Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Subpage

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.

response to email from the blog

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)[reply]

Added to main talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot respond because I don't understand the question. Which email is referred to here, and which blog? --TS 22:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

email from this section. who is the author of the blog post 'response'? who is the author of the email? same person(s)? or different ones. if different, why is a response relevant? why not include other responses also? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also, i don't understand why is there a separate 'emails' section, when criticism in 'incident' section deals also with emails. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source referenced in our article indicates that the blockquote from the RealClimate blog is a "group" post, authored by several of the RealClimate bloggers.

The emails section you refer to is part of a general section dealing with the actual content, or rather, analysis of the content, of the stolen and leaked documents. Several of the reactions to the incident refer in more general terms to the emails, so they're mentioned there too. --TS 11:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is anyone from this "group" author of the email? if not, why is their response more relevant than responses of some other scientists? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think that analysis of some scientists of the part of content that deals with deleting data in light of Freedom of Information requests is far more relevant than analysis of the decline of temperatures... 93.86.205.97 (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there an article on this topic?

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)[reply]

The notion that fraud has been exposed has been used to defend the theft since the first days. No credible instance of fraud has emerged. --TS 11:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer code

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)[reply]