![]() | This talk subpage has been provided for users without wikipedia accounts, or with new accounts, to post comments related to improvement of the article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, while the main talk page is semi-protected. Please follow the talkpage guidelines while commenting here. |
it is not quite clear to me who is responding in whose name? was a 'blogger' also the author of the email? 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
To the talking point of if it was hackers or if it was leaked - A reporter at the BBC "recieved" this info 5 weeks before it was made public, and sat on it. That to me says it was leaked from an internal source, and when the BBC didn't write about it, then it was released to the public via Russian servers. We are not talking about a middle of the night hack, and by the morning it was public knowledge, we are talking about a 5 week period of time, in which the BBC had these emails and documents in their possession - AND DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. The "hacker" story was put out as DISINFORMATION, to discredit it, and make it unadmissable in court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.20.250 ( talk) 02:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh, Wikipedia. You seem to have left out the important part, you know, why there is concern over this horrible, horrible crime of stolen e-mails. OK, since you might not actually know, it's because there was a lot of sexy details involving scientists and lab equipment. Just kidding. No, it's because some of the leading climate scientists were exposed as frauds--definitely scientific frauds, and quite possibly criminal frauds as well. It's hard to take Wikipedia seriously if the first paragraphs of the article say that Climategate is really just a "hacking incident." "Climate change sceptics have asserted that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to withhold scientific information," says the article. Oh, really? Just "climate change sceptics"? This is also a deeply important political event, as you can see from all the political commentary on the political scandal, and you don't get to that until very far down in the article. JusDeFax ( talk) 04:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of the computer code. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml 71.156.37.48 ( talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention of the source code contained in the hacked documents. These codes are much more incriminating than the emails themselves. The fortran source code used to produce the CRU's data make absolutely no sense. Therefore the data itself has no credility at all. This is the real story, its like creating a dictionary with an alphabet that has been randomly thrown together in order to create a definition that fits their belief system. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.63.127.243 (
talk) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 18:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-the-smoking-code.html
this is an article that shows the code and how it was used to falsify temperatures to go with their political agenda. its broken down by a programmer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.133.213 ( talk) 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The BBC reports they had the material 1 month before it was reported hacked. Either the hacking report is false or the reported date of the hacking is false or the BBC report is false. This article is in error on that point.
24.87.71.192 ( talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) The rule about "gate" is misapplied in this case. The rule exists to prevent the creation of words that do not exist. Climategate exists as a word with widespread Internet and media usage. 24.87.71.192 ( talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Climategate is not limited to the UEA emails. Through usage, Climategate refers to the suppession of information related to climate change, of which UEA is an example. The widespread re-writing and suppression of Wikipedia climate related articles by a single audthor is also cited in reference to Climategate. This would argue in favor of a wider article under the name "Climategate". 24.87.71.192 ( talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This talk subpage has been provided for users without wikipedia accounts, or with new accounts, to post comments related to improvement of the article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, while the main talk page is semi-protected. Please follow the talkpage guidelines while commenting here. |
it is not quite clear to me who is responding in whose name? was a 'blogger' also the author of the email? 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
To the talking point of if it was hackers or if it was leaked - A reporter at the BBC "recieved" this info 5 weeks before it was made public, and sat on it. That to me says it was leaked from an internal source, and when the BBC didn't write about it, then it was released to the public via Russian servers. We are not talking about a middle of the night hack, and by the morning it was public knowledge, we are talking about a 5 week period of time, in which the BBC had these emails and documents in their possession - AND DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. The "hacker" story was put out as DISINFORMATION, to discredit it, and make it unadmissable in court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.20.250 ( talk) 02:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh, Wikipedia. You seem to have left out the important part, you know, why there is concern over this horrible, horrible crime of stolen e-mails. OK, since you might not actually know, it's because there was a lot of sexy details involving scientists and lab equipment. Just kidding. No, it's because some of the leading climate scientists were exposed as frauds--definitely scientific frauds, and quite possibly criminal frauds as well. It's hard to take Wikipedia seriously if the first paragraphs of the article say that Climategate is really just a "hacking incident." "Climate change sceptics have asserted that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to withhold scientific information," says the article. Oh, really? Just "climate change sceptics"? This is also a deeply important political event, as you can see from all the political commentary on the political scandal, and you don't get to that until very far down in the article. JusDeFax ( talk) 04:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of the computer code. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml 71.156.37.48 ( talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention of the source code contained in the hacked documents. These codes are much more incriminating than the emails themselves. The fortran source code used to produce the CRU's data make absolutely no sense. Therefore the data itself has no credility at all. This is the real story, its like creating a dictionary with an alphabet that has been randomly thrown together in order to create a definition that fits their belief system. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
99.63.127.243 (
talk) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 18:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-the-smoking-code.html
this is an article that shows the code and how it was used to falsify temperatures to go with their political agenda. its broken down by a programmer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.133.213 ( talk) 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The BBC reports they had the material 1 month before it was reported hacked. Either the hacking report is false or the reported date of the hacking is false or the BBC report is false. This article is in error on that point.
24.87.71.192 ( talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC) The rule about "gate" is misapplied in this case. The rule exists to prevent the creation of words that do not exist. Climategate exists as a word with widespread Internet and media usage. 24.87.71.192 ( talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Climategate is not limited to the UEA emails. Through usage, Climategate refers to the suppession of information related to climate change, of which UEA is an example. The widespread re-writing and suppression of Wikipedia climate related articles by a single audthor is also cited in reference to Climategate. This would argue in favor of a wider article under the name "Climategate". 24.87.71.192 ( talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)