Talk:Climategate

I do not have much, but I hope that someone will expand this article, as this whole thing has blown my mind about the reality of deceitful myths.

Freedom of information

Just a brief point: The data in question was deleted in the 1980s according to the article referenced on the main page . This was about two decades before the Freedom of Information Act came into force in the UK and so the act and the fine of £5000 which you mention are not relevant to the discarded data. DWiggins 07:34, 1 December 2009 (EST)

I'll look into that part some more, you bring up an interesting point. But after reading this email dated Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008, Phil Jones said this:

“

Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! Cheers Phil

”

Iain Murray from Pajamas Media explained the significance, here:

“

The context in the subject header is clearly the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI), while AR4 refers to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What is most important to know here is that, according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance in the UK, “at least one FOI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted by a David Holland on May 5th 2008.” The Freedom of Information Act, however, explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a FOI request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university. A complaint has been made to the British information commissioner.

”

Climategate is certainly very complex so I'm sure as time goes on we'll learn more, but I'm going to assume (Illegally obtained or not) the hacked emails can be used as evidence of fact, as I believe the data has been verified as authentic. If I'm missing something, please let me know. DerekE 12:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Article Image

I'm not sure what the best image to use might be for the article about the Climategate scandal, however, would anyone have a disagreement with the use of this graph? [1] DerekE 14:55, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Not me. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:58, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Google

I'm re-adding the Google section because I'm not convinced the issue has gone away quite yet. For example, here are the sources to be used:

• “Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google
• Climategate: Googlegate?
• Google trends on “climategate” show public interest increasing – but troubling questions loom
• Google blocking 'climategate' autosuggestion
• Google appears to be censoring climate emails searches
• Of Climategate, Googlegate & When Stories Get Too Long

And now, currently, if you do a Google Search: Climategate - despite 26,400,000 articles discussing the Climategate scandal, Google has restricted the search results to be limited to only 10 pages (9 actually, page 10 redirects to page 1). DerekE 18:48, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Update: I removed the portion from the Climate Gate page referencing Google's search engine only showing ten pages worth of results. It seems the problem was 'fixed' in one way or another. DerekE 19:59, 3 December 2009 (EST)

No need to exaggerate

I noticed this line in the article:

"In reality, the small 'fraction of research' is actually a worldwide scam to grab power and dictate new Leftist laws"

This seems rather dubious at best, since it involves an extreme extrapolation from one small group of people to many thousands spread throughout many research institutions across the globe. It is not logical to argue that because there are some serious issues with one group's research that there must therefore be similar issues with all other work of a similar nature (look up inductive reasoning). Just stick to the evidence available, which concerns only the site in East Anglia, there's no need to make extravagant claims. DWiggins 20:38, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Good point. I'll remove it, however, Jpatt added it into the section so if he argues that it is important and he provides a reasonable need for it, it can be re-added to the article. I'd like to hear his argument for it if he has any objections. DerekE 21:15, 3 December 2009 (EST)

That's fine, likely true but unsourced.--Jpatt 21:25, 3 December 2009 (EST)

That's what I was thinking, too; it very likely could be true. The Mainstream media cover-up of the entire climategate scandal as well the denial by the Obama administration, and the odd behavior from the major search engines surrounding this entire event just begs the question -- is this a worldwide scam to grab power and dictate new Leftist laws? When I get a chance I'll do some research on it and see what I can find. DerekE 21:33, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Found it:

• Attention Lawyers! Make Millions Off Of Climategate Crooks!
• Glenn Beck Cites NewsBusters to Bash TV's ClimateGate Boycott
• Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)

The sources definitely seem credible enough for evidence to re-add the sentence, "In reality, the small 'fraction of research' is actually a worldwide scam to grab power and dictate new Leftist laws." Before I add it back into the article, are there any suggestions for re-wording it, so the statement doesn't appear dubious -- even though evidence points to it being more factual than fallacy. Based on the above three sources, the statement, I don't think, is minority of opinion but is indeed factual based on the evidence presented throughout this entire ordeal. Thoughts? DerekE 22:45, 3 December 2009 (EST)

From what I can see these articles go no further in providing evidence for such a claim. They remain simply opinions, the opinions of these authors. It wouldn't be too difficult to simply pull up some articles with completely opposing views. To date there is no factual basis to call this a worldwide conspiracy. A factual basis for example would be showing that all climate data for all studies was made up, which is not the case, and not simply some commentator criticising a certain policy. As such to me this statement looks out of place as some wacky conspiracy theory. We have actual evidence in the hacked documents, but only for this very specific case. To extrapolate from that to call it a global conspiracy detracts from the credibility of the article, a credibility it can retain if it simply sticks to what we actually know. DWiggins 11:58, 4 December 2009 (EST)

I changed the wording from, "In reality, the small 'fraction of research' is actually a worldwide scam to grab power and dictate new Leftist laws," to, "The reality is that this small 'fraction of research' — the theory which is the foundation of anthropogenic global warming — the data used by CRU scientists, it is proven fraudulent. The theory which used to hold human beings responsible: it is nothing more than a Global warming scam, according to Jim O'Neill from the Canada Free Press. The scientists at the CRU, from the evidence found in the their e-mails and documents, show a criminal intent to defraud the public of massive amounts of money, and at the same time advance an ideological Leftist agenda." And I used sources from which the arguments were brought up. So the article page is no longer stating it's a worldwide theory, but merely pointing out what others have argued from the evidence released on November 19, 2009. DerekE 13:04, 4 December 2009 (EST)