code and found it an incredibly frustrating project. All 3 appear to be opinion columns or something similar. Two, the NYT and Computerworld one are primarily about other things with brief mention of Harry's work. Nil Einne (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

info to add
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.205.97 (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-the-smoking-code.html

this is an article that shows the code and how it was used to falsify temperatures to go with their political agenda. its broken down by a programmer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.133.213 (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It won't be added. The left wing admins won't allow the truth here. 64.53.136.29 (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the previous discussion about the above.

Page title
The BBC reports they had the material 1 month before it was reported hacked. Either the hacking report is false or the reported date of the hacking is false or the BBC report is false. This article is in error on that point.

24.87.71.192 (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) The rule about "gate" is misapplied in this case. The rule exists to prevent the creation of words that do not exist. Climategate exists as a word with widespread Internet and media usage. 24.87.71.192 (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate is not limited to the UEA emails. Through usage, Climategate refers to the suppession of information related to climate change, of which UEA is an example. The widespread re-writing and suppression of Wikipedia climate related articles by a single audthor is also cited in reference to Climategate. This would argue in favor of a wider article under the name "Climategate". 24.87.71.192 (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)