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.

Trump's recent comments[edit]

Going nowhere

President-Elect Donald Trump recently mentioned Climategate in an interview with the New York Times as one of the reasons he's skeptical of the theory of human-caused environmental warming. So, looks like this incident has influenced public perception of the theory. Mention in article? Here're the sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/science/donald-trump-obama-climate.html?_r=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-symons/trump-now-blames-scientis_b_11228538.html TariqMatters (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Beyond his usual broad-based ignorance, Trump tends to parrot whatever the last person in the room happened to tell him on any particular issue; it's possible he'll have an entirely new opinion next week (and the week after that...). Stuff that Trump purports to believe in one interview often disappears or changes dramatically a few news cycles later.
As far as the links you've provided, the New York Times article doesn't mention Climategate (or the CRU); I can't find any mention in the full interview transcript either (though I didn't dig deeply). The HuffPost article quotes a Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly (both always-reliable and editorially-responsible sources...ahem); it takes a Trump mention of "emails" and infers that Trump must be talking about the CRU controversy.
In other words, it may be another one of many dumb conspiracy theories that Trump believes (or at least publicly espouses, or likes to JAQ about), but I don't think we've even got that far with the sources provided. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
If Trump's administration does end up purging the EPA, Energy, NSF, and other government agencies of people strongly in favor of the theory of human-caused climate change (I don't know how to say that in fewer words) and pursues policies that support the skeptical side, AND, if Trump again mentions the Climategate emails in context for his policies, then I think mention should be made in this article, because it will mean that Climategate DID end up having a significant influence on environmental politics. TariqMatters (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure about him mentioning them "again", as it's unclear that he actually mentioned them a first time; it's based on a third-party guess as to what Trump might have meant. Even if Trump does purge the EPA, NSF, and so forth of reality- and science-based experts in favor of cronies and sycophants, it's not clear that it would be based on much beyond his usual ignorant susceptibility to grifters and lobbyists (and inability to comprehend the term conflict of interest). He's previously declared that global warming is a Chinese hoax; I'm not persuaded that he's well-enough informed to have moved to asserting it's actually a British hoax.
That is to say, Trump has never had any difficulty in fabricating a personal version of reality from whole cloth; if he decides that global warming isn't real, he isn't going to go looking for a handful of poorly-worded seven-year-old emails from a British university he's never heard of, he's just going to say it isn't real. And then blame it on the Mexicans. Or the Chinese. Or liberal elites. In other words, it's going to take a pretty substantial and explicit statement from Trump on this point for me to believe that this email controversy actually is driving any of his 'thinking'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
You appear to have very strong opinions on the topic and aren't shy about expressing them. I know I'm new here, but after reading the NPOV policy, that doesn't appear to fit with the tone of your comments. Does Wikipedia operate like a lot of other organizations in that there are rules, but everyone ignores them? TariqMatters (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
To a certain extend - like, really, any organisation from the Knights Templars and the Spanish Inquisition to the NKVD and the US Senate. But anyways, WP:NPOV applies to article space. In talk space, we are trying to hash out what is NPOV, where it is useful to communicate clearly. See WP:SPADE. Also, Wikipedia does have a strong bias for reality, no matter how it aligns with current political party politics in one country or another. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
(ec) WP:NPOV is the policy when writing articles. Talk pages like this are the behind-the-scenes area where the sausages get made. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry about the lack of NPOV, it is actually quite revealing. Just look at the wall of text that prompted your concerns, nothing but rambling personal attacks. One of the reasons why some people find consulting the talk pages increasingly useful.
In this case confirming the rise is less than a degree for the last 150 years, even less before the actual measurements are routinely "adjusted" (new buildings casting shadows?), large chunks of raw data are missing / deleted, prediction models are failing, the "scientific consensus" using "could" and "may" instead of "will" and "going to". Decades ago it was global cooling, using the same arguments - similar graphs and articles from that time, with "cool" and "warm" swapped.
Excluding the Talk pages from NPOV is absolutely great.
Dear Anon, see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK#USE, and sign your posts. . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The scientific consensus (sic) was changed completely[edit]

The emails showed that the current scientific consensus (sic) is that there was a "decline" in the rate of warming despite massive increases in co2 which is easily apparent in the satellite lower troposphere measurements This dramatically changes it and disproved all of their previous models. It also proved that they wanted "hide" this decline which definitively did show misconduct. Editorial claims to the contrary are just claims. Facts are facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.65.126 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any credible sources whatsoever that confirm your "facts"? Can you please tell us where you're getting this from?Gireen (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)