Label: Kaja-Disk - KJDL001 • Format: 15x, File WAV • Country: UK • Genre: Electronic • Style: Experimental
A rough consensus is forming see earlier section for the following text to replace the first paragraph of the lede:. The subsequent dissemination of the material caused a controversy, dubbed "Climategate", about whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists. The University of East Anglia described the incident as an illegal taking of data. The police are conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach and subsequent personal threats made against some of the scientists mentioned in the e-mails.
I am, therefore, turning this into a formal proposal and seek to build a consensus. If adopted, it will mean the second paragraph will also need a little bit of revising, but we can get to that next.
I like to see closure on this issue. I think the proposed change would allow us to take a big step forward toward removal of the non-NPOV banner. It's been up for days now, the comments have been positive from one-side of the gully and silence from the other.
I'd say that's about as close to consensus as we get around here. Going once, going twice? Connolley talk27 January UTC. P'raps WMC has a reliable source which backs his claim. Nightmote talk27 January UTC. Following Nightmote Hipocrite 's reorganization of this section, I'd like to propose we remove the second paragraph completely. Stuff like "various editorials and blogs have stated" and a quote from Declan McCullagh that adds nothing but crystal ball gazing "what-iffery" isn't worthy of this article.
I propose the following, shortened version, written to take account, from the start, of our i. Marknutley, your assumption of sarcasm is unfounded. The opinion published in the Why So Sure Eh - Experimental Broadcast Unit - Broken Voices (File) source is that of a published expert Squarepusher - Numbers Lucent the subject, whose views could be acceptable for use as a rs even if self-published.
Op-eds are inappropriate because newspaper editors aren't published experts on the specific subject, this is an expert opinion. Newsnight is not a WP:RS on computer code. Myles is correct: the code concerned is not the code that constructs the record. Connolley talk28 January UTC. We should not be discussing re-writing this section. It should be removed. It is totally and irrevocably broken. It contains gobbledegook of the Sokal hoax type: Graham-Cumming also reported finding a Cheops & Nefertiti - Various - Library Of Sound Grooves: Jazz Expressions From The Italian Cinema (1 in the code's error handling that could result in data loss.
The code does not work like that. We're not talking about real-time software that can lose data obviously. You cannot drag in an outside "expert" who knows nothing about the code, have him read some undocumented fragments, and expect them to say anything useful.
And indeed, he has said nothing useful William M. That hardly seems an apt analogy. There is no fringe side here. We have a notable expert in computer science quoted by a reliable source WMC's opinion of the BBC not withstanding contradicted by a non-computer scientist as reported in an equally reliable source.
Report those facts and let the reader decide which makes the more compelling case. So, in summary, what we seem to have here is no-one thinking this should stay except for MN, who insists that he can't hear anyones Why So Sure Eh - Experimental Broadcast Unit - Broken Voices (File), and insists he can see no consensus for removal.
Perhaps the most concrete example of journalists claiming to reveal "problems" with the CRU temperature record was a report on Newsnight widely redistributed in which a software engineer criticised computer code contained in the leaked email package. Neither of the two pieces of code Newsnight examined were anything to do with the HadCRUT temperature record at all, which is actually maintained at the Met Office. Newsnight's response, when I challenged them on this.
Bold, revert, revert, revert, revert while discussing is not a good model for editing this or any other article. This is a developing story and improvements to the rest of the article are ongoing, making me loathe to lock it from editing.
In the meantime, any further edits to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident Code and documentation Coming Down - Nobody - One For All Without Hesitation absent consensus here will be considered edit warring.
Edit warring is damaging to the encyclopedia, and may lead to your account being blocked. To gauge the current consensus, can people indicate their preferred version of the 'Code and documentation' subsection below? When you roll that together with Nigel's insightful " I'm done with hearing ppl's opinions Unsourced material? Sourced material? And to Hell with wholesale edits and swap-outs. Nigel wants to make a change, he can do so same as the rest of us - one word at a time, with reliable sources and slowly-built consensus.
I will oppose with great vigor any effort to railroad the peer-review process by presenting the editors with false "choices" that actually limit the opportunity for reasoned debate and careful word choice in this highly-contested article.
Have I "considered helping reach consensus"? That's offensive, Hipocrite, - perhaps deliberately so - given the exchange we just had regarding the identification of relationships. I've demonstrated Good Faith.
Nightmote talk30 January UTC. Graham-Cumming also reported finding a bug in the code's error handling that could result in data loss.
When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story.
He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code. The CRU files also included temperature data processing software written in Fortran and IDL as well as programmer comments and a readme file. A note - I'll resolicit anyone who opines before any edit to the proposal before taking the proposal live.
Hipocrite talk29 January UTC. Assuming for the purpose of this section only that those sources are totally reliable, I see no evidence that there are "various editorials and blogs," no evidence of "hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase" and no "question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record" in relation to the data files.
Could someone point out where, exactly, using quotes, in those sources such information is gleaned? I further suggest that unless those Che Notte (Frammento) - Beppe Starnazza E I Vortici - Che Ritmo! are gleaned, we remove at the very least, this one sentence in the short term. I ignored the second as not a reliable source, and the third, while possibly a reliable source, doesn't state anything about other bloggers.
In fact, it merely references the first story. The first story dosen't seem to reference anything other than programmers looked at the code, and found some errors and didn't like some comments. You'll want to find something where bloggers and columnists found the code "hides and manipulate data to show a temperature increase. In case anyone's wondering, the reason why we're suddenly getting another influx of ranting newbies and IPs is because this article is being targeted yet again by anti-science blogs.
Hopefully it will pass in a few days when they get bored and move on to the next manufactured outrage. They explain creationism and then debunk it. Here, we have refusal to even admit the fringe theory exists even in articles about the fringe theory. Take a look at our Intelligent design article which is a featured article. It has entire sections - indeed entire sub-articles - devoted to key concepts of ID such as irreducible complexity.
They don't shy away from explaining what the fringe theory is. Neither should we. As someone who's spent the majority of his Wikipedia career in debunking fringe theories, I can say that the best way to handle them is to address them head-on.
People are naturally curious and want to know what the fuss is about. Pretending that they don't exist or refusing to explain them in sufficient detail gives the readers the false impression that the fringe theories might be right. Our article on Piltdown man plainly explains that is was hoax. In no way does this isolated incident invalidate the science of evolution. Likewise, the potential misconduct of 3 or 4 climatologists does not invalidate the science of AGW.
In my understanding, we can devote articles to fringe views provided Styx - Mr. Roboto majority view is shown in these articles, and they show majority view expert opinions on the fringe views.
What we can't do is present fringe or minority views as The Truth without clearly showing how they have been received by majority scientific opinion. As Kim rightly says, there is a range of minority views, which denialists tend to lump together to create a false dichotomy between the scientific consensus and the denialist position that the science should be rejected.
Since the PSU paper will probably be the first to carry this, does it constitute a RS on the subject? Ignignot talk1 February UTC. I thought these were editing errors, but the second is quite deliberate. If this has been discussed, please tell me when and I'll search for it, or Why So Sure Eh - Experimental Broadcast Unit - Broken Voices (File) someone can explain why, I'd appreciate it, as both look out of place.
Would anybody object to my partially collapsing some of the discusisons, or would someone like to archive some of them? This page is just Why So Sure Eh - Experimental Broadcast Unit - Broken Voices (File) a little long Why So Sure Eh - Experimental Broadcast Unit - Broken Voices (File) me, is all.
Nightmote talkJe Suis DAllemagne - Studio Der Frühen Musik - Frühe Musik (Early Music) February UTC. In Wigley appeared to agree. David King admits to speculation over source of climate science emails - Former government adviser backs away from sensational claims over involvement of foreign intelligence or wealthy lobbyists  Why has David King been expunged from the article?
The above does not look like a fulsome discussion to me. His inclusion is not "just ridiculous", and does not "make us look like idiots". Those aren't rational arguments, just personal comments. David King is a very significant figure in the fields of science and politics in the UK.
Ces Bottes Sont Faits Pour Marcher - Various - Covered - Pop, Beat, Soul & Rock n Roll Cover Versi, In It To Win It - Chic - Chic-ism, Mental Organic Core - The V0id - Destination: T A U C E T I (File, Album), Your Love Is My Light (Pete Hammond Desperately Sinful Remix) - Various - You Can Depend On Me - The