Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 24, 2009.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 17, 2011, November 17, 2014, November 17, 2018, November 17, 2019, November 17, 2021, and November 17, 2022.


Meaning of 'trick'[edit]

The recent BBC TV film titled 'The Trick' is likely to arouse new interest in the meaning of this key word. The present article refers to an inquiry report by Penn State, which said that the 'trick' was 'a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion'. Is there a source for the statistical method used, preferably with some explanation that might be intelligible to a lay person? The impression given in the film was that Phil Jones simply decided that the proxy data after a certain date (I think he said 1960) was wrong or unreliable, since it conflicted with the instrumental data, and therefore omitted it from the relevant diagram. This may have been a correct judgement, and a legitimate decision, but it is not on the face of it a *statistical* method. Nor does it seem to justify the use of the term 'trick', which in a scientific or math context usually implies something especially neat or clever. Just cutting out data you think is incorrect may be justified, but it is not especially clever. There *might* be some statistical reason for excluding data from a graph, for example if it is an outlier known to be due to measurement error. If there is in fact some technical statistical basis for the 'trick', a reference would be helpful. 2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:28AF:6BB6:74DF:B930 (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As is linked in the article, this is fully covered at Climatic Research Unit documents#Climate reconstruction graph, including the point that tree ring data post 1960 was an outlier known to be due to the (already published) divergence problem, a detail Jones chose to exclude from the figure for the WMO report cover illustration. For the statisticl basis of MBH98/99, see the hockey stick graph. . dave souza, talk 10:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still Wikipedia?[edit]

I admit it, I am not educated on the topic of "Climategate", so after hearing someone mention it today, I visited this article to learn what the supposed emails said. Having read the article, I still don't know. In paragraph after paragraph, I was informed that a laundry list of people and organizations disagree with "Climate Skeptics" interpretation of the emails, yet, outside of some vague "trick", I still have no idea what the emails said. As such, I don't what, specifically, they are disagreeing with. Furthermore, it really feels like the author(s) don't want me to know what they're disagreeing with ... only that they disagree, and disagree strongly. This may be the least informative article I've ever read on Wikipedia. It's just one breathless denial of Climategate after another, while doing it's very best to never mention what they actual claims were that they so vehmently disagree with. I am unable to believe that anyone could say with a straight face that this article is even remotely encyclopedic. All I learned was what a bunch of supposed experts thought of the controversy.

It's like going to an article about a 'Lion Controversy', where the content was:

Lion experts disagree with the Lion Controversy. 98% of good lion people agree that people who agree with the Lion Controvesy are very bad people, and deserve nothing but scorn and derision. NBC News called people who believe in the Lion Controversy "sad and pathetic people", and they state that the Lion Controvery dramatically overstated the real nature of lions. Leona Liontamer, the keeper of a lion herself, stated "I haven't found the Lion Controversy to be true with MY lions!", while Jack Lionlover said "The Lion Controversy is preposterous, and no one should talk or think about it ever again!" When asked if they would consider dating Lion Controversy believers, 102.85% of supermodels said, "No way, I don't find Lion Controversy believers to be attractive at all! In fact, every one I've ever known is poorly-endowed!" When asked if they believe in the Lion Controversy, 205% of non-racists said "No way!" while the tiny minority who did believe in the Lion Conteroversy lifted their hands in a nazi salute and shouted "Hail Satan!", before sacrificing, then consuming whole, two infant children. "No, really, I don't believe it either", said one, fresh infant blood still dripping from her fangs, "I'm just here for the infants .... you gonna finish yours?"

I can only surmise that none of the Sr. Wikipedia editors have gotten around to looking at this thing. At least I sincerely hope that's what it is. This is embarassing, and I'm holding out hope that, if nothing else, maybe it was an attempt at parody. If so, well done, except you may want to pull it back a little. There's a fine line between parody and absurdity and this one crosses a little too far into the latter, IMHO, and when asked by Newseek, 98% of Absurdity experts agree with me. Opie8 (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second section of the article is titled "Content of the documents". It generally describes them, and includes specific details as relevant to the controversy (rather than everything about the contents) because this here article is focused on the "Climatic Research Unit email controversy". The very beginning of that section has a prominent link to the separate Climatic Research Unit documents article. That article goes into further detail about what they contain. DMacks (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"stolen" data[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Taxpayers?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&oldid=1212563017"