Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 24, 2009.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2014[edit]

Reference 2 is not available anymore. Xiaoxin.yo (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thank you for pointing out the dead link! I updated it with an archive link. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Timescales of interest..[edit]

Published assessment of the difference in timing between public and fringe interest in this paper; Lewandowsky, S. (2014). "Conspiratory fascination versus public interest: The case of 'climategate'". Environmental Research Letters 9 (11): 111004. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/111004.  edit . . . dave souza, talk 22:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Lewandowsky again. He seems to have checked for a trend by googling date ranges on 20 'skeptic' sites. I can do that too, for example to find the number of wattsupwiththat.com postings in 2012 I said "climategate daterange:2455928-2456293 site:wattsupwiththat.com". I found that the count between 2012 and 2013 goes down. Then I stopped looking, since I couldn't see how such a trend is meaningful unless I knew what sites are counted as skeptic, what the comparison was with non-skeptic blog sites, what numbers would be statistically significant, how use of a term shows conspiracy ideation, and why anybody would care. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good, can you get that published in Environmental Research Letters or another equally good reliable source? Until you do your comments are no more than unpublished original research, Lewandowsky remains a published expert on the topic and this study is a rs for this topic. . dave souza, talk 09:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
You mean: would I pay $2700 (the article publication charge) and get a journalism student to do "peer review" (as Lewandowsky did for his previous now-retracted article)? No, but it's me who's making the original-research objection, specifically for the WP:PRIMARY section: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." My hope was that some educated persons -- i.e. other Wikipedia editors -- would see that Lewandowsky's method leads to nothing, or leads to everything (even wikipedia.org shows an increase for 'climategate' hits between 2011 and 2014), and therefore there are no verifiable facts. If that's not the case, I'll make no further objection. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I mean, you've evidently no published expertise in the topic to refer to, and are violating WP:BLPTALK in casting slurs against a topic expert. As for the quality of the journal, Environmental Research Letters sets a pretty good standard, as would be expected from the publishing company of the Institute of Physics. This remains a worthwhile source for the topic. . dave souza, talk 18:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. If you think that paying the publication fee for an open access journal is the hard part about getting published in a proper scientific journal, you obviously don't understand the first thing about scientific publishing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Dave souza, if you're serious, then make your accusation on the wp:blp noticeboard. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's see: you've responded to a new study by making vague unsupported slurs against a living expert and his previous publications, which are irrelevant to this study, and have shown your ignorance about article publication charges. If you desist now no problem, remember WP:ARBCC applies. . dave souza, talk 11:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Dave souza, I invited you to take your accusation about me to a noticeboard if you're serious. Since now you bring up arbcc: if you're serious, then make your accusation about me there. Anyone else: please remember that the appropriate subject on this section of this talk page is whether Lewandowsky's article is desirable for this Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

ClimateGate Source Code Findings[edit]

It appears that no one has mentioned the issues in the climate model source code that were found.

http://www.oneutah.org/2009/11/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/

The fact that values were hard coded into climate models that were used by the public and government agencies should at least be mentioned, no?

(I apologize if this is a duplicate. it appeared that my other post wasn't saved.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanofharvard (talkcontribs) 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's see: "Utah's Favorite Public Square for Loud Political Debate" puts something on its self-published website on November 28th, 2009, and somehow no-one thinks to bring it up in their submissions to the various enquiries – or did they? Have you a better source for the actual use of the codes? Looks like noise with no substance. . . dave souza, talk 22:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Link to IPCC consensus[edit]

A statement like "There is no evidence to justify trying to drive a wedge between 'the IPCC' and 'science'" is sort of nonsens. A link to the more generic IPCC consensus article is relevant, as it is pointing out something different as mere (natural) "scientific opinion on climate change". The political cloud and social science assessments of the IPCC consensus process, its findings and conclusions are quite different from the mere natural science findings (which do not face much of a controversy per se). In so far I ask to restore the link. Serten II (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your IPCC consensus essay appears to be mistitled and is rather incoherent. The statement you're calling nonsens is this edit summary, and the point stands: "Please discuss relevant sources on Talk". . . dave souza, talk 09:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)