Difference between revisions of "Talk:Climategate"

Revision as of 04:41, February 8, 2010

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 ^[1]. 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:

Iain Murray from Pajamas Media explained the significance, here:

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)

The reason this is significant, as I've been saying all along at Wikipedia, is "cherry-picking data" that supports your ideas and suppressing reports from scientists who challenge your findings is anti-scientific. Science thrives when every new idea is subjected to scrutiny by the entire scientific community; it is only when an idea has survived repeated challenges from skeptics that we can say it has stood the test of time. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:26, 30 January 2010 (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)

This graph is 14 years old. It is outdated. However, it comes from the man who organized the largest anti-AGW petition ever; a man who homeschooled his children (two of whom are now scientists in their own right): Art Robinson. We need a bigger article on him. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:28, 30 January 2010 (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)

The whole thing seems to be fixed/changed now. Google is auto-suggesting "climate-gate", which seems to link to at least twenty-odd pages of results. (Click on p. 18 or so, and you'll see more.) I'm editing the section to say that Google was doing this on 3 December, but by 7 December it was fixed. --EvanW 16:31, 7 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)

Climategate media coverage

I moved a majority of the "Media Coverage" section to its own page: Climategate media coverage. The reason for it was due to it becoming a much larger section, which will likely which will likely grow even more as the scandal continues to be unraveled. I felt that, since the media coverage of the event isn't necessarily a top priority as some of the more meaningful takeaways from this scandal, at the time of moving the section it seemed like the right thing to do. But I can move it back if others feel like it's still a very important part of the unraveling Climategate scandal. If the new page does stay, then it also needs to be added to the Template:Climategate scandal, which I cannot do because the page is locked. DerekE 22:32, 6 December 2009 (EST)

I opted not to do the move after all, my apologies! DerekE 01:08, 7 December 2009 (EST)

You may be interested in Larrey Anderson, Revenge of the Computer Nerds, December 09, 2009, American Thinker You put a lot of work in to this!Daniel1212 21:32, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Excellent source! I hadn't seen this article yet, thanks for pointing it out. I'll likely get it added in the next wave of updates. Since the Mainstream media won't touch Climategate there needs to be somewhere on the Internet documenting the scandal in its entirety. The leftist media would love to sweep this under the rug and have it disappear. DerekE 00:12, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Glad it helped. If you were perplexed (as i am sure you were) why WP seemed less than objective in its treatment of Climate Change (should that be capitialized?) then see here:Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor, December 19, 2009

"In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.". Great find, Daniel! I suggest you guys work this into the article, and certainly into the Wikipedia one as well! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 14:36, 20 December 2009 (EST)

I also agree. Watts Up With That has also provided two follow up articles on "Wikibullies" as administrators on Wikipedia, one of which references the article Daniel1212 pointed out:

• Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes broad trust issues over Wikipedia climate information
• More on Wikipedia and Connolley – he’s been canned as a Wiki administrator

Looks like the Bias in Wikipedia is finally starting to be realized by the general public. I can look into a good way to incorporate this into this article, it's definitely worth noting. DerekE 00:50, 21 December 2009 (EST)

I had already added a bit on this to the WP bias page.Daniel1212 19:17, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Excellent work. I just updated the article with more information on it, including the reference you provided. It's amazing how as the Climategate scandal grows, it seems like every single liberal source of bias information is somehow either indirectly or directly related to the scandal. Wikipedia is no exception. DerekE 20:02, 21 December 2009 (EST)

Thanks. Perhaps it should be labeled, the Cult of Climate Change. I assume you have heard the strategy of the UN: Fight climate change with free condoms. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57328 You would therefore think that Biblical morality would be favored the liberals, but just the opposite. Also, to know CC is to love it, but to deny you risk being labeled irrational. A Washington Post headline stated, “It’s natural to behave irrationally: Climate change is just the latest problem that people acknowledge but ignore.” The Post’s expert was Duke professor Dan Ariely: “We are collectively irrational, in the sense that we should really care about the long-term well-being of the planet,...Daniel1212 17:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)

Rush Limbaugh

Why are we quoting a radio commentator in order to present scientific facts? If what he was saying about the polar bears is true then find the original source. Quote him on politics by all means, but leave the science to the scientists. DWiggins 16:39, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Because Rush Limbaugh was specifically addressing the article in question, and in relation to Climategate and the global warming hoax. I could have asked myself a similar question, "Why am I adding an opinion story from a journalist in the UK who wrote about a polar bear hoax?" I did so because the point is, in spite of Climategate, there are still those in the media pushing an environmental agenda and also ignoring the facts at the same time. Limbaugh's article works as an excellent counter argument to the false claims made by The Guardian. With regards to the fact about polar bears (males eating their young), I think such a reference does need to be placed within the article about "Polar bears." But in the case of this article, it doesn't seem like citing proof of this fact is necessary here. I could see the argument that it is needed in the polar bear article though, so you bring up a good point. Also: on the topic of politics and climate science, I completely agree with you that it's a huge problem that climate science has shown to be (or become) a sub-branch of climate politics. It's an issue discussed in this article under the Climategate scandal section (see quote by Rex Murphy). DerekE 17:12, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I think as far as possible we should avoid quoting non-experts in any articles like this. I don't expect that the reporter is an expert on polar bear behaviour and I'm pretty certain Rush Limbaugh isn't either, so whilst one or both may be making claims that are in fact true I don't think it's enough to simply take their word for it. It's not a question of conservatives OR liberals distorting science, politics distorts science full stop. DWiggins 18:02, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I definitely see why the basis of your argument is important. Instead of commentary covering the subject, perhaps the article should utilize more quotes from the emails, code and data processing programs, and then let the readers make their own assertions about what it means for climate science? Keeping that in mind, I think for now, because Climategate is still a relatively new and breaking story -- and still unknown to many people (thank the media) -- it might be a benefit to the article (for now) by having noteworthy discussions on the subject at hand, even though some of the talk may or may not be from an expert. After all, many of the "expert" scientists are the ones under fire for manipulating and suppressing data.

On the one hand, take for example the noteworthy editorial by CBC’s Rex Murphy. His quote is one of my favorites because he so clearly defines what the problem is that Climategate uncovered, and he also provides some interesting solutions as a result of the uncovered problems. I'm not sure exactly how much of an expert Murphy is on the topic of Climate science; however, his comment on the subject matter is very useful for understanding some of the main takeaways of Climategate. On the other hand, there is absolutely a lot of information out there by other scientists whom have done research which counters many of the false claims made about global warming. It's one of the reasons I added the "Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction" section, countering Michael Mann's hockey stick chart.

Another problem is that much of the "expert" data about Climate change is now debunked since it was using fraudulent data provided by the CRU scientists. So it may take some time before quality, reliable research is available to the public. There's a reason this scandal is so large, because of its impact on climate science, it truly uncovered one of the biggest frauds of our time; thus, it's going to take time before things get sorted out in an orderly fashion. The article as it is seen today is a real-time encyclopedic reference as an article discussing what is currently known. Some of those discussions about what is known happen to be from commentators pointing out some of the main takeaways. I don't mean to be wordy in my reply, but hopefully this provides some context and reasoning as to why the article is currently written the way it is. DerekE 19:03, 10 December 2009 (EST)

update: I thought about what you said some more and I think you're right. Over the last week I've been collecting as much info as possible about the actual data, and I agree, it will be a better way to present the article with straight facts rather than mostly discussion of the facts. Politics does distort facts - more obvious now, with Climategate, than ever before. I'll likely end up moving about half (or so) of the information currently in the article to either the Climategate media coverage page or into its own. But I'll need about a week to sort it all out because I've got finals coming up for school. Very busy week ahead for me. So hopefully the article works OK as is for now, but just to let you know I will make some much needed improvements to it as soon as I get the opportunity to do so. Suggestions are, of course, always welcome for ways to improve the article. DerekE 14:24, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Alright DWiggins, see what you did? :-) Since you brought it up, I've trimmed the article (moved most media commentary to its respective article) and now preparing to add some better info about emails and data. I guess it won't take a full week. I'm working on it! DerekE 23:36, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Intro image

TK has decided the intro image should be of Al Gore; I have offered reasons here why I believe the intro image should not be of Al Gore and instead illustrate the primary topic of Climategate: Global warming. Because I don't think edit wars help anyone's cause, I would like to get some feedback from the community regarding this image dispute. Should we keep Al Gore as the intro picture or does it make more sense to others if the intro picture is reverted back to this version? DerekE 19:53, 18 December 2009 (EST)

DerekE, as I explained to you on my talk page, this isn't a Mobocracy like Wikipedia. There isn't any appeal to the "community" to be made, because you simply reverted an Administrator without bothering to discuss your reasons for doing so first. Cheers! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:43, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Latest news

Perhaps this should be added to the news section [nice addition btw):

• The Netherlands is asking for an explanation in why the UN believes that half of that country is under sea level. [2] CC means of baptism?

• More fraud uncovered in climategate scandal...great global warming collapse. [3]

• "Bin Laden Blames U.S. for Global Warming in New Tape." [4] Daniel1212 23:41, 7 February 2010 (EST)