Talk:Climate Audit

message: I did a minor cleanup today. Do readers think this is still a stub? Pete Tillman 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a stub? 

message: Climate Audit is currently down with a 403 error. I haven't read any official news yet but the word on many blogs and internet forums is that they are being DOSed. Does anyone else have any further information? --Jayson Virissimo 02:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess it is the Slashdot effect. --Kim D. Petersen 05:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the website 

message: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen made a nice addition (re Y2K climate-record errors), but we need expansions for these cryptic acronyms: 
*USHCN 
*GISS
Thanks in advance, Pete Tillman 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronym expansions needed 

message: User:Atmoz recently redirected this article to Stephen McIntyre's page. The policy and usual practice for articles like this seems ambiguous. E.g., there is Philip Plait#Badastronomy.com as Atmoz states. But there is also Pharyngula_(blog) and PZ_Myers. Given that the article existed separately for almost all its lifetime (4 years, I'd suggest that the redirect be discussed first. SausageLady (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it. It seems to be no discussion about this on this page or anywhere else. Nsaa (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This blog can be compared to existing articles like RealClimate, Bishop Hill (blog) and probably many more, and it's covered by our policy at Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria. Nsaa (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This blog is highly notable, why was it redirected? mark nutley (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting 

message: I have undone the "restore content per AFD" since the conclusion of the AFD was "Further discussion over whether to redirect or keep as an article may be continued on the article's talk page". Absent any such discussion, I'm returning the article to the previous version. Guettarda (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * If the consensus is to redirect then admins commonly indicate this in their close.  As for the substantive issue, time has passed and so there are more good sources about this topic.  Some of these refer to the blog by name without mentioning Stephen McIntyre and so it would be improper to include these in his BLP.  For example, see   It seems safer to use such sources here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per AFD closing admin which was to KEEP i have reverted you. I will begin work on restructuring this article today mark nutley (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Selective reading of the AfD closure is not really good. Keep was for the redirect page. Per AfD: Discuss whether to create this article again on Talk:Steve McIntyre - which is the correct location for such a discussion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know which should be the correct location, but I think you mean Talk:Stephen_McIntyre :) Thepm (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Another mention in passing - which really doesn't give us much. All we can use from that article is that it gets mentioned. (and that it exists). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Per AFD"

message: I created a new article and have moved it here mark nutley (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to work on expanding this article based on different sources, including several that have surfaced recently because of this blog's role in the Climategate story. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article 

message: WMC has reverted an entry by Mark Nutley which quoted Nature News (at ).  The diff is at .  Is there a concensus about whether this can or cannot be included?Slowjoe17 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well naturally i want it in. how about you? mark nutley (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Re adds it. Nsaa (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's tenuous and problematic. The proximity of a neutral description (from Nature) sandwiched between positive comments (from doubters) may give readers the false impression that Olive Heffernan is endorsing the site. The statement seems pretty unremarkable otherwise. Perhaps that was the intention? Hope not. Wikispan (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I`m guessing you did not read the article in nature then? mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it I have missed? Nothing that I can see. Wikispan (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've moved it down, so its not sandwiched, and I added the full quote in the ref., so we see that its fully covered. See . Nsaa (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why didn't WMC do that instead of just reverting it? Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heffernan Comment at Nature 

message: I see plenty of comment but zero criticism. Has it been removed? Did it ever exist at all? Wikispan (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can`t find any in a wp:rs feel free to try mark nutley (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I've asked myself that. Hopefully someone following this article closely or have the time to investigate the history can tell. Nsaa (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any criticism either.  By the way, when a section is added on the blog's involvement in the Climategate controversy, there will be criticism related to that.  The CRU scientists and others criticized the blog's regulars for making so many requests for data.  One of the scientists called the blog "Climate Fraudit" in an email.  Did Fred Pearce's Guardian articles mention Climate Audit?  If not, we'll have to source most of the Climategate stuff to the books which are coming out on the topic. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Comments and Criticism 

message: I'm not sure why one editor believes we need to identify the rationale for CA's founding as McKinty're's "considering" RC to be attacking him.  Don't we go by what the source says in these cases?  Fell Gleamingtalk 15:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the text should say that "described as attacks on his [McIntyre's] works by Fred Pearce" because it is Pearce that said that in the source, not McIntyre. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then that is what we should say. Fell Gleamingtalk 23:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll change it. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RealClimate Attacks 

message: As having been started by Stephen McIntyre and as McIntyre was mentioned over 100 time in the Climategate emails, added:
* Stephen McIntyre
* Climategate
DLH (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You should first look to see if these articles are currently available in the main body. Wikispan (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also

message: why have a page about a webpage.  It's just some skeptic blathering.  Wiki sux.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.43.222 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  stupid article 

message: Do we have a whole separate page for the Michelle Malkin blog as well as for her as a person?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.43.222 (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not merge with McIntyre? 

message: That's self-explanatory, but I'm also going to use this to store links to interesting articles that might help improve this article or others.
* Steve McIntyre: was Michael Mann “exonerated” by the Oxburgh Panel?, WaPo column by Jim Lindgren, March 1, 2014. Commentary on CA's investigation into some of Michael E. Mann's claims in his defamation lawsuit againt  Mark Steyn.
--Pete Tillman (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception section needs expansion + improvement links 

message: This edit, which has been repeated several times, attempts to remove sourced content from the article. I'm not clear on why it's being removed, and have asked that the editor attempting to remove it come to the talk page to discuss. The content seems well sourced to the NYT, which is a reliable source, and the content is well supported by other sources. If you know of sources that contradict their coverage, please list them. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of NYT content 

message: Per WP:DUE, "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." As James Hansen is notable, his remarks are included in the article as-is, with the reader left to make of it what they will. I hope this clarifies things. Firestar464 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Hansen's remarks