Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:05, 27 March 2007

This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.

	Climate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

v t e Climate change Overview Causes of climate change Effects of climate change Climate change mitigation Climate change adaptation By country and region Causes Overview Climate system Greenhouse effect (Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere) Scientific consensus on climate change Sources Deforestation Fossil fuel Greenhouse gases Greenhouse gas emissions Carbon accounting Carbon footprint Carbon leakage from agriculture from wetlands World energy supply and consumption History History of climate change policy and politics History of climate change science Svante Arrhenius James Hansen Charles David Keeling United Nations Climate Change conferences Years in climate change 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Effects and issues Physical Abrupt climate change Anoxic event Arctic methane emissions Arctic sea ice decline Atlantic meridional overturning circulation Drought Extreme weather Flood Coastal flooding Heat wave Marine Urban heat island Oceans acidification deoxygenation heat content sea surface temperature stratification temperature Ozone depletion Permafrost thaw Retreat of glaciers since 1850 Sea level rise Season creep Tipping points in the climate system Tropical cyclones Water cycle Wildfires Flora and fauna Biomes Mass mortality event Birds Extinction risk Forest dieback Invasive species Marine life Plant biodiversity Social and economic Agriculture Livestock United States Children Cities Civilizational collapse Crime Depopulation of settlements Destruction of cultural heritage Disability Economic impacts U.S. insurance industry Fisheries Gender Health Mental health Human rights Indigenous peoples Infectious diseases Migration Poverty Psychological impacts Security and conflict Urban flooding Water scarcity Water security By country and region Africa Americas Antarctica Arctic Asia Australia Caribbean Europe Middle East and North Africa Small island countries by individual country Mitigation Economics and finance Carbon budget Carbon emission trading Carbon offsets and credits Gold Standard (carbon offset standard) Carbon price Carbon tax Climate debt Climate finance Climate risk insurance Co-benefits of climate change mitigation Economics of climate change mitigation Fossil fuel divestment Green Climate Fund Low-carbon economy Net zero emissions Energy Carbon capture and storage Energy transition Fossil fuel phase-out Nuclear power Renewable energy Sustainable energy Preserving and enhancing carbon sinks Blue carbon Carbon dioxide removal Carbon sequestration Direct air capture Carbon farming Climate-smart agriculture Forest management afforestation forestry for carbon sequestration REDD and REDD+ reforestation Land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF and AFOLU) Nature-based solutions Personal Individual action on climate change Plant-based diet Society and adaptation Society Business action Climate action Climate emergency declaration Climate movement School Strike for Climate Denial Ecological grief Governance Justice Litigation Politics Public opinion Women Adaptation Adaptation strategies on the German coast Adaptive capacity Disaster risk reduction Ecosystem-based adaptation Flood control Loss and damage Managed retreat Nature-based solutions Resilience Risk Vulnerability The Adaptation Fund National Adaptation Programme of Action Communication Climate Change Performance Index Climate crisis (term) Climate spiral Education Media coverage Popular culture depictions art fiction video games Warming stripes International agreements Glasgow Climate Pact Kyoto Protocol Paris Agreement Cooperative Mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement Nationally determined contributions Sustainable Development Goal 13 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Background and theory Measurements Global surface temperature Instrumental temperature record Proxy Satellite temperature measurement Theory Albedo Carbon cycle atmospheric biologic oceanic permafrost Carbon sink Climate sensitivity Climate variability and change Cloud feedback Cloud forcing Fixed anvil temperature hypothesis Cryosphere Earth's energy budget Extreme event attribution Feedbacks Global warming potential Illustrative model of greenhouse effect on climate change Orbital forcing Radiative forcing Research and modelling Climate change scenario Climate model Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Paleoclimatology Representative Concentration Pathway Shared Socioeconomic Pathways Climate change portal Category Glossary Index

Template:WP1.0

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this page.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. Preloaded case page

This is the talk page for the article Global warming. If you are new to this page please take a moment and have a look at some of the frequently asked questions before starting a new topic of discussion. Thank you.

Abbreviations used on this page

• t = temperature: as in global t's (global temperatures)
• ppm = parts per million: describes gas concentration. 300 ppm = 300 / 1,000,000 = 0.0003 = 0.03 percent
• kyr = kiloyear = 1,000 years
• IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
• GISS = Goddard Institute for Space Studies
• HadCRUT3 = "a gridded dataset of global historical surface temperature anomalies. Data are available for each month since January 1850, on a 5 degree grid."
• FOIA = Freedom of Information Act (United States)
• NSF = National Science Foundation

Turn off that bot! --Uncle Ed 15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Purpose? Most, if not all, are already explained the article. The rest are used on this talk page, not the mainspace. ~ UBeR 16:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For quick reference. I'm an old geezer, and I can't remember things like HadCRUT3, GISS, kyr and Dr. C's ideosyncratic use of t's even though they are all fresh in my mind at the moment. --Uncle Ed 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February 2003 – August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February 2005 – April 2005 April 2005 – June 2005 May 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August – October 2006 October – November 2006 December – February 2007 February – March 2007
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

National Resources Stewardship Program

The National Resources Stewardship Program writes,

Four hundred and forty million years ago, when CO2 levels are estimated to have been more than 10 times today's, our planet was in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years. At other times, high CO2 levels coincided with warm periods. There is no meaningful correlation with temperature in the geological record.

Over the past half million years, the Antarctic ice core records show a remarkable link between temperature and CO2 . Yet, these records consistently show that temperature rises some 800 years before CO2 rises, not after it.

Even over the past century the CO2/warming correlation is poor, with significant cooling taking place between 1940 and 1980 while human-produced CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly. In all these records there is no evidence to show that CO2 has ever acted as a climate driver or even as a significant secondary effect to accelerate climate warming.

Is there any merit to this? ~ UBeR 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, its a std.skeptic set of half-truths William M. Connolley 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to explain? ~ UBeR 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact that they try to use the Ordovician/Silurian boundary nearly half a billion years ago to throw doubt on the current CO2/temperature link should be enough to determine that this is pure rhetoric. At that time, there were no multi-cellular land plants (i.e. the carbon cycle was very different), the composition of the atmosphere was very different, all the continents formed Pangaea, which was sitting on the south pole, and the sun was measuarably fainter. And the CO2 concentrations still dropped by nearly half (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm during the glaciation), a fact that one assumed might have slipped in there somewhere. --Stephan Schulz 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how serious you were about it. On the ice cores: there is a lag relation but its n ot as clear as they assert. Since the entire process takes 5kyr+ the ~800 start lag doesn't matter too much (in fact it makes sense: the default assumption is t change leads to co2 change leads to t in a feedback) William M. Connolley 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggest that this article be modified to account for the video whose url in provided below. Unless, the data on temperature leading CO2 levels by a couple of hundred years and that the production of gammas in the sun will enhance cloud production which reduces the temperature provides suspicion that the co2 levels are diving anything. This article is fanticy without seriously addressing these variables. Also, the economic issue which is damming in its indictment of the global warming community needs to be addressed herein. It must be identified as a political issue--no longer a scientific issue,it must make prediction in the near future that can be measued, perhaps something like the average temperature for 60 days in England, New York state. Who has the most accurate model?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=enJustthefactmam 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)User:Charles Vairin

Errrm, who are you? JTFM or CV? Anyway: why would we modify the article because of a very poor quality TV prog? If you have any interest in the science concerned, try http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/, or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/co2_and_t_again.php for just the CO2/T point. As for the politics: the Kyoto treaty exempts developing nations. You knew that, of course, not least because the programme mentioned it. Oh? whats that? The programme *din't* mention that fact? How very curious - don't you think it is of some relevance? Is it possible that the programme might be somewhat selective and perhaps even unreliable? William M. Connolley 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG William!! I was so much drowned by all the scientific mistakes or 'distortions' that I completly missed that one! Maybe that's why they've put it at the end of the 'documentary' (I barely dare to use the term), knowing that most people would be already too anesthesized by the rest to notice. Thanks for waking me up ! :-D Galahaad 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming vs Global Warming Theory

I am just curious why this wiki is not titled with "Theory." If you type "Global Warming Theory" into the search, it brings up the "controversy" page. While I feel that it can be argued as to the extent of global warming that has occurred (I'm not favoring a side either way here, folks), it seems as though the idea of the earth's temperature increasing to the present date has been extrapolated and blended with the theoristic models which attempt to predict future scenarios.

Please do not read this wrong: I am not implying that the models don't have substance or are incorrect. I am just saying that these ideas need to be presented correctly. Here is an example: for many years, the atom was thought of as "plum pudding model"; that gave way to the Bohr model, which gave way to quantum model. In our schools, these are presented as truths, as they can meet certain expectaions when tested against current beliefs held by scientists; everyone at the time thought the Bohr model was correct. The truth of it is, these are just THEORIES. Highly provable theories, but theories none the less.

I just feel that there should be more information in the article, including the title, that future modeling is a scientific conjecture, like most things in science.

I hope this makes sense, and hopefully this is not redundant.

Rich 70.91.186.249 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "theory" is so ambiguous that it's best avoided altogether. In popular usage it's often taken to mean little more than a guess; in a scientific context, it's something quite different. See theory. Raymond Arritt 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:WTA#Theory.--Stephan Schulz 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid of this, as I am (obviously) a new poster. We are dealing with semantics. Can we please address the meat of my concern, which is that the article blends the ideas of what has been documented in the past with the future models, which are all guesses. Perhaps I am incorrect in this, but future models are guesses, right? No one has created a crystal ball to see into the future yet? It seems that there should be some disambiguity.

BTW, thank you for the information regarding "theory." It was a refresher.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.186.249 (talk • contribs).

The Misplaced Pages naming convention is to name the article according to the most common usage. The Googlewhack is 37,000,000 to 108,000 for plain global warming. The term is indeed used for the current warming period, including both the already realized warming and the future projections. But no, these projections are not "guesses" any more than I guess that a dropped stone will fall to the ground. The models make assumptions abou emission scenarios, and the physical simulation has certain known limitations. But they are much more reliable the a guess. See e.g. James Hansen's predictions from 1988 that hold up very well. And climate models have been enourmously improved since then.--Stephan Schulz 22:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm—comparing the IPCC's estimated (guessed) predictions to physical laws. Sketchy. I don't think 70.91.186.249 is here to imply that global warming is merely a guess. Indeed, they have stated that to label a simple guess as a theory is incorrect; it's not incorrect, however, to label a theory as a theory. ~ UBeR 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Projection (per M-W.com)-"an estimate of future possibilities based on a current trend." Future models ARE an estimate/projection/guess. The(my) issue is that NOBODY, save your chosen diety, knows with certainty what WILL happen in the future. And to presume/present(in the article) that we can predict results (accurately) from a highly complex system lacks intellectual integrity. It should not matter WHAT the IPCC has found; this is not a stump for the IPCC. It is a source of information to be shared.

I will resign this issue and leave it to those with more fortitude, as I can see that this, like other volatile socio-political issues, is going to desolve into semantics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.186.249 (talk • contribs).

Obviously Rich is correct Global warming is a theory as is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. He is also correct that the current computer models are in a very nascent state. All of these models end with the Earth's oceans boiling away or freezing solid within a tiny geologic timespan (a geo-second). Clearly if after 50 years of weather modelling, we cannot predict the weather 3 months from now with any level of certainty then we cannot predict the entire planet's weather or climate 100 years nhence. ~ Rameses 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I noticed your claim that Hansen's predictions have held up very well. I do not believe that is true. Willis Eschenbach reviewed this claim (which was difficult because Hansen does not practice science and make his data and methods available to other scientists). Willis determined the values by digitizing the graph. He learned that the four curves do not start from the same point (which sounds to me like an intentional deception). When the four curves are begun at the same point, the temperature is seen to rise less than even the lowest of Hansen's scenarios (in which anthropogenic C02 production stopped in 2000). You can read the analysis and comments from other scientists here.

Why should they start at the same point? Models published in 1988 would not have set out to match just the value in 1959, but rather minimize the error across the whole interval upto 1988. Some years are too high, some are too low, but that's to be expected. Forcing any single year to match should be expected to only increase the error for other years. Dragons flight 05:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What he said ;-). Also, GISS and HadCRUT3 use different averaging algorithms, giving somewhat different results. As for your claim that "Hansen does not practice science and make his data and methods available to other scientists" - huh? What do you think the paper is? And how old it is? I certainly don't keep my raw test data longer than a few years - it becomes completely unmanagable even today. And if by "methods" you mean "computer programs": Those don't grow on trees. They are the result of a lot of hard work, and part of the "means of production" of a scientist. It's great if they can be made available (I do, but then in computer science the code is often not just a tool, but part of the result), but very many don't, and expecting them to do so is not different from expecting Paul Otellini to give away the detailed layout of the CoreDuo for the asking. --Stephan Schulz 08:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, perhaps you are unaware of the controversy over the tendency of climate scientists not to properly archive their data and methods. Steve McIntyre has been talking about this for a while. Normally peer-reviewed journals require scientists to archive their data. Several of them have chosen not to waive their usual standards for climate scientists. That is bogus. Evidently, the US government has awarded funding to climate scientists and gave them an exemption from the usual requirement of making the data and methods available. This is also bogus and will probably result in a FOIA law suit. Making the code available is a slightly more complicated issue, but not much. When it comes to code, scientists have the choice of publishing their results (and making their code available for others to examine) or not (and using their code for whatever commercial pursuit they wish). That is their choice. The "means of production" argument is a red herring. RonCram 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I don't know if you have ever published in a scientific journal. I have, and at least in computer science there never has been such a requirement. In very recent times, reviewers, including me, have often suggested to make data available on the web for papers with a heavy experimental component. But before the web took off, that was just not practicable, and it still is rare. And again, the scientific result is not the computer code, but the methods implemented in it (which should be described in the paper or the references). Reproducing a result does not mean "I take the same code as someone else, and rerun it on the same data" (as computers are deterministic, we know what will happen), it means someone else reimplements the described methods independently (hopefully avoiding different bugs) and getting sufficiently similar results. A computer program is not "a method", it is a tool (and an implementation of a method). I don't understand your FOIA comment - this applies only to direct (US federal?) gouvernment agencies, not to most scientists. The "US gouvernment" is a very sloppy term. It's not a monolith, and usually does not award funding to individual scientists. Are you talking about funding agencies like the NSF? Finally, your comment about code is not true. That may be so in Richard Stallman's universe, but currently there is no requirement for scientists to publish their code. Wether there should be is an interesting question that warrants an independent discussion (It helps transparency, but it probably reduces the quality, if not the quantity of review, and it encourages free riders. Also, licensing issues may make this impossible in many cases, as most code is not written from scratch). However, to reiterate: Currently there is no such requirement or expectation. That is a classical red herring. --Stephan Schulz 10:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you can view Science's policy here. All of the science journals have a similar policy AFAIK. The code is important because it is very difficult to reproduce someone's result without it. How is one to know what kind of "fix" is in the code? How can scientists evaluate the "flux adjustments" or "parameterizations" or other factors designed to make the simulation look like it is related to the physical world? What if scientists want to apply the same code to a different data set? The US government has many agencies that fund research, a total of some $2 billion going into climate research each year. You should read the data archiving policy of NSF. In it you will find the NSF expects researchers to make their code available to other scientists. So you see, my comment is not from the world of Richard Stallman, but of Karl Popper. As I said before, any researcher who is not archive his data, methods and even his code is not doing science but pseudo-science. The climate journals and other accomplices in this crime against science should be ashamed of themselves. RonCram 17:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sul(ph|f)ate

See Talk:Global_warming/OldTalk5#Standards_.26_Chemical_names for the discussion last time round. Anything new? Different numbers of people on either end? William M. Connolley 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Coming from Britain, I can understand why you would like to use British English. Only four people, including Connolley, suggested or implied that sulphate should be used. This is not a great number. The consensus was based upon the fact that the original spelling was sulphate, and that for that reason alone we should leave it. It still stands, however, the IUPAC suggest using sulfate. This is a scientific article, so lets keep it as scientific as possible. Also note, this article is using American English. It would seem redundant to use American English in everything except for the very word that IUPAC has already suggested as spelled with American English. It's also rather redundant to use sulphate in one part of the article and then sulfate in another part of the same article. ~ UBeR 18:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind much either way. If left alone, I spell it sulphate, because it's obviously the correct thing to do ;-), but the IUPAC and Misplaced Pages MOS weigh in on the other side. Is this article really American English? I've become rather desensitized about the issue (my books are half/half), and probably write a Frankenstein dialect myself... --Stephan Schulz 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The article started out in BE but has tended to drift toward AE, probably because there are more of us then there are of them... I have a slight preference for maintaining the original convention but don't care much either way. (Stuff like this crops up all the time. In the Beatles Project there's been a huge brawl over whether it should be the Beatles, or The Beatles. Some people take things way too seriously, imo.) Raymond Arritt 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Following up, I just noticed that the AR4 SPM mixes British and American spelling. Raymond Arritt 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to U for repeating the old talk. Is there nothing new? Then it should stay (and the latterly added s.a. get converted to ph) William M. Connolley 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you get angry when no one agrees with you? ~ UBeR 19:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, in an article that is not definitively British or American, Misplaced Pages policy is to go with whatever the article's primary author used. In this case, that's BE. Raul654 20:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR. --h2g2bob 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The MoS states, "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes)," and, "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)" Currently, everything is written in American English, save the word "sulphate" used once in this article, with that spelling. So... You could change the entire article back to British English, as that is what was used for first two edits (in 2002), prior to Ed Poor (major contributor to the early article) who began using American English. Next, the MoS states, "If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated." Finally, it says, if those above things don't apply, then go to the first major contributor's edit. So you're right in the sense that it does indeed state that; you're wrong in that sense that that is the one we should follow first. ~ UBeR 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is no longer a question of British v American spelling. IUPAC determined the spelling should be "sulfate" long ago and even British chemistry books and journals use this spelling now. The latest revert to "sulphate" should itself be reverted. "Sulphate" is just archaic. --Bduke 22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Still stand by my arguements from '04. Support IUPAC and spelling consistency in science articles. GHGs are chemicals and atmospheric chemistry does have a bit to do w/global warming :-) Cheers, Vsmith 15:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if you fail to strongly support William in every detail, you will be kicked out of the conspiracy! We may even be forced to retract your Cabal Membership and invalidate your secret decoder ring! --Stephan Schulz 15:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no - not my ring! :-( Vsmith 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Date CO2 last higher than today

I found a 'citation needed' for the claim that CO2 was last this high 40 million year ago (mya). I did a google scholar search, and the top ranked article (widely cited) was Pearson and Palmer 2000 in Nature. However, looking over their graph in figure 3b (for those fortunate enough to have full text access) they have a data point something like 440 ppm for 24mya. This is their oldest data point in the more recent series; they have a 'no data' gap between 25 and 39 mya, then a separate series ranging much higher from 40 mya going back (into the 1000+ppm range). Anyway sorry if anyone had a strong basis for the 40 mya figure and just didn't have the ref handy, but this article has a pretty clear peak at 24 mya that's higher than today (if not higher than many projected 21st century increases).Birdbrainscan 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference of couse is that the 300ppm(?) jump in C02 that happens back then didn't occur in just 50 years. What is the point of trying to find time of highest co2 level. Level of co2 won't show if we are effecting the natural level significantly, we have to look at the change in co2, has there been such rapid change thta we have seen in the last 50 years?--155.144.251.120 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as we know, the sharpness of the rise in CO2 is unprecedented. It certainly is in the last few thousand years. But the farther back we go, the coarser our temporal resolution goes. We simply cannot plausibly isolate any given 100 year span 500 million years ago. --Stephan Schulz 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any doubt, at all?

Re the people intent on recasting this issue as a "theory" and not a "fact": Of course, out of the 6,000,000,000 people on this earth, ONE person will be a scientist who disagrees with global warming. As a study showed, however, out of 928 RANDOMLY selected, peer reviewed science articles pertaining to global warming, NONE of them discussed it as anything but fact. Why do these people wish to recast global warming as a "theory", and get people not to act? Do you not care about your children's lives? The science is HARD fact. No buts, ifs, or conditionals about it. Rather than listen to the media about whether it's true or not, simply look in science journals. Almost 50% of all news media articles wrote about global warming as a "Theory" and "unconfirmed", even though 0% of scientists took this view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.36.80 (talk • contribs).

Yes. There is doubt. Consensus and conventional wisdom are historically inaccurate in many cases....and downright tragic in others. I've witnessed the consensus on silicone breast implants, IUDs, salt, eggs, fat, etc. To have doubt about the HYPOTHESIS!!!! of significant global warming due to human causation (the "null hypothesis", by the way), one simply needs to look at science and history together. I don't specifically need history, however, anyone who knows history knows that it is a living thing and that experts and consensus groups have a pretty colorful tradition.

As for the science, we don't even need to mention the data to find serious flaws. The absolute discarding of the scientific method with respect to the latest, fashionable societal self-hatred trend is simply disgusting. Theory, hypothesis, the rejection of the null hypothesis......what happened to the delineation and careful use of these terms?

Does anyone remember what a THEORY is???? Does anyone recall the rigor necessary for the establishment of a theory? Good God!(my little joke). Seriously, at best we're talking hypothesis here. No one denies that the earth is warming. OK. What is the earth's temperature supposed to be doing? Remaining stable? Are "scientists" really serious when they allude to this? REALLY?

I don't know what the answer is. You know what else? No one else knows either. There's the doubt, and I'm quite confidant in it. It takes me about 5 minutes of simple researching to REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS YOU SHOULD SHUT UP. Let's see......anyone care to venture what apocalyptic "theory" we'll be discussing 10 years from now?

Shame on us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpgerber (talk • contribs)

Sadly, people do not seem to understand what a theory is. Read the following definition from Misplaced Pages: In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Please note that gravitation is still only a theory. Global warming certainly has not yet risen to this level of proof. Global warming is simply a hypothesis until proven scientifically - which will take many years from the current nascent state of the science. ~ Rameses 06:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing specific things about the article. If you wish to discuss / shout in caps about the topic of the article, you probably should head to a venue more appropriate for that. —AySz88\^-^ 17:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to 24.61.36.80 Hysteria is not the scientific method and many reputable scientists disagree with the consensus.SmokeyTheCat 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to SmokeyTheCat, by my calculations that still leaves the number of "reputable scientists" disagreeing with the warming theory consensus at less than 1%, based on the number of reputable scientists involved with the recently concluded U.N. study. I thought that was the point of it, to finally determine what the collective scientific minds of the planet thought. So far, I only see a handful of remaining skeptics, not counting Fox News.

To disagree with "Handful of skeptics" There are many scientist and climatologists who reject global warming. http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm Check that site out and tell me that global warming is fact. Gavinthesavage 23:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've seen that. Now check out Oregon Petition for a description and some critique of that project. Note that it's also 6-8 years old; a lot has changed. (Incidentally for other editors: I reverted the addition of a link to the petition in the intro of this article a few days ago.) bikeable (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Touche` How about past scares? Like global cooling, global climate change? And has anyone heard of the global 1500 year model? I realize that something is happening to the earth, but just because Al Gore says people are the cause of doesn't mean I believe him (a joke don't take that seriously) . I'll find more information about this 1500 year cycle. Gavinthesavage 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Past climate predictions

I see the article has a section on "History of Warming." However, I was wondering if anyone thinks it might be of value to have a section also on the "History of Climate Predictions" or some such similar title? Below is a collection of various climate predictions (both for heating and cooling) going back to 1923 which should be useful in the event anyone is interested adding such a section.

I don't see what relavance it has to global warming. Global warming is based mainly on C02 output. Until the mass exponential increase in the number of coal burners there were constantly people finding different cyclical changes as mentioned in all your links below. Surely there is a an article where such history would fit better, perhaps even make history of earth climate prediction?

NEW YORK TIMES HEADLINES

Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead - May 21, 1975 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1FFD395D137B93C3AB178ED85F418785F9

REPORT THE ARCTIC IS GETTING WARMER; Explorers and Fishermen Find Climate Moderating About Spitsbergen. FIRST NOTED ABOUT 1918 Old Glaciers Have Disappeared - February 25, 1923 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F13F7395516738DDDAC0A94DA405B838EF1D3

MACMILLAN REPORTS SIGNS OF NEW ICE AGE; Explorer Brings Word of Unusual Movements of Greenland Glaciers -- Coal Deposits Show Polar Climate Was Once Tropical - September 28, 1924 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C14FB3C5B12738DDDA10A94D1405B848EF1D3

AMERICA IN LONGEST WARM SPELL SINCE 1776; TEMPERATURE LINE RECORDS A 25-YEAR RISE - March 27, 1933 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00617FF3D5E1A7A93C5AB1788D85F478385F9

Google Books:search results

"...there are unmistakable indications that the earth's climate is getting colder." from Editorial Research Reports By inc Congressional Quarterly, 1986 http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22climate%20is%20getting%20colder%22

"World temperatures rose sharply in the latter half of the decade, ... It would appear that at present world temperatures are falling" -- Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society---1940 http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22world%20temperatures%20rose%20sharply%22

"There is some evidence that our climate is getting colder..." Sciene magazine, 1944 http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01644869&id=NcgCAAAAIAAJ&q=%22climate+is+getting+colder%22&dq=%22climate+is+getting+colder%22&pgis=1

"There is evidence that the worlds climate is getting warmer" ---1950 http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01259095&id=s5gFAAAAMAAJ&q=%22world's+climate+is+%22&dq=%22world's+climate+is+%22&pgis=1

"The Acrtic is getting warmer" http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=arctic+is+getting+warmer&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=

"The Arctic is getting cooler" http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22arctic%20is%20getting%20colder%22&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

"Both the USA, where certain States have been suffering a drought, and the USSR, where the climate is becoming colder... " Assessing the New Political Trends, Dublin, 1976 http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02509012&id=se_N25iAuv4C&q=%22climate+is+becoming+colder%22&dq=%22climate+is+becoming+colder%22&pgis=1

The late astronomer Sif Fred Hoyle suggested in his 1981 book Ice: the Ultimate Catastaphe, that the earth was on the verge of a new ice age. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0826400647&id=BXkWAAAAMAAJ&q=%22world+temperatures%22&dq=%22world+temperatures%22&pgis=1

"But of course the increase in atmospheric CC>2 didn't stop in 1950; it continued, and even accelerated. Yet since 1950 world temperatures have slacked off" --- Climat, Man, and History, 1970 Climate, Man, and History - Page 410 http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22Yet%20since%201950%20world%20temperatures%20have%20slacked%20off%22

"The high and low temperature records of the Na-tional Weather Service used by The World Almanac tend to support the theory that the US climate is cooling ..." The World Almanac, 1975 http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0911818030&id=AYtpIEmY7tMC&q=%22climate+is+cooling%22&dq=%22climate+is+cooling%22&pgis=1

"Since 1960 there have been indications that the North American climate is cooling slightly" http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC06072187&id=OJoJAAAAIAAJ&q=%22climate+is+cooling%22&dq=%22climate+is+cooling%22&pgis=1

Delta x 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation styles

The sections "Climate models" and "Other related issues" are not using <ref> tags like the rest of the article. Anyone up to fixing them? -- Ash Lux 07:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try working on it tomorrow (i.e. later today, March 4th), if no one else does. ~ UBeR 07:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Great :-) I have a feeling this will be fixed up quickly. -- Ash Lux 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I got a few done. There's nine more, but I will be gone for a bit. If no one else does, I'll change them to footnotes later tonight. ~ UBeR 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten them all into to footnote style references, except for one. The one I did not change had a non-functioning link. I put a note to the editors beside it. Hopefully someone can find the relevant paper. ~ UBeR 07:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this "theory" is wrong

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html Mars has "global warming" on the same scale as earth... only it doesn't have people.

So much for this crap junk science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.48.36 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Read page 2 of the article. --Stephan Schulz 08:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Human stupidity never fails to amaze me. Ugh. Specusci 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says National Geographic New February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural -- and not a human-induced cause -- according to one scientist's controversial... http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=6484&m=12472 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose what we really need is to duplicate earth so we have one as a control and keep humans on the other. Then we can see if it's really true or not. In the mean time there's a lot of mud slinging and emotion for a disputed scientific theory and I really think the main page should indicate the dispute more clearly. MatthewFP 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4 (Britain) to air documentary challenging anthropogenic warming

Did anyone see this Washington Times article about the upcoming British documentary "The Great Global Warming swindle" (deleted link to copyright violation - see WP:EL and WP:C) which airs Thursday March 8, 2007? It should be very interesting viewing, regardless of which side one is on (personally, I'm on the "side" of whatever is scientifically demonstrable). Here is the trailer from Channel 4. Delta x 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that this "documentary" presents the opinions of nine dissenters above the consensus view of 2,500+ scientists, the trailer and the article don't appear to have much more than solar variation which is too weak to explain observed warming, name calling, and the usual uncertainty games. The producer is a professional idiot sensationalist according to multiple independent sources. James S. 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just finished watching it, came to wikipedia to see what was written here.... Docomentary was very interresting and well presented.Certainly has made me question the science behind the cause of the current warming, which the program did not contest. Sunspot activity and the delay of temp rises compared to increases in CO2 levels (Temp rise leads to more C02) were the main 2 points made against the current dogma. The problem doesn't seem to be as clear cut as the media would have you believe. Ryanuk 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the media (including the very documentary you viewed) give much to much weight to the few remaining sceptics. I suggest you read more about the actual science. This article is a reasonable start. Also look at attribution of recent climate change, which has some information on the various forcings (which include most prominently solar, aerosols, and greenhouse gases). Finally, you might want to look at the latest IPCC report SPM (linked from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). In short, everything you mention is known and has been taken into account. And using the word dogma in this context is extremely unwarranted. --Stephan Schulz 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Was it really unwarrented? Its a widely held belief. Has it been proved beyond doubt? Ryanuk 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks James for the articles. "Idiot" seems a little strong. However, Durken's credibility does appear a bit suspect, given that the folks at Channel 4 were "forced to issue a humiliating apology" as a result of some of his earlier works. One wonders why Channel 4 would be opening themselves again to the possibility of even further humiliation, unless they believed this time Durken had something truly meritorious to present. At any rate, I for one am looking forward to seeing what, if any, solid scientific data he brings to the documentary in support of the thesis that natural, and not human causes, are behind global warming. It think it'll be interesting. Delta x 09:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

s/idiot/sensationalist/, thanks. The show, according to those who have seen it, presents no alternative hypotheses other than solar variation. What they won't say is that the probability of observed warming being due to solar variation instead of atmospheric CO₂ increases is less than 1%. That carbon dioxide traps reflected infrared radiation and forces it into atmospheric heat is a proven, demonstrable, fact, as sure as gravity. The variation of solar radiation has not been measured for long, but we know enough to tell that it wasn't enough more than it used to be a decade ago to cause the observed warming, with a very high degree of certainty. James S. 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

there is a way we can stop global warming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.182.171 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, convert to 75% wind, 25% hydroelectric power, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Good luck on getting the developing world in on that. We can kiss our icecaps and Florida goodbye, and say hello to stronger storms every year for 300 years. Those cold war bomb shelters that got built might have been worth it after all. James S. 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course James. If you'd watched the documentary, you'd know that the Earth's weather events are caused by the disparity in temperatures between the equator and the poles. If the poles warm faster than the equator, then extreme weather events will be less likely to occur. However, you're on a dogmatic rant, so don't let science get in the way.... Grimerking 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the documentary is probably going to fall upon deaf ears - some of the arguments given against attributation of climate change with CO2 emissions were pretty convincing - particularly the section on the ice cores and the fact that CO2 increases following temperature increase, not preceding it, and the fact that the graphs showing the correlation between the rise in CO2 level and Arctic temperatures over the past century are much less convincing than the one correlating the same temperature variations with solar variation (are these explicitly compared anywhere on Misplaced Pages?) QmunkE 22:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at the aptly named attribution of recent climate change. It has a diagram with the major forcings and the resulting overall temperature change, including solar, greenhouse gases, and sulfate aerosols. If someone claims that a single forcing (i.e. solar) can explain the climate change, he is either ignorant or lying. --Stephan Schulz 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This graph isn't the one that they used to demonstrate (that one is based on a model which some of the scientists in the film strongly criticise) - the one they used was actual temperature variation at the poles (measured, not predicted) against solar activity (measured, not modelled) and also compared it to carbon dioxide increases (not "greenhouse gases" - as explained in the documentary and articles, water vapour is by a long way the dominating greenhouse gas). The correlation between solar variation and temperature change was much closer than the correlation with CO2 increase. QmunkE 09:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just trimmed The Great Global Warming Swindle and edited for NPOV Mostlyharmless 10:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, some of you will be interested in reading a very nice (and very critical) review of the Channel 4 documentary by George Monbiot, here. bikeable (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a breath...

Hello! People! We are not causing global warming, ok? Trust me, the volcanos produce more CO₂ than we ever could! Trust me, this is a trend. this happens! Those of you saying "but the hurricanes" Ever heard of El Nino and La Nina? They are Atlantic and Pacific weather patrens. If you want more info, click on the links. Now for the "The iceburgs are melting, and we're all gonna die" people. Just in case you didn't notice (I know I did) this winter was one of the coldest on record! Now, how many of you watched the hidious speech made by that hypocrite, Al Snore Gore, at the Oscers. Did you see those stage lights? Big use of energy, right there! And how do you think those stars got there. In their limos, of cousrse! Thats why their called "limosine librals" Also, Mr. Gore has his own private, gas guzzling jet! check this out! So just calm down and take a breath of fresh air (considering you don't live in NYC; in that case, take a breath of smoggy air) and as long as we only have such and such time left, why not enjoy it?

--If I can't move Heaven, then I'll raise Hell 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Seleane

P.S. Go on. Argue with me. I enjoy the challenge.

Jolly good. Lets start with point 1: look at the record of CO2 Image:Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide.png. Can you see the spikes from the volcanoes? No? Why not? Could it be because they are in fact rather small emitters of CO2 William M. Connolley 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not to say, of course, they cannot have large effects on climate (e.g. 1816). ~ UBeR 01:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Volcanos sometimes have a short term (a few years) cooling effect, and that can be quite massive. They also emit CO2, but they do that on a geological time scale. The amount of CO2 released by volcanos per annum is negligible compared to that generated by the burning of fossil fuels.--Stephan Schulz 07:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While I generally agree with the position taken by "Heaven and Hell", the point of this talk page is to discuss how the article can be developed, cleaned and kept within Wik guidelines (including NPOV). The purpose of this page is not to debate global warming per se. This discussion should be moved to a user talk page. Clayc3466 03:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and I agree with you and Heaven and Hell but this or the article shouldn't be a debate, it should just present the facts and assertions.--Rotten 03:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But finding consensus on the facts and assertions may require some debate.--Stephan Schulz 07:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And here is another interesting point- no where in the actual artical does it say the information i mentioned above...

If I can't move Heaven, then I'll raise Hell 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)--

Which information? You are wrong about Volcanos and CO2, as has been pointed out by multiple people. I don't think you actually made a point about hurricanes, but for the future: El Niño and La Niña are both eastern Pacific temperature events, although they influence weather worldwide. Where I am living, this was the warmest winter on record, more than 4° C warmer than the long-term average, and proably beating the warmest so far by 0.7° C. And Mr. Gore's personal livestyle has about zero influence on climate science. Also he does at least buy carbon credits to offset (some?) of his emissions.--Stephan Schulz 20:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, as NOAA just published, 2007 is about average for the US, and the warmest winter on record worldwide...--Stephan Schulz 11:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Recommended replacement of effects

These subtractions from the effects sub-article should be emphasized in the main article if you want the financial community to pay attention. What is says is if governments divert 1% of domestic products to mitigation (presumably through clean technology subsidies) then they can avoid a 25% up to 20% loss in an increasingly sooner time frame. Xferacct 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How is this for the simple version? Xferacct 05:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This "simple Misplaced Pages," I'd say, doesn't quite cut it as a reliable secondary source. ~ UBeR 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you on that, UBeR. --BozMo talk 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the source for the 1% now saves up to 20% later claim. James S. 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Who reverted the page?

Last night I added a couple of {{fact}} tags (seen as ) to the article in the "causes" section where citations are needed to validate and support the material. But today I see those tags have been removed. The "causes" section begins by offering two opposing views in the first two paragraphs. Each paragraph needs citation tags to show that those views are based on something other than the writers opinions or beliefs on those two views. --Clayc3466 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference for your first tag. The second tag really should be multiple tags for the individual alternatives, since they are separate mechanisms. Raymond Arritt 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On the question "who reverted the page and why" please see the page history. The reason for the revert given was "Rv. fact tags, references are in the linked sub-articles and in the text below (the lead just summarizes))". --BozMo talk 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't really be those refs in the intro - they belong on the sub pages linked William M. Connolley 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree references in abstracts are always bad form and in summaries in WP the same rule should apply. It isn't hard to find the basis for everything said and that should do. --BozMo talk 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with putting refs in the intro. This is far from an abstract of a paper made to be published in a journal. ~ UBeR 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry/favour

I am only doing this to one of the 4000 articles we are including, sorry (actually maybe two). This version of this article: is about to be put in a fixed static schools copy of Misplaced Pages which based on last year will run off at least 50,000 times (see Misplaced Pages:2006 Misplaced Pages CD Selection. The static 2006 online version gets about 10,000 unique IP hits a day so its worth getting right. If anyone (and I include of course the "group" of people who often disagree with me) could check for errors or obvious bits to remove I'd be grateful: the easy things to do are delete sections/strings or choose a better version. I have volunteers checking all the articles but they've ducked out of this one (and a couple on Islam). --BozMo talk 16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I did just a quick check, especially to find out if the new references are already included. It seems like there are none at all in that version - is that intentional? --Stephan Schulz 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Its rather hard to tell - you can't give us a diff from the current version, or tell us which version is was taken from? Also (though I'm sure you fix this somehow) none of the refs are there...) . I think I prefer the current intro... William M. Connolley 17:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) I will get the date and version (about 2 months ago). I need to fix references, but that's hard work in algo terms. References are a real pain from Misplaced Pages because there is no consistency across articles on what they are called. In this article the references are called Notes (!*&^%^$)... why not "References". "Notes" generally refer to "See Also" internal links on WP which for a selection ends up consisting of a list of dead links: hence "notes" got deleted. Sometimes references are called references sometimes citations sometimes further reading. Hmm. Might be better to just pick a recent version. --BozMo talk 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My concerns begin with the first sentence (!) since it doesn't include the "projected continuation" bit. A more recent version would be good. Raymond Arritt 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so this one ? --BozMo talk 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be better. A couple of Qs: shouldn't the page contain a link back to the wiki GW article; and ideally to the version it is from, too? Or is that too much work. As to fixing the refs... what do you do about that? Remove them, or put the hrefs inline, or wot? William M. Connolley 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The version is an offline DVD (or 2 CD with only thumbmail images) primarily, or was intended to be and has had wide use in the developing world. The position on link back and attribution is a bit more complicated than some people make out but we've agreed on improving this versus 2006 (actually mainly on images... the slightly more official 0.5 version isn't really licence compliant but its surprisingly hard work to comply) and in return we've been given permission to publish under the WP logo. The DVD will include a list of all the contributers to WP but not the page histories, which is what the German release did. Whether the static online version should have a clickable link to WP is a moot point: some of the child friendly classifiers insist no links to unsuitable sites (and WP is porn of course). However, I was a bit stunned by the popularity of the online version (partly I think because it delivers pages much fast than WP does) though so I need to think. At the same time getting about 15000 pages of written material hand-checked is a headache enough. Which brings us on to how to handle references offline (since they are links often). Deleting and refering to WP is the easiest fall-back: rendering all the links as text URLs in the "reference" section is possible and depends how many iterations it takes to get it right. In the end its for children and probably too complex to need references but it would be nice to have them anyway. --BozMo talk 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: In the interest of consistency, is anybody opposed to a change from "Notes" to "References"? Suprisingly, the WP:MOS is mostly silent about this. It mentions both "Notes" and "References" briefly, but it leads by example. As far as I can tell, "References" is much more frequent overall, as well. --Stephan Schulz 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No. But if we revert back to nice in-line refs the section wouldn't have to exist :-) William M. Connolley 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are too many jokes I could make now, so I'll leave it at "pftrrrt!" ;-). --20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

End of Global Warming (UK Channel 4 Documentary)

As I watch channel 4 on climate warming, I can see why the pro-global warming people are so very worried to allow any real debate. Ha ... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... !

Hilarious, see Talk:Global Warming#Channel 4 (Britain) to air documentary challenging anthropogenic warming above. G-Man * 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished watching the documentary. The whole 'man-made' global warming story is a lie. There is no consensus. The IPCC is a load of crap. Scientists are censored at the request of politians and NGOs. Can we please now balance this funking article? I am placing a NPOV tag on this page. Any removal will be an act of vandalism under Wiki rules. Grimerking 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So one funky TV documentary with no detailed references has more weight than the considered and referenced opinion of thousands of scientists? Wow....--Stephan Schulz 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And all the lemmings were right as well?

I disagree and am removing the npov tag. --TeaDrinker 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Someone beat me to it. I can't really imagine how a teevee documentary could potentially negate the science cited in the article. --TeaDrinker 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'd come here and found the argument for both sides laid out based on the evidence then I'd agree with you. What we have here is a political scandel not a scientific one .... there are a group of people using the scientists for political reasons - unfortunately, most scientists don't have the necessary training to understand the socio-political system in which they work - so it's really easy to manipulate them! 88.110.230.109 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Man I came here to see whether it refuted any of the claims. I don't see any, I thought channel 4 would be a lot of "there's a lot of uncertainty", in fact it was full of very compelling data. Scientists aren't infallible - and at the end of the day I'm inclined to believe those who don't just go along with the crowd. Besides, I've seen how scientists will mix fact and opinon as if it all were fact - and funnily enough they get paid much better if they "enhance" the facts to suit the current political climate. As I read a lot of history texts, what was beginning to dawn on me was the number of texts talking about massive cold and hot periods in the past, and how the same time periods were being portrayed by climate "scientists" as being "Normal". Someone is not telling the whole truth .... and now we know who it is!

Wouldn't want to be a climate scientist right now - prospects for future employment look pretty gloomy - if I were a climatologist I'd jump ship ASAP before the rush! 88.110.230.109 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was quite amusing as a TV show (i.e. it was crap enough not to be serious or annoying) anyway it didn't seem to negate any of the article: the main thrust seemed to be the Al Gore was wrong about the ice records because warmth drives CO2 not the other way round. Don't see that "central premise" appearing in this article or did I miss it somewhere? --BozMo talk 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems we'll have this whenever some cranks come up with something claiming to 'debunk climate change'. It happened with Christopher Monckton's daft report a few months back. Of course some of the world's top scientists on the IPPC are wrong, and a bunch of mavericks with a proven anti-enviromentalist agenda are right. G-Man * 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How are they 'proven anti-environmentalist'? One of the contributors was the co-founder of Greenpeace. Admit it, you haven't even seen the documentary. Much easy to smear the opposition than actually learn something new, isn't it? Grimerking 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there's Martin Durkin for example, the show's producer. who's previous documentary was roundly condemned by the Independent Television Commission for misleading and misrepresenting facts . Of course if you want to believe people like that over the vast majority of world scientific opinion, you are of course perfectly welcome. G-Man * 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, how dumb can those IPCC scientists be? Instead of getting the true story from Channel 4, they waste their time reading books and journal articles and stuff. Raymond Arritt 23:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How dumb, pretty dumb if their science doesn't stand up to some very simple scrutiny! There was once a group of scientists that believed in phlogeston, another group believed in the ether, another group believed in lamarks theory of "evolotion", through the history of science there have been scientists who have gone up a dead alleyway only to come out years later looking very sheepish. I was convinced by the evidence on the Channel 4 program, most other people will have been as well - the evidence was afterall compelling. Let me summarise the argument here - temperature has risen, CO2 levels have risen, therefore CO2 causes temperature rise. But when I saw the very close correlation of sun spot activity with temperature, and the lag between temperature and CO2, then I knew something was seriously wrong with the idea of manmade global warming! I can see the R&D funding on global warming starting to dry up even now! In 3-5 years, they'll be a fraction of the funding and it might be possible to edit this article without some idiot reverting before the enter key rises. 88.109.250.241 17:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If the only thing suggesting warming might result from atmospheric CO₂ was the historical correlation then you might be on to something, but that's far from the truth. Indeed, warming as a result of atmospheric CO₂ were known long before those correlations were ever known. The reason we expect CO₂ to produce warming is basic physics with regard to absorption spectra (energy from the sun passes through due to it's frequency, while heat radiated back from has a different frequency, is absorped, and trapped). And as to correlations between sunspot activity and temp, try the last 50 years - obviously sunspot cycles have an effect, but it seems the CO₂ trend is at least as important. -- Leland McInnes 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Leland, look at the graph you included. Sunspot activity rises before temp and co2. The program discussed whether there was a delay in rising sunspot activity and rising temperatures. There may be a few years before the temp of the earth reacts to the increased activity, they pointed at the oceans taking a long time to warm and cool. Also, if you look at your own graph, temperature rises before CO2 levels rise during the last 40 years or so. Maybe temp rises result in more co2 being released by natural means? Ryanuk 21:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice idea that the current temperature rise is a delayed response to the sun spot peak in 1960, but you'll need more than that - if you offset the sunspot data appropriately for the recent temp. rise and sunspot peak to align appropriately you end up with temperature lull around 1890 aligning with a sunspot peak from 1840-1850, so you've just given yourself something different to explain away. I also have to say I'm not sure what you mena by temp. rising before CO2 for last 40 years - CO2 is steadily increasing throughout the entire graph. As to CO2 increase being natural - that's easily disputed via isotope analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The results are that the recent increase is quite clearly anthropogenic. The climate is complex and many factors affect it. It seems clear that sunspot activity has some effect. It is not at all clear, however, that it provides any better explanation that CO2. -- Leland McInnes 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanaition and plot. As you mention, it would seem that both CO2 levels and sunspot activity affect the climate. The suggested mechanism in the documentary was interesting, "the climate was controlled by the clouds, the clouds were controlled by cosmic rays and the cosmic rays were controlled by the sun. It all came down to the sun." While this explanation is perhaps over-simplified (there was some more detail in the documentary), does the concept broadly agree with your understanding of how sunspot activity influences the Earth's climate? Chrisnumbers2000 03:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people won't have actually seen the stupid thing, very wise of them, but if you care for a few notes then see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_great_global_warming_swind_1.php William M. Connolley 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't listen to GW fanatics, listen to climatologists: Global warming: the bogus religion of our age Arvin Sloane 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is by Lindzen and only mentions the documentary in passing - he shows no sign of having seen it, but reiterates his usual blabla. I fixed the syntax of your link, but check the semantics. Do you really want to link to the comments section? --Stephan Schulz 07:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(BTW, nobody asked you to "fix" anything. Next time, please refrain from changing other people's comments without solicitation.) Arvin Sloane 11:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your link was physically broken, as it had an extra http:// in front. Fixing such an obvious error is accepted Wikiquette. I suggest that you put a comment next to your errors if you want them unfixed for some reason. Lindzen used to be a respected scientist, and has done a lot of good work in the past. "World-reknown" is a bit strong for my taste - before his denialism, I doubt many people outside his specialty have known him. Anyways, regardless of his past contributions, in this article he really is repeating his usual "blabla", and there is no reason to give it more respect than it deserves. Some examples might be enlightening:

• He dismisses most of the instrumental temperature record, but is happy to accept measurements from 1780 to claim that Greenland has not significantly warmed since then.
• He still seems to ride an interpretation of the satellite temperature record that no-one seriously believes - not even Spencer or Christy. But then he is so vague about it that it is unclear what exactly he thinks.

--Stephan Schulz 08:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I watched the programme and found it quite interesting. I think on the whole it's a good thing to have the debate. And I think journalists (and some scientists) are guilty of exaggeration. However it struck me even at the time how one-sided it was; a lot was irrelevant. Who cares what percentage of the atmosphere CO2 is? The question is what effect it has. It also appeared to suggest that believers in human generated global warming ignored all other causes of global warming. In particular, they never looked at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png which I found online when looking for it again today, and which to me is the crux of the argument. The political argument I found somewhat ludicrous. Are you seriously telling me that the environmental lobby has stopped Africa industrialising? And solar power can be present in places without a National Grid or gaslines.

Anyway, it's good that we talk about it and get a good understanding, and there are many areas that still need to be understood. But one sided polemics like this don't help. Building better models and understanding the risks and consequences of different actions helps.

--Merlinme 14:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Merlinme - good comments! The link between sun-spot activity and atmospheric water vapour (aka cloud), was new to me and clearly provides and alternative causal relationship which better fitted the evidence than man-made warming. From my own point a view, its a bit worrying, because I've been concerned for a while that fossil fuel depletion is happening faster than global warming. As long as people are worrying about global warming, they are naturally reducing fossil fuel use, but now that global warming has been discredited, it will mean that anyone who now says "... but we still have to conserve because fossil fuels are running out", will be tarred by the same brush. But I feel so stupid for believing in global warming in the first place. It wasn't a week ago that I was saying "the scientific evidence was compelling" ... it's just like the millenium bug again, everyone was talking about how bad it was going to be, and then suddenly one day, it just seemed to go away and a lot of people were left with egg on their face - for one thing, I'm going to have to write a few letters to the papers to balance all those pro-Global warming ones from around a decade ago - plus, I'll be a lot more careful before believing fossil fuel is going to run out!!!!!

The scientists I know agree that this documentary did a better job of representing the science than Gore's documentary did. But they also said the documentary should have left off the political charges, which came off sounding rather... lame.RonCram 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that Global warming has been discredited because of one dubious documentary? I don't think so. G-Man * 21:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds wrong. Are any of them going to speak? Will they defend failing to mention aerosol cooling? William M. Connolley 17:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing is clear: this Misplaced Pages article and its fanatical guardians are a perfect example of how and why Misplaced Pages cannot be considered as a reliable source of knowledge. Arvin Sloane 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article The Great Global Warming Swindle needs a lot of work - it's a POV fork at the moment, stating false and misleading claims uncritically. Mostlyharmless 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article The Great Global Warming Swindle is about a documentary film of the same name. It does not claim to be a scientific article. It is simply describing a film in which there is a lot of current interest (as you can see above). As long as it describes the claims made in the film, it should not be censored using the excuse that these claims are not scientific or are being stated uncritically. ~ Rameses 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, it does make a number of scientific claims, draws conclusions from these, and these are stated uncritically in your version of the article. Mostlyharmless 23:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, the article makes no scientific claims - it simply describes the documentary film and the claims made in it. ~ Rameses 04:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An article on films, books, movies, etc, should have claims cited, be neutral, be uncritical, and be accurate as to what the work is about. An article on a pro- neutral- or anti-AGW documentary subject should state what the work is about, and not read like an editorial, a critical review or a soapbox for what's in it subject-matter wise. I could complain all day long on what a load of crap documentary x or y or z is, but that's not the purpose of an article, is it? The links to the sources and the hyperlinks to other articles can be used so people can find out if something is useful or not. It's not the writers job to do it for them. Research that turns up 100 critical reviews and 2 supportive reviews (or vice-versa) or 50 people that hated it and 1 that loved it (etc etc etc) can be cited to show <whatever> as long as they're cited according to existing rules and have as much of an NPOV as possible. If you feel strongly about something one way or another, you probably shouldn't really be writing an article in an encyclopedia about it. Sln3412 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! Edit: Reminds me, of course, of these lines: "It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Misplaced Pages is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelize your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it." ~ UBeR 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't there a proper mentioning of why solar variations affect global temperature so much? There's plenty of hard evidence pointing to the effect cosmic rays have in cooling the planet and towards the variations amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth atmosphere as being the principle climate driver. CO2 and other greenhouse gases (apart from water vapour) are not as effective as global warmers as an increase in solar activity, magnetic field strength of the earth and our position in the galaxy. Because of the unusually high CO2 in the atmosphere and it's apparent effects we should still cut CO2 emissions and reserve the oil though ;-) Here's a very thorough article from Geoscience Canada if you're not convinced of the cosmic nature of the earth's climate - Dansphere 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I propose we start looking for a way to give scientists the finger (The Sixth Finger that is) so that they’ll have the capacity, as (benevolent) brainiacs, to fully comprehend the intricate complexities of climate behavior --- just a little levity folks! Delta x 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Pan evaporation

As global warming increases, it is generally expected that the air will become drier and that evaporation from terrestrial water bodies will increase. Paradoxically, terrestrial observations over the past 50 years show the reverse. Pan evaporation has actually been decreasing worldwide.70.56.91.246 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not drier - RH should stay about constant (so in fact the air should become wetter in absolute terms) William M. Connolley 13:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"As global warming increases" you mean "if global warming increases" ... following the link with sun spot activity rather than CO2 - it now looks like the whole basis of global warming is in doubt! 17:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It really does not matter what causes the so-called global warming. The question is, should the pan evaporation paradox be listed on the front page with all the other counter-theories like increases in solar activity... 01:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The pan evaporation measurements are data, not a "counter-theory." Raymond Arritt 01:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a measurable fact, not theory. As such, it should be included in the global warming article. kgrr 20:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

But its not true that all facts belong in the article, and I don't think this one does. Its in the sub-article; its all too easy to bloat the GW article with useful facts William M. Connolley 20:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pan evaporation is prima facia evidence that global dimming exists. You can't deny the measurable facts. And such, the observation is not a theory. I think it must be mentioned. kgrr 21:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing prima facia (sic) about the relation to global dimming. Although the instrument is simple, its physical meaning is complicated. Pan evaporation depends on variables including wind speed, radiation, and vapor pressure deficit. See for example here and here. Raymond Arritt 04:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To add: k added Scientists regard the pan evaporation data as the most convincing evidence of global dimming - this isn't true. As the GD article sez, the evidence is from radiometers, as you'd expect William M. Connolley 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK argue with the BBC. They are the source of your "conspiracy". I quoted a reference to my source. I will tell you it's because the Pan evaporation experiment is very accurate, simple and repeatable. Don't get me into an RV war. I will win. kgrr 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is best discussed at talk:global dimming first. But since you've been so unpleaseant ab out rv'ing, I have William M. Connolley 22:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

This entire article is biased heavily toward the pro global warming viewpoint. All opposing viewpoints have been deliberately forked off to other pages - contrary to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. ~ Rameses 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has a section on solar variation which discusses the main mechanism that has been offered as an alternative to the influence of greenhouse gases. The discussion of solar variation in the article is, if anything, more prominent than in the scientific literature. Raymond Arritt 22:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rameses, you obviously aren't familiar with the Misplaced Pages NPOV policy. See Undue weight. Other theories held by a small minority of relevant scientists are mentioned, and probably given more space than is warranted, given that their total output is relatively small in comparison to the rest of GW research. Mostlyharmless 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mostlyharmless you are talking rubbish. That 2000 people who get their grants from peddling global warming fear all agree their is global warming is hardly surprising - what is surprising is that Misplaced Pages isn't reporting the many who think the evidence does not support manmade warming. The Article is not only clearly biased - it is peddling extremist nonsense! Mike 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Was there ever a time when the majority was right?" Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein. Arvin Sloane 23:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, well, sure. The majority says the moon is not made of green cheese; the majority says you can't turn lead into gold; the majority says that if you stick your hand into a whirring meat grinder it's liable to hurt; and so on. Raymond Arritt 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Raymond - not only can you turn lead into gold, it has already been done see: . ~ Rameses 23:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Regarding my other two examples... Raymond Arritt 23:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But you can turn lead into gold, but not with chemistry. The pan evaporation paradox be listed on the front page with all the other counter-theories.01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would ask Mr. Arritt to point out, which minority of scientists, exactly, purports that the moon is made of green cheese, and that if you stick your hand into a whirring meat grinder it wouldn't hurt. If Mr. Arritt is unable to produce quotes supporting the existence of such scientists, his analogy is null and void. Meanwhile, the Great Feeding Frenzy Around Global Warming has legitimate opposition among scientists whose respect for themselves exceeds their careerist and financial worries. Arvin Sloane 01:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the statement wasn't "the majority of scientists", it was just "the majority." Careful reading is important, you see. If you remain a skeptic about my original statements we can test them empirically. I'll bring the meat grinder if you bring the hand. Raymond Arritt 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but your objection is not with me but with Robert A. Heinlein, who, as far as I know, has already passed the meat grinder test. Arvin Sloane 04:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it Heinlein who says this, or is it Lazarus Long? My copy of the book went the "can I borrow it for a day or so" route... --Stephan Schulz 08:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'd love to know is why this entry, as Rameses said, can be chopped and changed against Misplaced Pages's own policies and be supported by legions of Wikipedians. I'd also love to know why any attempt at marking this article as not having a NPOV results in many unqualified editors reversing the change regardless of the thousands of PhD decorated scientists that have signed the pproject petition in support of the alternative viewpoint that cannot even be mentioned or hinted at in passing without having the change reversed. Jamieplucinski 04:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Oregon petition is a a well-known scam. Read the linked article. It's also ancient history. And many of the "unqualified editors" here do have Ph.D.s or equivalent doctorates, and at least two are actively working and/or teaching in the field of climate science.--Stephan Schulz 07:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Excluding well-known scams is a good thing. Also it is good that a lot of things that don't belong here get removed. I still think it can be more NPOV than it is, but that's just my opinion. I think we spend too much time focusing on the issue as if it's all science, when all we really know is that the Earth is warmer and that there's more Co2 "recently"; at least such as the granularity of long-term measurements allows us to know. This in my opinion is mainly a policy and political issue. While a lot of the science is well known, there are still quite a few gaps all over the place for specific mechanisms -- at least as far as I'm concerned given: A. The time scales. B. The complexity of the variables. C. The emotional component. D. The way research and funding and so on works. E. The media coverage of the issue. But what do I know, I'm an instructor, a network engineer and a computer scientist, not a climatologist. Sln3412 23:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For the politics, at least, you could try politics of global warming. There is also the global warming controversy, which has reserved a single sentence in this article. ~ UBeR 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there may be a POV problem with countering views given unequal weight and forked off to other pages. --Blue Tie 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Tjsynkral's edit. I didn't realize this discussion was still going on. ~ UBeR 19:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the section below, Talk:Global_warming#Neutral_POV_Disputed for a discussion on whether this dispute merits a POV template on the article. --Tjsynkral 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a POV-check on this page following the rapid rv censorship (by User:Guettarda) of my changes (see "Objection to the word consensus") where I had replaced two disputed uses of the word "consensus" with "IPCC view". It seems to me that the refusal to accomodate the idea that others can not reasonably dissent from the idea that such a consensus may not exist or that the existence of such a consensus is unproven is a good example of a POV. I ask that others, if they agree, reinstate those changes and delete the disputed "consensus" words from the article until the matter has been resolved. I certainly shall not do so.CecilWard 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have taken this tag off for now. AFAICT this is more about the people involved than any real dispute on the content. --BozMo talk 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIC, we must not synthesize what we think is being implied. Per WP:OR], specifically WP:SYN, if the source isn't saying it, we cannot either. It's clear the IPCC's view is such and such. We must state it as such, and no different. ~ UBeR 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) The {{pov-check}} template might not be strong enough, and probably should be replaced with the next higher tag.

• The POV check template, {{POV-check}}, may be added to an article which you feel may need to be edited to comply with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy.
• The POV check template is not for disputes. It is intended for:
  • Articles which you have edited to be neutral, but may have overlooked something
  • Articles which you suspect are not neutral, but are unsure how to proceed
• For situations where you or other editors disagree on NPOV status, or need to reach consensus on neutrality, instead use the neutrality dispute template, {{POV}}, and explain the reasons on the talk page.
• In order to ensure the POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification, it may be removed by anyone if they feel that the issue has been resolved. Please do not edit war over the use of this template. Instead, if you disagree with its removal, place the full neutrality dispute template on the page, explain your reasons on the talk page, and follow the regular NPOV dispute resolution process.

I gather we contributors here disagree on NPOV status. There seems to be a sharp division, in fact, with 'regulars' pretty much saying that AGW is objective fact and that it's therefore "neutral" for the article to say so. Occasional 'guests' come by and argue that AGW is "disputed by some scientists" and that therefore the article should not endorse AGW. --Uncle Ed 15:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I disagree with your assessment. The NPOV may not simply be a matter of whether there IS global warming (in my view there is and always has been both global warming and cooling. It is a matter of physics and tautologically true). But there may be NPOV issues relating to the reasons FOR the global warming. --Blue Tie 16:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, reviewing tis I don't see any justification for the tag. We started with All opposing viewpoints have been deliberately forked off which is simply false. Next we had it must be POV because it disagrees with Oregon petition which hardly makes any sense. next we have 2 uses of the word consensus. And we have no idea what you think is wrong with it. This isn't a fair use of the tag William M. Connolley 15:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article demonstrates bias right at the start. Here is how: It cites "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" conclusions but then, without any references or cites or sources (it is basically Original Research) it says :"this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, a few scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming." This tenor and bias failure exists throughout the article.--Blue Tie 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Errm, you're being deceptive. The text you cite is a link to Scientific opinion on climate change which provides the relevant sources. Have you got anything else to complain about? William M. Connolley 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not being deceptive. Please adhere to wikipedia policies of Assuming Good Faith and No Personal Attacks. The text I cited DOES have a cite to a Scientific opinion. I did not leave that out. My objection was that wikipedia's conclusion ABOUT that Scientific opinion violates WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:NOR and as a consequence leads to violations of WP:NPOV. Exactly how much focused detail do you need to observe that there is no legitimate citation for the statement: "this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, a few scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming", to help you understand the issue I raised?. Particularly the words "numerous" and "few" which are vague weasle words and are based upon original research. Such statements are defined by wikipedia to be inherently in violation of WP:NPOV -- thus biased. --Blue Tie 16:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You asserted without any references or cites or sources - thats wrong. The references to the academies statements, etc, are all on the linked page. Is this really the only item you have to support an NPOV tag, because it seems awfully thin William M. Connolley 16:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps I should Parse my sentence for clarity and then provide a commentary so you will understand:

It (the article) cites "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" conclusions

The above quote states that there is a scientific panel study on climate change that gave conclusions.

but then, 

The above two words are intended to SEPARATE the above clause (which is not denied) with a following clause where there is an exception

without any references or cites or sources (it is basically Original Research) 

Here is the causes for NPOV are describe, but not yet attributed to any particular comment in the article.

it says :"this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, a few scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming."  

Here the exact place where the lack of cites and sources is describe.

I hope that helps you follow my train of thought. There is no disputing that the wikipedia cites an article that may, indeed be well referenced. Where wikipedia fails to provide a citation is on the OPINION of the VALUE of that Scientific article and on the OPINION of others who disagree. In that failure, WP:NPOV violations arise.

I also hope that you will realize I am not arguing against the scientific article. Is that clear?

It may not be the only item to support an NPOV tag, but it is one. And it has not been handled appropriately. As I bring it up, it only meets resistance, not solutions per wikipedia guidelines. That suggests that there is more emotion than fact in the writing of this article. Furthermore, it is the opening discussion and guiding principle behind the article as far as I can see. Thus, the article fails NPOV tests. --Blue Tie 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We could replace "numerous scientific societies" with "every scientific society that has issued a statement on the matter, except for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists." But that's wordy, and the details are given in the scientific opinion article anyway. We could also replace "a few scientists disagree" with "three climate scientists disagree" -- the only ones I know of are Lindzen, Michaels and Gray; the rest of the skeptics are astronomers, engineers and the like. The present wording, with the link to the scientific opinion article (which I agree should be retitled), is probably the best we can do without excessive duplication from the sci opinion article. Raymond Arritt 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is wordy, but more importantly, can you provide an objective, reliable, undisputed source for the statement: "every scientific society that has issued a statement on the matter, except for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists"? In particular, the one word in that statement I would see as suspect is "every" because I have seen statements by scientific societies that have made other predictions. Of course these were from a few years ago, but that still precludes the word "every". (It is, again, a sort of weasle word). As far as the scientists that you know who disagree, it is appropriate to name them, but to declare that they are the ONLY three (or that there are ONLY three) would be Original Research, unless cited by a reliable, verifiable, objective source.

If the present wording is the best that we can come up with it is a poor statement on our skills. The rules of wikipedia requiring citation are not totally unreasonable and they are repeatedly emphasized as the key to avoid NPOV. You do want to avoid these repeated charges of bias, right?

Now note, the article has been repeatedly described as having NPOV issues. I have cited wikipedia policy on solving NPOV issues. The main method is to use objective, fair, reliable, well sourced and verifiable references, quoting them without adding editorial commentary. The response (so far as I can see) -- from people who would probably claim to be on the side of "objective science" -- is that such objectivity is not appropriate, necessary, required, or possible in this article. That is not acceptable per wikipedia policies. --Blue Tie 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you propose an alternative that is both WP:NPOV (by your standard) and accurate? Then we'll have something concrete to work with. Raymond Arritt 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

because I have seen statements by scientific societies that have made other predictions - this would be more convincing if you could provide examples. Until you do its meaningless, and should not be used as a basis for your objections. Once again to ask you the question you've failed to answer: is this really your only objection? William M. Connolley 16:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary for me to convince you that I have seen such things for the article to be out of compliance. That problem is the issue. Not me or what I know, particularly since I am not using myself or my knowledge as a basis for objection but rather wikipedia policy. Why is this so personal for you? --Blue Tie 17:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It was you who raised the point about scientific societies that made other predictions. Are you now abandoning that point? Raymond Arritt 18:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. But it is irrelevant to the point. You are confusing the content of the article with wikipedia policy about how to avoid NPOV and article citing. --Blue Tie 18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed text changes

Per the suggestion above I am listing statemenths from the paragraph here with possible changes.

• Global average air temperature near Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit) in the last century.

Normally I would consider this a summary of other things, but since it describes such specific numbers, numbers that are scientifically derived averages, this should be cited.

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect."

This statement requires no change on its face, particularly with a link to the IPCC article on wikipedia. However, it is somewhat incomplete in context. It should add the predicted temperature change: IPCC predicts that global temperatures will rise by 1.8 -4.0°C between 1990 and 2100.

• Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have had smaller probably cooling effects on global mean temperature since 1950.

This statement should be deleted because it misinterprets the figure in the source. In fact, the figure simply reaffirms the statement made above that recent global warming, as modeled by the IPCC, is seen as very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic effects.

• While this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science

This is a vague statement, but its intent is valid. I think that the way to handle it is to be specific like this:

The IPCC statement has, in turn been endorsed by National Acadamies of Science for the G8 nations and The US National Research Council. (add citations) Other scientific organizations such as the American Meterological Society, The American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of London.

• a few scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming.

Specifics are better like this: Other members of the scientific community such as Beate Liepert, Graham Farquhar, Michael Roderick, and Peter Cox dispute some or all of these findings, arguing that increased aerosols and increased atmospheric albedo mitigate direct anthropologic increases on global temperature or that long-term global climate changes are a better explanation for the phenomenon. (and add a ciation or several citations to verify that statement).

Furthermore, if any scientists actually argue that the earth is not actually warming, some statement that they deny the phenomenon exists should be stated with a cite. So... my reconciled paragraph looks like this:

Global average air temperature near Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit) in the last century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that global temperatures will rise by 1.8 -4.0°C between 1990 and 2100 stating that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations," which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect.

The IPCC statement has been endorsed by National Acadamies of Science for the G8 nations and The US National Research Council. Other scientific organizations such as the American Meterological Society, The American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of London have issued their own statements of concern over global warming. (See Scientific opinion on climate change)

Other members of the scientific community such as Beate Liepert, Graham Farquhar, Michael Roderick, and Peter Cox dispute some or all of these findings, arguing that increased aerosols and increased atmospheric albedo mitigate direct anthropologic increases on global temperature or that long-term global climate changes are a better explanation for the phenomenon. (See Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming). Optional: (________________ and _____________ are 2 scientists who deny that global warming exists. )

Added text from C4 documentary

The references provided for the text I removed (diff), added by Evolutionyu (talk · contribs), come from a channel 4 documentary. Channel 4 is not a reliable source, and is very light on details. The site does not appear to

• name who came up with these ideas
• provide references to the source material used
• provide any supporting evidence (not verifiable)

In short, C4 are just trying to boost their ratings again, and this is not science. --h2g2bob 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is the same Channel 4 which brought you "Dr" Gillian McKeith. --h2g2bob 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on a classic example of h2g2bob Candy 18:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that Channel 4 wouldn't be the source, per se. The source, of course, is the documentary and the scientists featured within. ~ UBeR 18:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is yet more clap-trap from certain people. It is not up to certain self-professed experts to tell us who is or is not experts - that clearly amounts to "original research" & "personal opinons". As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, it is neutral and any notable source is worthy of inclusion irrespective of personal opinions of anyone here. By any definition, evidence presented on a mainstream channel of authority in the UK is authoratative and worthy of inclusion. Mike 20:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The documentary supplies names, references and facts, if that is not available a number of British newspapers have also commented on it, I am wiling to get a list of soruces. From your points I can tell you actually haven't seen it. I suggest you actually watch it before making edits. Channel 4 has escellent documentaries (especially when compared to ITV/BBC, they are also put on prime time too) so please think twice begfore attacking the soruce. THe documentary was fully backed and was not 'light' on evidence. Evolutionyu 17:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In this corner, we have several thousand scientists who have written several thousand articles in peer-reviewed journals. And in this corner, we have... a television documentary. I don't know how to respond to a proposal that those two bodies of evidence are comparable. Raymond Arritt 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The prog was junk, and I haven't seen anyone even attempt to defend it against the obvious attacks. For example, the "politics" bit at the end says the enviros are suppressing Africa. No mention was made of the fact that Kyoto exempts developing countries William M. Connolley 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

William, you haven't a clue have you! It may be your opinion that it was junk but that is of no consequence here. It has no impact on this article - Misplaced Pages is not a place for personal opinions but for a record of worthy sources and to be frank your opinions are not worthy.Mike 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the gratuitious unpleasantness. Your failure to defend the prog substantively is noted. Wiki uses *reliable* sources: that involves judgement as to what is reliable. One test is does the source stand up to scrutiny? In this case, the answer (as you've just demonstrated) is no; which is why it doesn't appear. Furthermore, C4 is not a "channel of authority" and nor did the prog produce evidence: it produced opinions William M. Connolley 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

William what seems to bother you the most is that the program interviews climate experts: DR BEATE LIEPERT, PROF GRAHAM FARQUHAR, DR MICHAEL RODERICK, DR PETER COX - the same ones that write the journal articles. It's your opinion that their interview is not valid to be quoted in the Misplaced Pages pieces - Global warming and Global dimming. Is their expert opinion not valid because it was on TV instead of a journal?? Please read up about NPOV again before you push your admin rights aroundKgrr 22:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not on GD now - we're on TGGWS. Try to keep up! William M. Connolley 22:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't see the documentary, but did snoop around the website quite a bit. To be honest, I'm quite interested in their ideas, but there's no references on the website to anything: not to other websites, let alone journalists. I didn't spot any names (except one, who wasn't explicitly linked to the claims made on the site). I don't mind inclusion of this material, if it's got a good source. --h2g2bob 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

An update, for those trying to keep up with this rapidly-evolving situation: Channel 4 now describes its program as a "polemic". Raymond Arritt 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4 called it polemic from the get-go. And polemic doesn't necessarily equate to "bad." Einstein was polemic. Nicola was polemic. So lets not try to twist things into something they're not. ~ UBeR 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, articles on films, books, movies, etc, should have claims cited, be neutral, be uncritical, and be accurate as to what the work is about. What we think about it is not important; putting in neutral verifiable credible information on the work is. Whatever the information is. So it's crap (or not). Put it in there. The show exists, right? It's been written about, right? Put it in the article. Sln3412 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is this program for everyone to see, and to judge for themselves. Those who claim that it contains no scientific evidence are brazen liars. I don't know how Mr, Connolley is capable of looking into his mirror. 66.82.9.87 22:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted link to copyright violation per Misplaced Pages:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Raymond Arritt 02:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

See my response under "IPCC", below for my well sourced rebuttal to this program. 66.82.9.87, please do not spam your posts. We do read it even if you post it once. --h2g2bob 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship by Ignorance

The attack on Channel 4 is typical of the attempts being made to censor genuine comments. Channel 4 is a highly respected TV channel in the UK, producing the most credible news programme of all those presented on British TV (including the BBC, in my opinion). Presumably the above comments are made by anonymous "editors" who come from outside the UK, and are ignorant of the TV Channel. I saw the Global Warming programme and was impressed by the range of scientific opinion it presented. Good TV should stimulate discussion of controversial topics, especially global warming, despite the clamour from eco-fascists and gullible politicians. This story has not yet fnished and has a long way to run, and Wiki does not need censorship!

Peterlewis 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The TV show had nine dissenters, didn't it? How do you feel about the fact that the TV program didn't give a voice to the 2,500 climate scientists who think those nine are simply wrong? Do you think that you should be reading the peer-reviewed scientific literature instead of watching TV when trying to understand controversial scientific issues? James S. 16:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Specify the "nine dissenters". We in the UK have had so much of the global warming propaganda that people are turning off the whole debate. TV programmes are debating fora, to stimulate discussion. You probably come from somewhere else where debate is squashed. In the UK we believe in democratic debate, so that controversial topics can be aired and debated. The Channel 4 show showed scientists who were part of the alleged 2500 consensual climate scientists, but who declned to accept either their conclusions or their ludcrous proposals on energy matters.

Peterlewis 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

One scientist featured, Carl Wunsch said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, calling it "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two.". Mostlyharmless 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It goes further than that - according to the Independent Television Commission, "Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them… as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs." The issue is covered by Ben Goldacre here and here. --h2g2bob 01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the ITC remarks were about an earlier show by the same producer. But given Wunsch's protest we may hear similar statement on the present show. It will be interesting to see if other scientists feel they were misrepresented. Raymond Arritt 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. You're right. Just watching the program now: it makes some points which are quite valid (such as funding, which worries me too; and use to oppress the 3rd world, as if the politicians need an excuse). But the scientific evidence presented is in my opinion misleading. --h2g2bob 04:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I did watch the program, I thought it was interesting, but extremely one sided, i.e. a polemic. It misrepresented the case of people who believe in man made global warming, it contained quite a lot of material which was supposed to be relevant but wasn't (i.e. how much CO2 is in the atmosphere; what matters is what effect it has, not the absolute quantity.) Some of the suggestions, e.g. that the global warming debate was stopping Africa industrialising, just seemed ludicrous to me. However it made two valid points: a) in the last major case of global warming, according to the ice core record, the warming started 800 years before rises in CO2 (and warming is known to increase CO2 levels because of changes in ocean chemistry); and b) a lot of people's jobs now depend on global warming existing and being created by human action.

I for one would like to see the 800 year point made in the main Misplaced Pages Global Warming article (e.g. the temperature record), or perhaps one of the sub articles. As far as I can tell it is true. It does not necessarily disprove man made global warming, because the first 800 years could have been caused by another process, and then CO2 could have accelerated the process in a feedback loop. If we are to have an honest discussion about global warming then I think we need to talk about these things and attempt to explain them, not ignore them.

I don't think any more weight needs to be given to the programme than that however, as it was made by someone who is known to be biased and who has previously been severely criticised for distorting people's views. He appears to have done it again to some extent in this programme as well, looking at Wunsch's comments.

--Merlinme 12:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the 800y stuff is that while its a nice skeptic talking point, it has no scientific validity (ie, you won't find *any* scientific papers arguing that 800 lag implies anything about current warming) William M. Connolley 12:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"No scientific validity" is surely too strong. For example, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ (and the comments which follow) discuss it with some seriousness. When we're dealing with something as complicated as the atmosphere which evolves over thousands of years, and we only have a few decades of modern data which appear to show a correlation between manmade CO2 and warming, then surely correlation vs. causation has to be considered?

--Merlinme 12:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a common misperception that the correlation of CO2 and temperature is used as "proof" or evidence for the causal relationship. But that is incorrect. The causal relationship follows from the emission and absorbtion spectra of the the earth, the sun, and CO2, and was known long before any measurements could be made to confirm it. The fact that CO2 and temperature are strongly correlated in the paleo record just confirms this relationship. --Stephan Schulz 12:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but it's surely relevant that the most recently observed case of global warming in the ice core record was instigated by a non CO2 cause? The main argument is about the extent to which recently observed warming is caused by manmade CO2 vs. other causes. --Merlinme 13:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? If you could find a sci paper discussing possible relevance, then yes it would be. The RC piece you linked to discusses why it *isn't* relevant. All I ever see from the skeptics is "T lead CO2 in the ice cores; therefore CO2 doesn't cause GW today". This is just not an argument, its two things thrown together. Have you ever seen a more coherent version of this that makes logical sense? William M. Connolley 13:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, what about the argument I just constructed: the most recent cause of global warming in the ice core record was not caused by CO2, therefore have we fully discounted other causes when considering what is causing the current case of global warming? Look, I'm attempting to play devil's advocate here. I want there to be a sensible discussion of why the ice core record does not mean we can ignore CO2. But I'm sure I'm not the only person who wants this to be explained. Ice core records are frequently given as evidence that high CO2 = high temperature. If the high temperature comes first, is this a sensible way of presenting the ice core evidence?

--Merlinme 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the current article has science in it, not non-science. You're arguing for a section discouting various myths about GW. Which might well be reasonable. Well... how about "It is sometimes asserted that because ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 800 years at glacial terminations, CO2 cannot be causing temperature rises today. This is a logical non-sequitor; and as far as can be told CO2 *was* involved in temperature rises during deglaciations: but they were triggered by other factors . As far as can be told, this has no relevance for global warming today"? William M. Connolley 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the alternative view, no matter how ludicrous it may, or may not be perceived, should be included in the article? As long as there is evidence to back it up (which it appears there may be having discussed it above), then it at least warrants a mention on the article. 500 years ago, Galileo was quashed due to thinking that Earth wasn't at the centre of the Universe. The two have similar circumstances. No matter how ridiculous an idea might be perceived, it merits a mention for the fact it is an ongoing theory into global warming, whether it is a scientific theory or not. The article is about Global Warming, not Scientific Theories regarding Global Warming. Whilst the programme may well have been biased, there's no reason for the wikipedia article to be too - if it only protrays one of the sides, then the article will be biased towards the CO2 theory. On that basis, I think this alternative merits inclusion. Alex Holowczak 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, what's needed is a serious scientific reference that gives the idea credibility. We can't include every idea that appears in a TV show. (By the way it's probably best to refrain from the Galileo Gambit). Raymond Arritt 21:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares, there is now a section "Arguments which dispute attribution to CO2" on the "Attribution_of_recent_climate_change" page. It was originally created by William M. Connolley as "Myths of attribution". I've attempted to rewrite it to present the argument more fairly, although I still think it is essentially wrong. Merlinme 10:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is this program for everyone to see, and to judge for themselves. Those who claim that it contains no scientific evidence are brazen liars. I don't know how Mr, Connolley is capable of looking into his mirror. 66.82.9.87 22:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See my response under "IPCC", below for my well sourced rebuttal to this program. 66.82.9.87, please do not spam your posts. We do read it even if you post it once. --h2g2bob 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

talk page length

A bit of track but this talk page is exceedingly long. Is it possible that the rate of archiving can be increased? For anyone trying to look at recent updates and debates on the main article this lot can be a bit daunting. --Chickenfeed9 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. ~ UBeR 02:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also begin to expect reoccurring discussions, almost verbatim, to take place, as it is the norm after archiving. ~ UBeR 01:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

'Consensus'

I'm troubled by the use of the word 'consensus' both in the article and in the above discussion. Consensus means 'majority opinion' of 'general view'. Says who? Where is the evidence to back up the statement that 'most people' or 'most scientists' share whichever point is in question?

The most prominent misuse of the word is in the Causes section: "The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies greenhouse gases as the main influence."

I recommend this be amended to: "The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but IPCC papers identify greenhouse gases as the main influence."

If this article is to stick strictly to facts (which I would hope its authors aspire to), then emotive words such as 'consensus' have no place here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rymix (talk • contribs).

Consensus is well justified and sourced. It is, e.g. used in the Joint Academies of Science statement and by Oreskes' paper. And the IPCC does not publish "papers", it summarizes and integrates the literature into substantive reports (btw, using a consensus process). --Stephan Schulz 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Those groups you mention are made up of selected members which do not span the entire scientific community (which, in this example, is the context in which the word 'consensus' is used). Therefore any consensus is inherently skewed by the membership of the group. If the word consensus is to be used, it should be accompanied by the name of the group to which the 'consensus' can be attributed.

Rymix 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the academies do not say "there is consensus among us". They report the general consensus they perveive (and say that they agree as well). You cannot ask for a better source on such a topic as a unanimous declaration of the most respected scientific organizations on the planet (well, maybe you can, but not reasonably). --Stephan Schulz 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not an actual consensus has been achieved and by whom is not the point of my argument. I am saying that there is a difference between journalistic writing and the style of reporting one would expect in an encyclopedia. This article must remain credible and impartial in its use of language, otherwise it's just a collection of opinions, much like your observation that the academies to which you refer are 'the most respected scientific organisations on the planet' - the obvious difference being that you have tagged this opinion with your name, so the reader knows it's just an opinion.

Rymix 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you want to go back to Descartes (Cogito, ergo sum, and all that), you must accept certain things as facts. For all practical purposes, the Royal Society, the United States National Academy of Sciences, the French Académie des sciences, the Italian Accademia dei Lincei and so on are the most respected scientific organizations in their respective countries, and overall, in the world. Most of them have been around for centuries, several for longer than the countries that now host them. This is no more a mere opinion than the "opinion" that you have to pay taxes, or that parts of the Northern hemisphere will switch to DST around this time of the year.--Stephan Schulz 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

All of your previous post is entirely irrelevant. All I'm saying is that 'scientific consensus' is nearly bound to be a false consensus, especially on contentious subjects such as global warming. Therefore this should be acknowledged in the copy itself through the explicit inclusion of the source.

Rymix 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rymix - you are quite right, but don't expect anyone to ever admit it! Don't bother trying to argue your case - it just wastes time - make the changes and then argue the toss later! 88.111.137.110 23:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As Schulz stated, "For all practical purposes, the Royal Society, the United States National Academy of Sciences, the French Académie des sciences, the Italian Accademia dei Lincei and so on are the most respected scientific organizations in their respective countries, and overall, in the world. Most of them have been around for centuries, several for longer than the countries that now host them. This is no more a mere opinion than the "opinion" that you have to pay taxes, or that parts of the Northern hemisphere will switch to DST around this time of the year" Indeed, this represents an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. Wikipediatoperfection 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with consensus is that finding scientific truth is not a democratic process. Sometimes all the experts are wrong. Often, it's the wild-eyed radical who is right. The theory of continental drift, now called plate tectonics, leaps to mind. History is the final arbiter. And, I may be dating myself here, but I can remember when the consensus was that the world was getting colder and the worry was that we were drifting into a new ice age. Phew! Thank goodness that problem went away, by consensus. RockyMtnGuy 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was the wide-eyed radicals that turned out to be right. I remember seeing them sitting behind a table at Uni 25 years ago warning about global warming and thinking, geeze, I hope those guys are wrong. Only took a quarter of a century for George Bush and Exxon to come around. -- Michael Johnson 04:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that George Bush has finally come around to the consensus shows something. Look, it could just be normal fluctuations, not caused by humans. However, the best info says that there is a less than 5% chance of this being the case. The best info says with over 90% certainty that this is indeed a problem and that we have unleashed it upon ourselves. That is about as good as it gets short of doing nothing to reduce our emissions such that we can really know if today's predictions are accurate. I hope that that we end up on the low side of the predictions. I hope that we take steps to significantly reduced emissions. However, as you pointed out, there is a difference between science and politics. Much of the "controversy" over global warming over the past 6 years has been politically generated through intellectual dishonesty. The best example being Bush Administration report "editing." Beyond that most news stories which question global warming do so in a intellectually dishonest fashion as well. The few legitimate scientists who do not think this is a problem all acknowledge that their opinions are contradictory to that of the vast majority of the scientific community. They also address it as a scientific rather than political argument. Virtually no news stories which question global warming acknowledge that the vast majority of the scientific community has come to as much of a consensus on global warming and climate change as the scientific community comes to on any subject. The real scientific controversy is not if it is happening, but at what rate? What will its effects be? Will it melt the ice caps? Will it not melt the ice caps, but still rise enough to disrupt agriculture???? Wikipediatoperfection 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Still my original point stands: Misplaced Pages should publish facts. The fact is that is that consensus has been reached by a group of select science representatives. The article should report as such.

Rymix 09:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

by a group of select science representatives? How about every scientist practicing in relevent fields, less a couple of dozen standouts. -- Michael Johnson 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The purpose of the article should be be to present facts. The names of the group(s) that have presented these consensual reports are important facts that the reader should fully be made aware of. The exclusion of this information brings with it its own inferences, which is a dangerous position for an wikipedia entry to find itself in.

Rymix 15:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could list all the institutions and scientists that agree with the consensus, but that would be a list far too long for an article, and impossible to complete. -- Michael Johnson 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you define as a scientific consensus Rymix? Because every scientist practicing in the relevent fields, except a couple dozen standouts, is about as close to a scientific consensus as it comes. You may agree or disagree with their conclusions, but they do represent a scientific consensus. Wikipediatoperfection 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The issues identified above are good cause to add a fact tag to the sentence claiming consensus. Please add a citation that meets WP:A or alter the sentence to make it acceptable. --Tjsynkral 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with User:Tjsynkral in that I believe that suggesting that "a (scientific) consensus exists" is POV, and is in dispute. Is it sugested that "that IPCC has released a report, therefore it inescapably follows that a 'scientific consensus' (however defined) currently exists"? To make such an assertion (IPCC therefore consensus), requires justification. Turning aside, elsewhere we find similar examples of POV-indicator words such as "consensus" and "mainstream" to be present in related wikipedia articles, even in articles which discuss whether or not a consensus exists! (Worst of all, one article carries the word "mainstream" in its title.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CecilWard (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I am reverting User:UBeR's improper synthesis tag. The statement of "consensus" reflects an opinion that is unfounded and lacks a citation. Do not remove this tag until the consensus statement is modified to conform to WP:OR. --Tjsynkral 03:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Growing Backlash

The NY Times today has an interesting article on the growing backlash against overzealous statements about global warming. It is especially critical of Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth and the way it tied global warming to hurricanes. A middle ground is emerging between the Warmers like Al Gore and the Skeptics like Benny Peiser. The scientists in the middle are demanding more accuracy in statements about global warming and less hype. I think this article may deserved to be mentioned in the article. RonCram 13:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. The article takes Peiser as a credible source on existence of a consensus. Raymond Arritt 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I have spent much time in Northern Canada hoping global warming would kick in as soon as possible, I was astounded at how many errors there were in Gore's book. Apparently the publisher who printed it doesn't have a science editor to clean up the zingers. Among other things, Al talks about the "drunken trees of the tundra". But there are no trees in the tundra by definition. Tundra is the zone where the climate is too cold for trees to survive. Then he has pictures of buildings collapsing because of melting permafrost due to "global warming". Building in permafrost is not easy. If you build a basement, the heat from it melts the permafrost and it sinks into the ground, as in the picture. If you build a multi-story apartment, you have to drive piles right to bedrock to prevent it from melting the permafrost and collapsing, as in the picture. And then, there's the mountain pine beetle, which according to Al is killing the "spruce" trees because of global warming. Al is unclear on the difference between pine and spruce. Since my back yard is an official pine beetle control zone, let me explain. The lodgepole pine is fast-growing, short-lived tree that doesn't bother to fight off beetles because it thrives where forest fires regularly destroy all the trees and kill all the beetles. The first tree to bounce back is the lodgepole pine because the heat from the fire causes the seeds to germinate. If there are no forest fires, the spruce will take over. The real problem here is that a century of controlling forest fires has resulted in huge numbers of overmature pines, which is not the natural condition of the forest, and so the pine beetle is killing them in drives. If you want to fix the problem, toss a match into the forest and restore it to its natural state. My solution, since I don't want to burn down the house, is to plant spruce between the old pines. The above is just a sample of the misinformation, it's a book written by a politician for political reasons. RockyMtnGuy 04:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A Simple Analysis

The normal CO2 rise between a glacial period and an interglacial period is about 100ppm, the associated temperature rise is about 18-20 degrees F as best I can tell from the article's graphs. The current CO2 level appears to be another 100ppm above the normal interglacial level. Why has the temperature not risen a proportional amount (another 18-20 degrees F) instead of a degree or two? Tobyw 14:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rate of sea level change graph shows quite rapid melting from early on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png Tobyw 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the ice ages were caused mainly by slow variations in the Earth-sun geometry, not by CO2 (though CO2 was involved in feedback effects). See Milankovitch cycles for details. Raymond Arritt 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure thats really right, though its part of it. Another part is that we haven't finished responding to the raised CO2 - we have another degree or so to go. Another is that the forcing is like log(CO2) not linear. Another is that the *global* changes were more like 4-5 oC (?) - not sure about your numbers, maybe for Greenland? Another is that the glacial sees vast ice sheets over N America which have a big feedback effect William M. Connolley 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who wants a fair summary of this whole issue should find a TV programme called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - Channel 4 aired it in the UK on 08/03/07.

And then what should they do with that laughable rubbish (which I enjoyed of course) in order to get to this fair summary you are refering to? --BozMo talk 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This TV program is not a "laughable rubbish." It is a documentary quoting several top-notch scientists, specialists in climatology, demonstrating the futility of emotional fanatical environmentalism in the face of facts. Anyone interested can judge for themselves here: (link to copyright violation removed - see WP:EL) 69.19.14.34 05:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Betting on Global Warming

Can anyone tell me where I can bet a few hundred pounds on Global Warming not happening? 88.111.137.110 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Weather Betting Information

Standard markets for betting on the weather are temperature markets, where punters back predictions for the temperature in a given month. Options include exact prediction or backing a temperature range, for example x degrees or higher/lower. Given the nature of the market, betting options are seasonal with top temperature prediction being the standard during British summertime to be replaced by lowest temperature markets in winter. Also look out other weather specials such as the occasional average rainfall markets. As we began to suggest above, not every bookie will offer markets for weather bets. In fact, out of all the bookies we checked, only one site had such markets. .... Pity about that! 88.111.137.110 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Willam has a standing offer at User:William M. Connolley/betting on climate change. --Stephan Schulz 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why Mars has Global Warming? Is it because of Martian SUV's or because of Al Gore's mansion?

It does not, read the second page of that article.--Stephan Schulz 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is an example of why many people consider Misplaced Pages and its so-called NPOV a joke. 70.108.101.57 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. --Stephan Schulz 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't really a joke, but the Kyoto Agreement has its humorous moments. After reading the latest International Energy Agency forecast, I added a few sentences to the article pointing out that China (exempt from Kyoto) is going to become the world's largest emitter of CO2 either this year or next, and China and India (also exempt) are going to account for 80% of the increase in world coal use for the next 25 years. So, if you believe in the greenhouse effect, put your money into beachfront property in Alaska, because Kyoto ain't gonna stop anything. RockyMtnGuy 03:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only not going to stop anything (because of China and India and Russia and other things) but would cost the United States such a huge amount of money for very little back. Which is why the US refused to sign it, as they should have refused. Kyoto is counter-productive. Ever notice it's the large industrialized countries that do a lot on their own to make things cleaner and then are asked to pay more to make things cleaner for the poluting countries? "You make so much money, it's only fair." is not a good argument. Help your economic rivals by doing things they don't have to and making them more competitive? That's crazy. Everyone on this planet would be hurt by Kyoto, for nothing. Why does everyone want to make things worse in the name of making them better? What kind of lunatic wants to spend billions of dollars to freeze Co2 and put it in underground storage tanks? We'd be better off jetisoning this kind of nonsense unreason and pay attention to the real problem -- the population size and power of fanatics, and fanatics possibly getting nuclear weapons. You think Co2 (you know, the stuff plants breathe) and methane (you know, the stuff animals expel) are bad? Try a 5 kiloton detonation in Frankfurt or a suitcase full of powdered nuclear waste in The Tube's air system. Sln3412 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The US did sign the Kyoto treaty, of course. And the rest of your contribution is similarly informed.--Stephan Schulz 17:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This "article" (editorial) makes a mockery of Science

(Look at what the cat dragged in)

"The vast majority of climate scientists in the world seriously and objectively studies what it is that influences global climate changes. We don't hear as much from them in the media as we do from the far smaller but also far more vocal minority of climate scientists who make a living by publicizing alarmist and often outrageous claims about man's detrimental influence on the global climate. ...Objective scientists find that the evidence supporting a man-made global warming trend is at best skimpy.""Global Warming Explained The solar constant isn't constant. The sun is a variable star" (HTML). Bruderheim REA. Retrieved 2007-03-14. So according to the wast "silent majority" of climatologists don't believe in global warming. The rest are ones cashing in on spreading alarming propaganda. Don't you wish you could edit their web page and insert a in several select places? Kgrr 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is this program for everyone to see, and to judge for themselves. Those who claim that it contains no scientific evidence are brazen liars. I don't know how Mr, Connolley is capable of looking into his mirror. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831 66.82.9.87 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See my response under "IPCC", below for my well sourced rebuttal to this program. Let me say that director Martin Durkin actually IS a liar. See also this article in The Telegraph for how he deals with criticism by name calling. Finally, 66.82.9.87, please do not spam your posts. We do read it even if you post it once. --h2g2bob 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Man made C02 emissions as percentage of total world emissions

Will someone find a pie chart or facts showing man made C02 emissions as a percentage of the total C02 produced on earth? i.e. including sea, other animals, volcanoes, etc.

I heard on the Channel 4 Global Warming program that man made C02 emissions are actually only a small fraction of total world C02 emissions and so we think we control the situation with greenhouse gases whereas actually we only have a miniscule effect compared to nature... I think hard facts on this issue would be worthwhile for the debate. GJ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.101.189 (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

As with many of the statements in TGGWS documentary, this falls into the "true but irrelevant" category. The natural sources and sinks are (for all practical purposes) in balance. Fossil fuel burning adds a source term but not a corresponding sink, so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. Also measurements of changes in the isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 confirm that fossil fuels are cause of increased CO2. There are plenty of uncertainties in the science of climate change -- but the reason for the CO2 increase isn't one of them. Raymond Arritt 20:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You can find more at Carbon cycle, including a nice diagram. Man-made emissions are somewhere in the 2-4% range. However, they make up about 160% of the actual surplus (the 60% are currently absorbed in various sinks, mostly the ocean). --Stephan Schulz 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I intepret what you said as the carbon cycle being steady state. Will the surplus fossil fuel burning generated CO2 not find a 'sink' to maintain stedy state? What mechanism has caused CO2 concentrations to be within a narrow channel, unlike the current trend caused by fossil fuel generated CO2? Furthermore, how can we say with certainty, temperature is a function of fossil fuel CO2 concentrations? In other words, how will the fossil generated CO2, that is as you say represents a relatively small portion of CO2 emission into the atmosphere cause such a dramatic rise in temperature as the models predict? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Much is explained in the global warming article itself, as well as related articles such as greenhouse gas. Your colleagues at PCMDI can fill in details. Raymond Arritt 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Climate models can only validated by actual temperature measurement

I consider myself neutral on this subject. I have sifted through the scientific literature and popular media and nothing I've seen proves or disprove the theory of anthropogenic warming beyond doubt. And don't forget, amongst all the arguing--only experiment can dispell doubt. With a large and complex system such as our climate with many coupled variables it makes it impossible to perform a controlled experiment in the laboratory at this time.

And unfortunately computer models, such as the various climate models, do not generate experimental data because they depend on assumption. Furthermore it's impossible to predict how these assumption interact. Computer models in general are notoriously unreliable and therefore should not be trusted until validated by experiment. Remember, models are written by programmers (the same people who write windows and computer viruses). Programmers are human. As we all know humans make errors, much of them unforeseeable. That’s why software development has a critical step known as beta testing where ‘debugging’ occurs. With scientific models the important debugging feedback loop is generated by comparing the model to the experimental data. Several generations of bugging are required to develop a robust model of any scientific phenomenon. Therefore to validate the climate models we must measure the climate itself. Unfortunately it seems this will take a long time.

How long is uncertain. In terms of geological reconstructed temperature data we see significant temperature changes occurring in frequency of at least hundreds of years. That's quite a long time to wait to validate a model. After including error in this reconstructed data and any incorrect assumptions and the correlation length will grow further. Since we are only now in the early stages of this grand climate experiment it is hard to imagine how any conclusions can be written in stone.

Simply looking back at the history of science you'll see many popular theories later disproved and mostly forgotten over a generation. Therefore it should not surprise us if the current popular theory of anthropogenic 'green house' CO2 caused warming, which this Misplaced Pages article claims as the consensus view, to be disproved by experiment and mostly forgotten as other have in the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

By that sense then, the article will be updated accordingly when the future comes. Most of the data is concentrated on current data, not expected future data. Just by trend alone, we can make some inductions. So it would be nonsensical to forget about the article and theory of global warming simply because there's a possibility of being "disproved by experiment" (because it hasn't yet). ~ UBeR 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You say Just by trend alone, we can make some inductions, however there's a problem with using trends to predict future behaviour. The difficulty is that you have to assume a causal relationship. The climate change data shows a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, but that's a long way short of a demonstrating causation. Of course you can hypothesize a causal relationship via a model such as greenhouse warming, but how do you parameterize that model when all you've got is the same data, which shows a correlation, that prompted you to consider a causal relationship in the first place? Fizzackerly 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Climate models don't work by extrapolating past trends. The radiation parameterizations are based on line-by-line absoroption/emission properties of radiatively-active gases as can be measured in the laboratory. The relationship of CO2 to temperature then is a result of the physics, not an assumption. Raymond Arritt 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

128.115.27.10 hardly sounds like a 'neutral' person, as he/she strictly toes the skeptics argument line. They didn't even sign their name... Skyemoor 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The comments by 128.115.27.10 sound reasonable and sensible to me. I work in the area of structural failure, and predictions of the lifetimes of oil rigs, buildings and bridges is fraught with problems, even in the rather short time scales of decades. A finite element analysis can be way out if the data input is flawed, and just the same applies to global warming models. What if new phenomena are discovered in the interim which throw the calculations? Caution is needed in interpreting the results of computer models, especially in view of the fact that short-term models used to predict the weather are frequently inaccurate, despite the hype by meteorologists.

Peterlewis 06:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A great deal of caution is used with these models. If a number of reputable engineers told you that they had computer models showing that a bridge you'd designed was unstable and would collapse, would "let's wait and see" be the right response? More generally, this is a scientific question about how to deal with situations where n=1 and can never be greater than one. Experiments cannot be performed as we would require of physics or even biology. More precisely, they can be performed exactly once, and then you'll have to live with the results. bikeable (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Akward temp formatting

Right now we have our temperature format as # °C/F. Just wondering why this is, as it is most typical to have as #° C/F. All of the sources for this article either have it like the latter or no space at all. I suggest we use the latter of my examples. ~ UBeR 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I just flipped through a dozen or so articles from several journals in the field. Most don't use a space. I found one that uses # °C. I'd prefer no space, but don't particularly care as long as it's consistent. Raymond Arritt 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Solar

I have rewritten and considerably compressed the solar section. Please complain here. It was far too bitty, with too much detail that ought to be in the sub article. This was prompted by, and overwrote, Dansphere's changes: apologies (on which subject, Image:Cosmic_rays_and_temperature_showing_recent_anomaly.JPG looks like a copyvio) William M. Connolley 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"It appears likely taht solar variations..." Typo, plus, "It appears likely that...", isn't a formal scientific writing style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

IPCC

Given some of the accusations and counter-accusations surrounding the IPCC, don't you think that the IPCC material belongs in Global warming controversy instead of in this article? --Don't lose that number 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The IPCC, like the UN, has an official consensus status despite sometimes getting into contraversy. --BozMo talk 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Official consensus status." Heh. ~ UBeR 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is this program for everyone to see, and to judge for themselves. Those who claim that it contains no scientific evidence are brazen liars. I don't know how Mr, Connolley is capable of looking into his mirror. 66.82.9.87 22:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While watching The Great Global Warming Swindle, consider that some of the graphs are doctored, some other data is from a source which has well known inaccuracies, yet more data is many years out of date, one of the scientists claims to have been misrepresented by the program, and director Martin Durkin has previously been in trouble with TV regulator Ofcom over another documentary on gloabl warming 10 years ago, the result of which Channel 4 had to make a prime time apology. Further notice the large number of good-quality references in my statement, and notice the utter lack of any supporting evidence on the Channel 4 website. In the words of Marcus Brigstocke, "someone's pants are on fire. Who's are they? They're Martin Durkin's." --h2g2bob 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this pseudo-science is not legitimate. They admit in the document they have not provided any of the data but have only "collected" it. Why not just stick with primary sources rather than some pseudo-governmental group. Please leave the science up to the scientists, not the politicians. Without this "source" much of the argument fails70.20.192.207 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent findings section

I tried to create the following section today. it was deleted. Is there some reason that some people seem unable to accept this kind of section? I thought others' ideas were welcome at Misplaced Pages. Thanks.

Recent Developments and Findings

Note: In addition to being a scientific concept, global warming is also a societal issue. This section will be for documenting various recent findings and statements by various groups. If you prefer to focus on the scientific aspects, then that is fine. However, please do not veto others' ideas about might be valid here. Thanks for your help.

--Steve, Sm8900 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who deleted it, but suspect the problem was that the section contained no actual information. By the way, don't use language like "this section will be for..." in the text visible to the reader -- include it as a comment, if necessary. Raymond Arritt 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. That's a valid question. Once I added the section, I added a recent finding by the NOAA that Dec 06 -Feb 07 was the warmest winter on record. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I've deleted the section. The first part, an editorial comment, does not belong on the article page, but only onto this talk page. If you feel you need it on the article space, format it as an HTML comment <!--- Like this --->, so that it is only visible to editors, not to readers. "Recent developments" is not a good title, as a) what is recent changes permanently (and this is not WikiNews), and b) its bound to become an unorganized list of vaguely related points, with few of them put into a suitable context for interpretation. Temperatures of a single winter, for example, are suggestive, but irrelevant for global warming. That's why I suggested (in my edit summary) to put it into instrumental temperature record, an article that deals with just these measurements. I think a section on extreme seasons and years would fit in very nicely there (2007 is warmest winter, the 10 warmest winters were in the last 12 years, 1998 and 2005 are the warmest years, and so on). --Stephan Schulz 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stephan. thanks for your reply. i understand your point. however, my point is that we could use a section for societal issues and developments, along with the more scientific sections. So that's why it seems fine to have a section which tracks these; it would not be simply semi-related points, but it would be valuable for tracking societal developments, which are extremely relevant to this issue. --Steve, User:Sm8900 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A "Recent findings" section is a bad idea. If there are any noteworthy recent findings, they can be incorporated into the article accordingly. That's not to say, of course, that other issues unrelated to the scientific prose cannot be discussed. ~ UBeR 19:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

'a) what is recent changes permanently' I know of a recent idea that changes, It's called global warming and it is so recent that we haven't proven what causes it yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.133.59 (talk • contribs)

I understand. However, I would still like a recent developments section, which can reflect new events in societal, political and organizational areas, along with scientific areas. --Steve, Sm8900 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, it can be integrated. ~ UBeR 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy pages recommend that "Misplaced Pages authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." What's current is constantly changing and thus will quickly become obsolete. As UBeR and others have already mentioned, important new findings are better integrated into the article as appropriate. Raymond Arritt 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

terminology and AGW

Just to explain my recent edit... I was redirected to this article from a search on AGW, which, it seems to me, is the precise term in use in the community of climatologists to refer to the current warming. So I found it a little jarring to read that 'global warming' is both the common and the scientific term in use. Simply not true, though of course scientists will use the common term when talking to the public and among themselves informally. Also, the standard convention when referring to a term as a term, rather than to its referent is to enclose the term in single quotes. Baon 17:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC) I should add that I examined the cite given and found no evidence that 'global warming' is a scientific term. The cite seems to be only a support of the anthropogenic claim. Baon 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Double quotation marks per MoS and formal American English. ~ UBeR 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Both terms are used in the scientific literature (as will be confirmed by a quick search on "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming"). "Global warming" (with "anthropogenic" usually implicit) is more common but "anthropogenic global warming" is useful especially when there is a specific need to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural components of the warming. Raymond Arritt 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out, the results for the former search loses about 20,000 articles when the word "anthropogenic" is not included. ~ UBeR 19:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I get about 90000 hits for "global warming", 411 for "anthropogenic global warming" (and 22600 when searching for individual words, not the whole phrase). All on http://scholar.google.org, of course. On Google it's 67,000,000 vs. 100,000. Did you mix up scholar and Google proper?--Stephan Schulz 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he means "global warming" but with a negative on "anthropogenic", like this. Raymond Arritt 19:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! --Stephan Schulz 19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a little unfair, however, since it eliminates things with "global warming" and "anthropogenic" anywhere, while presumably we want to eliminate things that have the exact phrase "anthropogenic global warming" like so: . I have no idea exactly what's happening with the count there, but it is interesting (probably some sort of Google artifact). -- Leland McInnes 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the original point, we've established that "global warming" is indeed commonly used in the scientific literature. Move along... Raymond Arritt 20:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Guess I'm a little out of my depth. But no one changed it back, so I guess my edit wasn't too atrocious. Someone did replace the double quotes. My read of the MoS is actually italics, not double or single quotes. Sorry, I wasn't aware of the MoS. Baon 04:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are all the older predictions?

Every 2 months the Popular Science magazine would come out with a new doomesday global warming graph. In one issue from the early 1990's we should be 10-20 degrees warmer by 2007. Where are all the older predictions?

These older preditions would serve a comedic value to a particularly bland subject, I think this is essential to the entire subject to get more people interested in Global Warming. 70.176.5.79 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Popular Science magazine, but early 1990's predictions as reported in the scientific literature weren't anywhere near as dramatic as that. The best sources for the older predictions are the previous IPCC reports, available here. Raymond Arritt 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading about Global warming in an old magazine in the loo it was talking about 70m rise is see level - I've left it there where it can serve some useful purpose. Future psycologists are going to have a field day looking at fear and dread produced by a few early daffodils! Mike 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Disinformation

Check out the wiki article on disinformation. It will explain the whole Global Warming hoax...--68.80.207.22 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. When I tried to point out that Global Warming is a disinfomation hoax, my post was immediately removed. It's a shame people blindly follow the masses without actually doing the research. 70.20.192.207 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ref 31

Please can I have the page number where the claims attributed to this reference are? I can find China overtaking the USA "by 2010" but not the other bit? I think it might make more sense to include some of the other figures about the percentage of the worlds CO2 from other sources? --BozMo talk 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I, too, found the bit saying China would be world leader in emissions before 2010. Sentence was changed to reflect this. ~ UBeR 23:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral POV Disputed

I think it is clear looking at this Talk page that on many fronts, the neutrality of this article is disputed. I feel that this template:

{{POV}}

ought to be included atop the article so the casual reader has an opportunity to read the comments on this talk page and decide for himself whether or not the article is neutral.

What needs to be established here is not, necessarily, whether the article is neutral - only whether the article's neutrality is, in fact, disputed (and I believe the consensus will show that there is an ongoing dispute to that end).

Discuss. Tjsynkral 21:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally each time a POV flag is discussed here there is a consensus for removing it. This article with this approximate stance has gone through a lot of editors review in becoming a featured article. I don't think that would be possible if there was a serious POV dispute about it. There are minority views on this as well as on the article but the consensus ain't bad in my view. --BozMo talk 21:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. If you look above at the NPOV Dispute itself you will see that the issue has far from reached consensus. It is an ongoing dispute and if anything can be called at this point, I see more reason to keep than to drop the POV template. Tjsynkral 21:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BozMo, consensus is good, which is suggested by the fact that only minor, and well-referenced, changes are being made to the article. Every attempt to label the discussion as POV above has been rejected because, in general, referenced litterature is of poorer quality than that of the article. Narssarssuaq 21:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Every attempt to label the discussion as POV is reverted out by a very vocal group of edit warrers who prefer that a user not make the decision for himself. The pervasiveness of certain users who revert out the POV tag is not evidence of a consensus. Consensus can only be judged by comments made on the Talk page, and a review of the Talk page shows that the majority of comments claiming neutrality are made by a few people, and the majority of comments disputing neutrality are made by many people.Tjsynkral 21:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You could be right, but trying to be more constructive: Precisely which portions of the article are of poor quality, and how is neutrality compromised? The problem with most of the edits on the talk page that you mention is that they don't cite scientific literature to back their claims. If they had, I can assure you they would be taken most seriously. Narssarssuaq 21:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Much scientific literature is cited on Global warming controversy. The fact that the article stands as it is today is evidence that its content largely meets WP:A. Whether or not this content belongs on the main GW page, and how much, is part of the dispute -- which is ongoing. Keep POV. --Tjsynkral 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked. What little scientific literature is cited is overwhelmingly on the mainstream/IPCC side. Most of the rest is fluff, opinion pieces, unreviewed reports, popular press articles, and so on. It's attributable, but it's not scientific literature.--Stephan Schulz 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if in your personal opinion the articles are scientific literature. They are attributable and therefore valid, so they are entitled to fair representation in the main article on GW. --Tjsynkral 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion, but, it this case, simply a matter of fact. But you are a bit unclear. Do you still claim any significan amount of sceptic scientific literature is cited in Global warming controversy, or do you acknowledge that nearly all of the sceptic "publicatons" are popular press or unreviewed reports, but still think they should be represented? If the second, do you think they should be given equal weight with real scienific publications?--Stephan Schulz 00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

According to your user page, you are a "computer science researcher" (probably student) - not an environmental biologist. Which means that you are entitled to your opinion, but you have absolutely no way of judging one scientist from another without knowing them and their work intimately. The scientific method dictates that contradicting research not be ignored or swept under the rug. --Tjsynkral 00:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain that if you can find my user page, you can click one or two links further to find out about the probability of my student status. You are right in the claim that outside my own field I'm not particularly qualified to evaluate the work of others directly (although "absolutely no way" is wrong - it just takes more work and is less reliable). However, having been involved with scientific publishing for a bit, I do know the difference between scientific literature and fluff pieces in the popular press, and how much weight to give either.--Stephan Schulz 07:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan is right about this. Scientific sources and 'popular' sources are like apples and oranges. On the other hand, popular sources generally rely on scientific sources, so perhaps we need to do a little digging. --Uncle Ed 15:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the article is balanced considering the status of the science. However, a number of vocal skeptical editors continue to insist on "equal time" or whatever for their mainly political opinions. Just because these skeptics make a lot of "noise" here on the talk page does not mean there is a pov problem with the article - it presents the science and includes minority questions in relation to their scientific "weight" in the issue - that's what npov means. Vsmith 21:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion on NPOV - this is a discussion on whether NPOV is disputed. Keep your comments on NPOV itself to the NPOV thread above.--Tjsynkral 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Another minor point is that the tag is not intended to be used every time there is a dispute regarding an issue (as there is here). It is only supposed to be used if the article doesn't give this dispute proper mention. In this particular case, the dispute is mentioned and linked to. Narssarssuaq 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:NPOV_dispute. The NPOV flag should appear any time there is a specific issue that is actionable within content policies. The specific issue in this article is addressed in the root post and throughout Talk:Global_warming#NPOV_Dispute - the article does not conform to Misplaced Pages policy Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks. This is a specific issue that is actionable within content policies. Therefore, the template should fly until the dispute is fully resolved.--Tjsynkral 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is mainly giving an overview of the science. This science only disputed by quite few scientists, and their minority viewpoints are properly mentioned and linked to in the article. Misplaced Pages:Content forking seems to have nothing to do with this. Narssarssuaq 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A significant number of users disagree that the minority viewpoints are properly mentioned and linked. Therefore, there is good cause for a POV. --Tjsynkral 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Funnily a couple of months ago someone actually went through a couple of months of discussion and classified all of the users based on their "status quo" or anti-establishment edits. The vast majority of editors were in agreement that the current article was about right. There were a small number of editors (who tended to be a bit SPA) who did lots of edits on this period. Not the other way round. If you have the energy, go through the archive and find the article or do the same. --BozMo talk 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

To the question as to whether the article is disputed, I would say, no, not with any informed analysis. Lots of editors drop in on this page and say, "but what about..." citing rumors or tv shows or (occasionally) actual science. In virtually all cases it has been discussed before and the few real scientific points appear on the page (e.g. solar variation).

Unfortunately, due the the high visibility and polarized political debate on this topic, it is hard to tell whether there is a reasoned debate about the neutrality of the page. But I have not seen one that I recognize as such. Perhaps we should have a comprehensive list of objections or reasons that an editor might consider the article NPOV, and we could see if any meet the standard for a reasonable objection to neutrality? bikeable (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely there should be the {{POV}} template if there is a dispute on the neutrality of the article. I only ask then you provide some arguments as to how this article does not conform to the NPOV policy. ~ UBeR 22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the {{POV}} tag should be at the top and I will put it there again because the article is clearly biased. Mike 10:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The article leans somewhat more towards the skeptic POV than it should, but not enough to need a POV tag. I've removed it again William M. Connolley 10:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The article leans somewhat more towards the skeptic POV than it should - Isnt this POV ? --Childhood's End 15:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page old fruit. We're allowed to mention our opinions about the article. Unless you'd rather we all pretended to have no opinions at all? William M. Connolley 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking any sides here, but I thought this specific discussion was about whether this article should have a POV tag according to WP policies, not according to our personal opinions. --Childhood's End 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with William. If anything, this article gives somewhat too much credit to the "controversy". But the basic science is represented correctly, and therefore I disagree with the POV tag. Hardern 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the science is represented correctly, while the rest of the science that contradicts the findings of the science cited on the GW page has been omitted and forked to Global warming controversy or Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I believe this is strong evidence of improper POV forking. --Tjsynkral 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the huge attention the controversy has been given in media etc, I could actually agree that a little more on it ideally should be mentioned in the article. The problem is that the article is already very long. Another point is that more encyclopedic information on the global warming controversy must be NPOV, and thus not necessarily positive for either of the advocate groups. Narssarssuaq 13:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

On the whole this article is pretty good, compared with some of the material on the internet, so I dont support a POV tag. If you think it is skewed, please say clearly which way you think it is skewed (I dont have time to go through archives and edits!) and which bits you object to. Here is one POV remark that should be removed: "It appears likely that solar variations are too small to directly explain a significant fraction of the observed warming". That statement is redundant now that we have cited papers arguing the case in both directions. It was already criticised by 128.115.27.10. I wonder who wrote it? Looks like it was our dear friend William! Paul Matthews 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, chummy, the statement is a lead in to the para its in, to explain why people should wish to boost solar variations with feedbacks William M. Connolley 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is being written by watermelons (i.e. green on the outside and red on the inside). The name should be changed to WACOpedia.

In my opinion, recent changes to the article by User:Blue Tie and me have removed several sources of NPOV disputes. Words like "consensus" were used frequently in the article without attributable basis (for example, when the article should only say the opinion of the IPCC). The use of weasel words is a large part of the WP:NPOV problem. --Tjsynkral 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've worked on this article for around 5 years *sigh* and it's stuck on the same point:

• Is it neutral to say that most scientists agree with AGW?
• Is it leaning toward the wrong side (as Dr. C hints) to reveal that so many scientists disagree with AGW?

The issue has to deal with the matter of assessment. Instead of just presenting the science, this article has always tried to prove AGW. And we all know that the proof or disproof of AGW is used (politically at least) to support the Kyoto Protocol.

Assessments by international and national agencies say (mostly) that the science is settled (sometimes using the word "settled" - although the article about this was deleted! - and sometimes using terms like "scientific consensus"). Assessments by many individual scientists who disagree with these agencies.

The issue for us contributing editors is whether to:

1. slant the article in favor of AGW
2. slant the article against AGW (as Dr. C says we are already doing!)
3. remain scrupulously neutral about whether AGW is "scientifically supported"

If we do #3, we must be careful not to bend over backwards and act like idiots. We must not omit anything which indicates support!

I'm just saying that we should not tell the reader that "most scientists support AGW" but rather say things like:

• According to the IPCC, NASA, etc. (list 'em all!), most scientists support AGW; and,
• According to some scientists (Lindzen, etc. - list 'em all!), it is not true that most scientists support AGW

By AGW, I mean the theory - not the phenomenon. Whether another 2 degrees Fahrenheit of warming would be good or not, is a related but distinct question. I am only addressing here what position our article should take on the "degree of unanimity of scientists" on the question of whether "most modern warming" is anthropogenic. --Uncle Ed 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'

The term "global temperature(s)" appears in the article 7 times. But now, the very concept of a "global temperature" has been called into question. Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute and others, argue that "t is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth." Thoughts anyone? Delta x 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Its non-notable nonsense William M. Connolley 09:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is notable and it should be included! Mike 10:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh! Really! Because you use an exclamation mark! OR for Some other reason!?! William M. Connolley 10:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That article is so error-filled that I'm thinking about writing one of those "Comments on..." followups to the journal, but someone likely has beat me to it. It's amazing that it was published. Raymond Arritt 15:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone should surely be critiquing the study about which the news article at issue is written, but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for original critiques. The news article was published by Science Daily, but more importantly (for notability) it was linked from the Drudge Report. The article is clearly notable. I am sure, with this level of notability, that there will be plenty of notable critiques published shortly (which would be further evidence of its notability and a de facto reproof of those who claim nn). This seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DickClarkMises 14:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees." Amazing! Good that he told me. Hardern 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's important to note that some researchers question whether data is really valid or notable if it only affects third-worlders, poor people, etc. If it starts to impinge on the lifestyle of residents of large industrialized cities, then maybe we have something to talk about. Otherwise, temperature rises, rising seas, etc, really have no place in discussions of real science. --Steve, Sm8900 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

:-) --Steve, Sm8900 16:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank god for that addition -- I caught this between edits and was sort of stunned...! bikeable (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I come from the school of Sarcasm is our Friend. :-) :-) Thanks...figured I should add that...I do know one virtue Wikipedians have is that they do follow discussions pretty closely. See you. --Steve, Sm8900 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was browsing the internet looking for information on Global Warming and found the Misplaced Pages article and this associated talk page. I am still not really sure if global warming is a problem or not. For that matter it probably resides somewhere in between the current debate. But this discussion page is something else. There is a lot of bias for both sides. If this discussion page is for what articles, theory's or opinions to add I would suggest that the lot of you should recuse yourselves. An Encyclopedia should be an unbiased resourse and relevant qualified opinions should not be dismissed or omitted. For instance in the above talk box user:Deltax asks: The term "global temperature(s)" appears in the article 7 times. But now, the very concept of a "global temperature" has been called into question. Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute and others, argue that "t is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth." Thoughts anyone? And the response from William M. Connolley is "Its non-notable nonsense". I know nothing about the professor or the institute but I click on the link and read the article in Science Daily. As a layman I have little experience with global weather and would expect to have anything I say about climate changes discounted. But a professor at the University of Copenhagans opinion is "non-notable nonsense". Interesting! I leave you with this quote: The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. --John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859).

Darrell

Can someone tell me where I might find the following: 1. A precise scientific definition of the term global temperature? 2. A complete list of names along with the credentials of the "2500+ scientific expert reviewers" who contributed to the latest IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)? Thanks. Delta x 03:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK the author/review list for AR4 isn't out yet, but the TAR list is at the obvious place: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm. For global t, it depends what you mean: if you mean "how do people construct the "global temperature records" then there are various papers you could read William M. Connolley 09:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. It'll have to do for now. Regarding global t's, all I'm looking for is a simple definition of the term. I don't want to try to formulate a definition myself after having read through "various papers." I just want to be directed to a credible reference source where said definition can be found. Surely such a source must exist. If not, I'll have no choice but to assume that the term, despite all protestations to the contrary is, in fact, utterly devoid of any scientific meaning. Again, thanks for any help you can provide. Delta x 11:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to formulate your own. I'm saying that if you look up the papers, you'll find out how its done in the "global" temperature records. As for a defn, thats a different matter William M. Connolley 11:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

But this "different matter" is the very reason for my inquiry. And so I'm still looking for an answer. Maybe Bjarne Andresen really does have a point when he says "it is impossible to talk about a single temperature for...the climate of Earth." In any event, I'm reminded at this juncture of that famous saying of Bertrand Russell:

"Mathematics is that science in which we do not know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true."

Or to paraphrase slightly:

"Global warming is that science in which we do not know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." Delta x 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's a definition you're looking for, the IPCC writes, "The global surface temperature is the area-weighted global average of (i) the sea-surface temperature over the oceans (i.e. the subsurface bulk temperature in the first few meters of the ocean), and (ii) the surface-air temperature over land at 1.5 m above the ground." ~ UBeR 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Thoughts anyone?" Since when do climate models assume that the entire Earth is in global thermal equilibrium at a single temperature? Local thermal equilibrium is assumed and that is a very good approximation. In fact, there are deviations from local thermal equilibrium, giving rise to "transport phenomena" which are included in the models. E.g., note that you can only derive the value of the viscosity from first principles using the differential collision cross section of molecules using the Boltzmann equation by considering a gas that is slightly out of local thermal equilibrium, i.e. a gas that, strictly speaking, is not described by a temperature. Count Iblis 13:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks, nobody here claimed to be discussing a "global temperature." what we are discussing is global climate conditions. So while this is an interesting and valid discussion, it does not refute any aspect of global warming theories. Just wanted to mention that. thanks. --Sm8900 14:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No one claimed we're talking about global temperature but rather global climate conditions, despite the former appearing seven times in the article and the latter none? ~ UBeR 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article should be readable to lay people, therefore subtle issues cannot be discussed. Count Iblis 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a separate article on the concept of Global Temperature itself? Delta x 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't necessarily merit its own article. You have the IPCC definition I posted above, and maybe some methods--not much.

Edit: Apparently, if you do Global temperature (n.b. lowercase "T"), it links to Global climate. It is very broad and doesn't seem to delve in to what we're discussing here. ~ UBeR 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the IPCC definition, although I did find it somewhat obscure. I suspect that most people would probably just stare at it, to use that marvelous phrase of Luther's, "like cows at a new gate." Delta x 02:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I couldn't say I disagree. They still leave ambiguity. (Area-weighted, whatever that means and how it is calculated. Subsurface bulk temperature of the first few meters of the ocean from the shores or first few meters below the surface?) Definitely, they do not clarify how representative this "average" is. ~ UBeR 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward. "Area weighted" means that a region that has lots of stations doesn't disproportionately affect the average -- the stations for a given unit area are averaged together, and then all the unit areas are averaged. The exact method is a little more complicated but that's the basic idea. Subsurface means, well, below the surface (the first few meters below the air-sea interface). Raymond Arritt 02:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That clarifies the IPCC def. a bit. But it still doesn't get to the heart of what I'm trying to understand, which is this statement by Bjarne Andresen that "the Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average." Delta x 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So start the BA page and discuss it there William M. Connolley 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was published, it shouldn't be all rubbish. Anyhow, I can see no use for it in the article at present. If it becomes clear and unison that IPCC calculations mentioned in the article are probably significantly wrong as a result of this, it should be mentioned in the article, but not before. Narssarssuaq 10:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Looking more closely into the article synopsis, I'm not sure if I understand why it was published. As experts of thermodynamics, they are probably right in their claim that temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system (whatever that is), but the rest of the synopsis contains some strange points. Narssarssuaq 11:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole topic makes no sense. What exactly is it that scientists are supposed to have suddenly realized is no longer valid? The concept that there is only one temperature for the whole planet? Who ever said there was? The concept that no one can take many local temperatures, and find an average for them? Who could argue with that simple concept? This whole question seems totally immaterial. i agree with Willam M Connolley, above, and the others. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. They seem to have concerns that apply at a microscopic level but not necessarily in a macroscopic, real-world case. Semantically, the term "global temperature" may of course "exist" if it's just defined properly. Their point seems to be that the term may be ambiguous. Although their conclusions seem far-fetched, it might be interesting to read the justifications for their claims, which judging from the name of the journal are of a thermodynamic nature. Narssarssuaq 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are plenty of problems evaluating regional and climate trends and temperature, I'm hard pressed to consider the difficulties on a global scale. ~ UBeR 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my gosh. There are difficulties evaluating anything on any scale larger than ten people. Does that mean that humanity should no longer take measurements, make hypotheses, or react to general trends? --Sm8900 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice straw man argument. I'm almost impressed. ~ UBeR 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Uber, I am not trying to create a conflict here, with you or anyone else. However, I want to make sure I understand. Were you stating that it is problematic to try to find any general trends at all, on even a regional scale, and therefore on a global scale? if so, that seems to be a bit too broad a generalization, in my own opinion. thanks. --Sm8900 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. i guess this discussion is sort of winding down. one more thought: if anyone wants to mention some specific difficulties entailed in tracking global temperature averages, i think we'd all be interested. I think the only problem some of us had was that it sounded at some point like some were doubting the ability to track global temperatures at all, and our ability to reach any conclusions, and therefore made it sound as if that one point refuted the entire global warming concept all at once. however, of course any discussion of specific aspect, (whether right now or later on), is probably valid. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Understandably, presuppositions should be avoided because they are dangerous things. There are are potential difficulties in climate-change studies when they "generalize regional patterns from single stations, single seasons, or a few parameters over short duration from averaging dissimilar stations; or generalize an average regional pattern from coarse-scale general circulation models." And there are reasons to be concerned how regional trends are used for global predictions. One reason I bring this is up as important is is because "many management decisions affecting climate-change policy and most mitigation efforts may be at local and regional scales. Thus, it is critically important to assess the direction and magnitude of climate change at local and regional scales. Such regional information is also vital to evaluate simulations of climate change at national and global scales (Doherty and Mearns, 1999)." Furthermore, as an example, Alward et al. (1999) documented nighttime temperature rise since 1964 at CPER. The publishing journal suggested a title that suggested global trends. Melillo (1999) furthered this, and later the AP sensationalized the results. "This chain of events may not be uncommon, and few stop to ask whether neighboring stations show similar long-term trend." ~ UBeR 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that there can be no question that a planetary temperature can be defined. Take a bottle of water. You may stick a thermometer in it and determine the temperature of the bottle. However, with sufficient skill and accuracy you would find diferences in temperature depending upon how close the temperature of the bottle was to the outside environment, where you took your measurement and different energy levels between molecular or atomic particles. However, an overall temperature is typically acceptable for most purposes. The problem with the global earth temperature is that it may not be correctly or well defined. For example, if we average the temperature of the whole earth, to the core, I suspect that we have too little data (and not much variation over time) to consider it helpful. So we want to measure the temperature of that area that we might call the "Biosphere". This would include soil, oceans, air and so on. This has never been sufficiently well measured that we can describe an "average". What we HAVE measured most commonly is ground-level atmospheric temperatures. And probably to a level that we can describe "Ground Level Atmospheric Temperature" as a measured and evaluated condition with some value. However, that is not necessarily the same thing as "Global Temperature".

The mixing of temperatures problem vs averages reminds me of the man who had his feet in an oven and his head on a block of ice. On average he was comfortable. --Blue Tie 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But we are not talking about a man, but a planet, so the physical comfort of a planet is meaningless. The impacts to habitat, agriculture, rainfall patterns, and others are, however, pertinent to the article. So if I understand you and UBeR correctly, if it's difficult to project future trends in a region or local area, then we should ignore tracking global temperature trends? This doesn't make sense to me. What is the prevailing consensus of the scientific community? What do the IPCC, academies and other societies mention?

IPCC SPM 2007: "The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries,"

Joint Science Academies 2005: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring."

Americal Meteorlogical Society 2003: "There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years."

I don't see what the problem is and why some are concerned about how the topic is handled in the article. Just because a non-climatologist editor is 'hard-pressed' to understand the complexities of climatology on a global scale does not obviate the scientific findings and assessments to-date. 66.225.251.176 16:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments do not seem to grasp the discussion. The statement about a man being comfortable was a joke, ok? No one here is arguing that the scientific findings and assessments do not exist. --Blue Tie 03:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh...

Roughly thirty years ago, weren't the majority of scientists running amock, crying out about "global cooling" and how it was going to kill us all? That happened sometime int he 70's. The Earth must have heated up awful fast. And what happened to the hundreds of millions killed from global cooling? Didn't happen. Global warming is a natural occurance, and nothing we can do can decrease or increase the amount of cooling or warming of our atmosphere. Hate to burst you hysterical nutjobs' bubbles, but no matter how many "green" vehicles you make factories pump out, no matter how many poor, starving Africa-Americans you kill by forcing them to switch from oil/coal-based energy sources to solar energy sources (seriously, shame on you for forcing them to use solar energy), it won't change the fact that global warming is not a threat and it will not kill millions of people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.114.83 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to read global cooling William M. Connolley 09:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

1. Dr. C - That's not much of an answer: the article you linked is hard to read.
2. Unsigned - This really should be discussed in Global warming controversy, if at all. In general, the discussion page should focus on suggestions to improve the article. Your assertions that 'Global warming is a natural occurance' and that there's 'nothing we can do' will be relevant to this discussion if you provide what we like to call "secondary sources". Please supply a verifiable source for these viewpoints, otherwise they cannot go into the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified it a little, but its basically pretty easy to read. But if you want something simpler, then "no" is the answer William M. Connolley 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Description, But Where's The Action!

To complete this entry, it should have references to the various movements/standards designed to reduce our collective impact on the environment. Examples are Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or TurnLeaf Green Office Standards. Thoughts?

There's a small "Mitigation" section in this article. ~ UBeR 17:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, i suggest you look at Mitigation of global warming. thanks for suggesting. --Sm8900 19:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Protect (and move)

This page is permanently semi-protected against vandalism (its open for debate if you must but it seems to be useful). I've just protected it against moves, since it seems to have suffered a few pointless moves recently and I can't see any reason to move it in the future. But if anyone cares to object, please do William M. Connolley 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems warranted enough by the recent move activity. Skyemoor 19:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is 176 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page for guidance. --Uncle Ed 19:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask User:UBeR to do this, as he has past experience in moving to archives (and he carried out the move a competent and evenhanded way). Raymond Arritt 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the talk page is locked? As far as I can tell, archiving old discussion should still be possible. I think he block is only from moving the main article. ~ UBeR 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous antecedents. The first "this page" referred to the main page; Ed's "this page" referred to Talk. At least I think so... Raymond Arritt 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant it's okay to semiprotect Global warming. --Uncle Ed 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: the article page is protected against moves and semi-prot against edits. The talk page has no protection. I would also like to see this page archived William M. Connolley 21:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the main page should be semi-protected from editing. IP vandals are not such a big nuisance and easy to revert quickly. A move protect is fine, because there isn't any foreseeable reason to move the page. I've decided archiving the talk page during the start every month (of course leaving ongoing discussions) will probably work well. ~ UBeR 21:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

On such a politically charged scientific topic, semi-prot makes perfect sense; if people want to make edits, then it would be better forthem to do so with full attribution, keeping the article churn down to a dull roar. Skyemoor 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My view

I strongly think that global warming is a fact, and a proven theory. There's been strong evidence on both sides of the topic, but yet, I think it is pretty obvious that the side in favor of global warming has stronger evidence of it. Obviously, there always will be doubters, but eventually there HAS to be end to the debate. And as time passes by, it really seems like everyone agrees with global warming. I'm not exactly an expert on this, but I have heard from people I know, that generally every country agrees that the earth is warming, and that humans are causing this. Also, I consider it a fact because of the weather I've had where I am. In the winter of 2007, temperatures should obviously be cold, with a high temperature at about 40 degrees. However, in January, there was a span of about 1 and a half weeks where the high temperautures were in the 50s, 60s, and even 70s. Moreover, there should be about 30 inches of snow where I live. However, it is March 23, 2007, and we have had less than 15 inches of snow this winter. I don't think such conditions are simple heat waves or coincidences.

P.S. This is my first time trying to sign a message, and I'm sorry if I didn't do it right.

Asiansaxboy101 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Asiansaxboy101Asiansaxboy101 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you got everything right except you haven't read Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. If you're here to help edit the article, though, you are welcome. --Uncle Ed 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Asiansaxboy101, talk pages are reserved for discussions about improving the current article. Every once in a while discussions can go on a tangent, or usually serve no purpose than to . On busy pages such as these, we try to limit that to the absolute minimum. Thanks for experimenting with Misplaced Pages though! P.S. Misplaced Pages will automatically sign your name and date for you if you simply type four tildes (~~~~) in a row. ~ UBeR 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since 1950

Uber reverted my edit with the curious edit comment Rv. edit by William. The SPM does not suggest cooling as a result from solar forcings, nor does the figure suggest it. Firstly, he has left the text pointing to SPM-2, which is wrong, since SPM-2 is changes since 1750. SPM-4 is the figure you want, since it shows the effects graphed over the century. So we see that since 1950 the natural curve, which is blue, shows... oh yes, cooling. Ubers rv restores the phrase "but non-negligible". This is not supportable from SPM-2 at all, but it wouldn't be supportable even if the SPM-2 figures were since 1950 William M. Connolley 22:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. From what I'm reading, the article states: "Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have had smaller but non-negligible effects on global mean temperature since 1950." The SPM states: "A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability over is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance . . ." ~ UBeR 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Noticed it should probably say up to instead of since 1950... ~ UBeR 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I had reverted without catching the automatic message in time; the explanation should have read "rvt per talk page". Yes, the volcanic eruptions result in cooling spikes. "Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 W m-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {2.7}".

"It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th century warming evident in these records." Skyemoor 01:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand Ubers response. He has quoted text about *prior* to 1950. The piece of the page we're reverting over is about post 1950. So why quote irrelevant text? William M. Connolley 13:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What is global warming?

As a definition we have:

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.

Personally, I feel this falls short since past episodes of warming are often labelled as "global warming" even if not recent.

I tried:

Global warming is an observable increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans, especially that occuring in recent decades and its projected continuation.

Which allows for the fact the term "global warming" gets applied to the past. In doing so I felt necessary to change "observed" to "observable" to avoid a grammatical problem with the past tense observation of future warming, but Raymond didn't like that.

So does anyone have suggestions for how to define "global warming" without falsely suggesting that the term is only used for the modern case. Dragons flight 16:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what wrong with adding "especially that occuring in recent decades" to what we have William M. Connolley 17:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) How about:

Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans, especially that observed to occur in recent decades, and its projected continuation.

I think that addressed the core of both Raymond's and Blue Tie's objections. Dragons flight 17:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

To please the memory of Strunk and White: Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans, especially that observed in recent decades and its projected continuation.

--Stephan Schulz 17:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan's proposal sounds good. The phrase "global warming" is only rarely applied to past warming episodes (e.g., paleoclimate studies), but I can see the point of leaving the door open. Raymond Arritt 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Where "rarely" includes two section headers in the article?  ;-) Okay, I've put in Stephan's version. Dragons flight 18:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the change (particularly the inclusion of "especially"), but I still have some concerns. They are in two areas:

1.This is a physical phenomenon. As gravity exists with or without observation so does the heating and cooling of bodies in space, including planets (such as Venus, Earth and Mars). It bothers me that we limit it in this way.

2.It is not a recent phenomenon. It is an enduring thing lasting over billions of years. What is recent is the attention it has received and the concerns over human involvement in the recent changes. But the phenomenon is not recent. The opening paragraph should reflect both realities.... perhaps like this:

Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Observations of recent, rapid global warming and its projected continuation have given rise to warnings regarding environmental and climate change.

This is a back-construction of the term that does not follow its conventional usage. Yes, it sounds reasonable to expect that "global warming" could be applied to any period in which the mean temperature warms. But even in scientific contexts the term when used without qualifiers is almost universally understood to mean the modern warming period. Why not simply adopt the meaning of the term as it is broadly understood, following WP:COMMONNAME? Raymond Arritt 18:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) One reason is that doing so removes it from areas of popular culture, fad of the moment status and into a scientific domain. It is not to say that this eliminates POV problems, but at least it limits them. But when you make it a recent phenomena, it politicizes it and brings all sorts of agenda into immediate view, making the potential for bias greater.

But secondly, I do not agree that the fact that this is the broadly understood use of the term is sufficient reason to exclude its full nature and I think the reference to common name is a misuse of that guideline. It is not suggesting that science give way to popular culture but rather that the way something be FOUND in the encyclopedia be accessable to the public. It is a matter of article accessability not a matter of article content.

Let me point you to a website that highlights this difference in a way, and if you think about it, you will realize that how the issue is defined, right from the start, kicks off whether the article will be biased in a direction or not. Here is the website: http://zfacts.com/p/49.html.

Consider that this article could best be used to be coldly objective and unbiased, leaving the normative biases and debates on other pages, with links back and forth. This page does not have to advocate any position. Just report the positions reasonably. --Blue Tie 19:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see an authoritative source for your definition. The zfacts site is very amateurish and error-filled; it cannot be taken seriously as a factual source. Raymond Arritt 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So you say. But, that your opinion of zfacts is irrelevant. I was using it not as an authority but as a way to help express my point. I was hoping you were trying to have a meeting of the minds, but perhaps that is not how it is. The point I was making was that Global Warming is a phenomenon that has existed for ages past and exists now. Its causes at various times may have been similar or different, I do not know and I do not care really. But it has existed a long time. In scientific articles reviews of the past include warming of past periods, also times of global warming. The heading of the article, if it is broad enough and scientifically valid enough, will help reduce the NPOV problems. And there are such problems. However, if you need an authoritative source, I will find one. But really, why is it necessary to find an authoritative source to say that "water is wet"? --Blue Tie 02:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The present intro of the article looks like a good compromise. It makes a nod to the (specious) idea that "global warming" is a term that means any temperature rise at any time, while making it clear that the actual usage of the term overwhelmingly refers to the recent period of warming. Raymond Arritt 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "if a tree falls..." argument is that if we aren't documenting it, then we shouldn't be reporting it. The sentence should read, "Global warming is the observed increase..." ~ UBeR 02:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, gravity should only be described in terms of recent observations, rather than as a fundamental law of nature that has existed along with time. Only our observation makes it real. I do not agree with this philosophy. I believe that if we were not here to observe, the Universe would still continue to contain stars and planets and other things that have gravity -- and that get warm or cold.--Blue Tie 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not by any means. Gravitation, being a physical law, can applied be everywhere. Global warming is our observed increase in global temperatures. Global warming is not a law, and is not applicable everywhere. Do you seriously believe we are constantly warming, or do you actual give credence to the fact that cooling also does occur (even in large scales, such as in Antarctica)? P.S. The current version is shit. ~ UBeR 08:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, now. The question is, "Can it occur without direct observation?". The answer obviously is 'yes'. So 'observed' is an unnecessarily limiting adjective. Entropy is an on-going process in untold areas in the universe, yet we wouldn't decline to state that just because we are not documenting it in every location constantly. --

An Authoritative Source for Non-Recent Definition of Global Warming

I have been asked to provide an authoritative source for a definition of the term that excludes the sense of recency. So here it is.

An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change. --The American Heritage Dictionary, 2004 edition. --Blue Tie 03:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

global warming: an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. --Skyemoor 09:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

global warming: An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate. The Earth has experienced numerous episodes of global warming through its history, and currently appears to be undergoing such warming. The present warming is generally attributed to an increase in the greenhouse effect , brought about by increased levels of greenhouse gases, largely due to the effects of human industry and agriculture. Expected long-term effects of current global warming are rising sea levels, flooding, melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, more frequent and stronger El Niños and La Niñas, drought, heat waves, and forest fires. See more at greenhouse effect. The American Heritage Science Dictionary. --Skyemoor 09:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Partisan editing considered harmful

I'm against partisan editing, whether I agree with your side or not. All of us must make neutral edits and avoid tendentious edits. The deletion Blue Tie just made seemed partisan to me. That is, it seemed to support "my side". But I can't support deletion of verifiable material simply because it leads to a conclusion I dislike.

Anyway, we need clarity on volcanoes and solar variation. Some sources say these natural factors account for much more than half of atmospheric temperature variations (both as reconstruted from proxies before 1850, and as measured by thermometers, etc. since then). Other sources say these natural factors account for less than half.

There is a sharp distinction here. Let's not blur it by deleting references. Let's amplify it by describing it. The more references the better.

What does the UN's assessment panel say? What does the Max Planck institute say? What do Lindzen, Baliunas, Singer, et al., say?

What deletion seemed partisan? I apologize if it seemed that way. The truth is, in some cases I am arguing for positions that I do not personally agree with because they are supported by wikipedia policy of neutrality and verifiability. If you are referring to the volcanos and solar irradiance statement, it is simply (and embarrasingly) unsupported by the citation. Indeed the article text says that these have a probably cooling effect but solar irradiance has a warming effect according to the text around the figure cited in the source, so the cited source says exactly opposite of what the text says. Hence the delete. --Blue Tie 14:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

SPM-4 clearly shows cooling from 1950 from solar/volcanic sources (the reference is clearly to the figure, not to the surrounding text; I don't see anything in the surrounding text to support BT's solar irradiance has a warming effect - what do you mean?). I'm unsure how BT can assert that "The citation simply does not support the statement". From 1850-present there is SPM-2, with solar less than 1/10 of GHG. I don't know where Ed gets the more/less than half stuff, though William M. Connolley 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

BT commonly says "the citation does not support the statement" when the citation does support the statement. For example, he contended that did not support the idea that "global warming" is usually understood to refer to the current warming period. Assuming he actually read the cited reference, it's hard to imagine what part of "Scientists use the term ‘global warming’ to refer to the idea that the world’s average temperature may be about five degrees Fahrenheit higher in 75 years than it is now" he had so much trouble with. At the time I thought it may have been a casual oversight, but a pattern is emerging. Raymond Arritt 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, hold the phone. Assuming this evalution of BT's edits was made in good faith ...

Are you saying that the citation supports the statement and that BT incorrectly said it didn't?

And is BT saying that (1) the statement isn't true, even though the citation supports it or that (2) that statement may or not be true, but merely is not supported by the citation? I would hate to have to dig into to this. Can't somebody make this clearer?

Like:

• Volcanoes spew dust, etc. This screens sunlight from reaching the surface, which leads to a bit of cooling.
• Solar variation correlates with periods of more or less sunlight reaching the surface.
• Some scientists {who?} say these two factors account for the bulk of all the warming and cooling ever seen. Other scientists {who again?} say there factors account for less than half of (1) warming & cooling detected by proxy, (2) warming & cooling in the modern warming period or (3) all warming & cooling. --Uncle Ed 15:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed

Basically the Source is a series of graphs showing output of computer models, not actual fact or history. There is no text describing, in sufficient detail to draw the conclusion reached, how to read the bands. The blue band that would be associated with volcanism and solar radiation seems to rise before 1950 (which was the peak) and then decline to levels that were similar to levels about 1900. However, in many instances, the upper part of the blue band for recent years, overlaps the lower part of the blue band for 1950 -- the peak year. So, the peak year, 1950 appears anomalous in the graph anyway and there is no way to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the theoretical effects of volcanism and solar radiation in the computer model for 1950 and 2006. In short, the statement is Unsubstantiated Original Research. --Blue Tie 15:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To Ed Poor regarding the Volcanism and Solar Radiation in the opening paragraph

Thanks for the request for discussion.

I reviewed the specific source (Figure 4) 3 times. The source does not discuss volcanism nor solar irradiance in the way described. Instead it discusses the differences between climate model results when the effects of man on the climate are included or excluded. The results with men excluded are due to solar irradiance and volcanism alone, per the source. The source does not describe the net effect of solar irradiance and volcanism on the current level of warming. That is why I said the source does not support the statement. The source would support the statement that "the current episode of global warming is likely caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases". However that is, essentially, redundant, I think. --Blue Tie 14:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The statement questionned by BT was Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have had smaller probably cooling effects on global mean temperature since 1950. Fig SPM-4 shows (lowest row, blue curve) the T history repreoduced by GCMs with natural forcing (sol/vol) only. And it shows... cooling since 1950. Which is to say... that sol/vol have probably (though not definitely) had a net cooling effect since 1950 William M. Connolley 14:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the charts are not actual history. They are results of climactic models. The text does not describe it that way. Futhermore, the charts showing this are from a study that really was not that focused on the effects of volcanism and solar radiation but on the anthropogenic effects. The text of the study is absolutely silent on this issue. So this comment is an original research interpretation of a chart where the underlying assumptions and conclusions are not well described or expressed. And my reading of the chart (which I agree is also Original Research -- but that is the problem with Original Research) informs me that the difference between 1950 and present is not significant enough to be declared "probably" different. The statement has problems with Original Research.--Blue Tie 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh again. You resolutely refuse to see the obvious when its against you. Your "actual history" stuff is nonsense - there is no way to do this stuff through natural history, of course. The sense from the charts is also obvious: sol/vol cooling from 1950 William M. Connolley 15:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, please assume good faith. There is nothing "against me". I am commenting upon a source. If the things I have said about the source are not true, then show that. If you are arguing that there is no evidence in science that describes history, I disagree. If you are trying to say that there is no way to historically know a speculative alternative history, I agree -- and hence, this is part of my concern over the statement in the article. The information in the article is original research based upon the charts and there is no way to know that this OR is correct. This is a violation of wikipedia standards. I again, and for the second time, request that you remain civil by refraining from personal comment or speculations about some motives I might have. Assume good faith. --Blue Tie 18:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow down, please, do.

Dr. C seems to be saying that sol (solar variation) and vol (volcanic dust, etc.) accounts for a certain degree of cooling since 1950. I'd like to hear more about this. How much cooling was there, and when did it start? Who says it had anything to do with sol/vol, and how much did they say these natural factors account for the temperature variations measured? Does anyone authoritative or even interesting say that less than half is natural? Or that most is natural?

Ed, did you net even look at the graph which is the source? And why did you delete my reply to this ? I'm baffled. anyway, all you need to do is actually look at the ref given William M. Connolley 16:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

BT seems to be saying ... what? I'm having trouble following. Please simplify your comments for a middle-aged man who means well but never finished college. --Uncle Ed 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed,

Probably something wrong with me -- too complex. It is not about what an editor is saying. It is what a cite will support. Misplaced Pages policies say that we should not do original research. The statement in the article is not supported by the citation. It is that simple. But to be specific:

• The source is a graph of model results, not actual fact
• The source covers a larger range of time. The text uses a point on the graph that is extreme as a point of comparison.
• The source requires interpretation of a graph, but insufficient information about the graph is provided to draw conclusions such as those put in the article.
• The interpretation that is put forward in the article is suspect because the band of the current period vs the 1950 period(which is the extreme point)seem to overlap -- or come close enough that a question about statistical significance arises. --Blue Tie 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words and NPOV problems

The Guideline on wikipedia regarding weasle words is here. It specifically mentions the word "many" as a weasel word. Though it does not mention the word "few", "few" is intrinsically similar to "many". Here are some of the specific things that are said about weasel words:

• the spirit of Misplaced Pages draws very strongly from the neutrality and verifiability policies, both of which are acutely compromised by this practice, editors are encouraged to Avoid Weasel Words.

• If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view

• The example "Most scientists believe that there is truth" is said to be bad construction in part because:
  • Most can range in any amount more than 50% up to 99%
  • The statement gives no necessary contextual data such as how the individual beliefs were counted
  • Or whether the statement concerns all scientists or only those presently alive

There is something else here. The words "few" and "many" are not cited. They constitute a violation of wikipedia's policy of No Original Research

Incidentally, the opening paragraph (as currently designed) uses the word "most". It is used in the context of a literal quote. In a way, this is using weasel words by proxy, but at least it is verifiable. A better solution should be found that does not rely on weasel words by proxy, but as long as it is verifiable, its somewhat less of a problem. --Blue Tie 15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Most" actually connotates a majority, where 'many' simply means more than a few, so "most" is not a weasel word. --Skyemoor 20:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Avoid Weasel Words it is, or perhaps I should say, "can be".--Blue Tie 20:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is not difficult to replace the words "few" etc. by more precise estimates. There are about 2000 or so scientists who contributed to the IPCC report and many more scientists who did not stringly agree with the conclusions. There are no more than about 20 climate scientist who can be classified as climate skeptics. So, the ratio is problebly something like 10,000 to 20.

There are not many peer reviewed studies about the opinion of climate scientists, but then trivial to verify facts do not need citatons in order not to violate OR. Count Iblis 15:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That might be a better view. However, I did not count 2000 in the IPCC. I saw about 50. And as far as the count of those who disagree, you would have to cite a poll or something, otherwise it would again be Original Research -- how can you otherwise claim to know who all the scientists who disagree are? --Blue Tie 15:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on these users' changes in history: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen has re-added weasel words into the article and uses forked pages in violation of WP:NPOV in lieu of the required references for such words as "numerous" "few" and "consensus" which as they appear in the article now reflect only an editor's opinion, not a verifiable source. Kim's edits clearly violate WP:AWW and WP:NPOV. User:Vsmith re-added the words after they were removed again. If you feel these words should be included please give your rationale on the talk page - otherwise on their face these edits violate Misplaced Pages standards. --Tjsynkral 16:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are addressing people who will review NPOV things, I think it best to not make things personal. However, I would point out that the current version (as of this instant) is not so bad. --Blue Tie 16:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as content, I agree. On the other hand the writing style of the new intro is terrible, whereas it was reasonably good before the latest round. We need better for one of Misplaced Pages's top 100 articles. Would you like to take a try at copyediting the intro? Raymond Arritt 17:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, few is kinda weasely - hmm... but leaving it out gives the impression that a significant number disagree rather than maybe as much as 1% (20 : 2000). Of course if your POV aligns with the 1%, then you don't want readers to know how few there are - so maybe removing few could be seen as POV pushing by making those few more significant than the really are - just maybe. Therefore, it seems necessary for the weasel fighter to make the point non-pov by replacing those horrible weasels with balancing numbers to avoid POV problems. Cheers, Vsmith 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know the POV of the 1% or the 99% or any other %. I know my own POV, but it is irrelevant. The bottom line is that there are three really important principles in wikipedia to avoid such disputes. One of these is "No Original Research". Another is "Verifiability". And the other is NPOV. They all work together. The word "few" is original research and uncited. It is inherently POV. If there really are 2000 vs 20 then you should cite apoll that demonstrates that. Otherwise it is original research and it does not work here. I saw that ratio mentioned by someone else. Is there a source for that ratio or is it anecdotal? I've asked before and not had a reply. --Blue Tie 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1% and 99% are numbers. Do you have a verifiable source on those numbers? If not you are just blowing steam. --Tjsynkral 22:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems you are avoiding the problem my numbers were used to illustrate. I can use those numbers here on the talk page for illustration purposes, to put them in the article would require verification. You've both sidestepped the point I am making about balance and pov. Removing few can be seen as pov pushing as it makes a minor viewpoint seem more important. Vsmith 23:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How does having NO word push any viewpoint? It's absolutely not NPOV to say "few" - that is clearly a weasel word. Since dozens of scientists, with solid credentials, appear on the Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming page, one could easily say that numerous scientists oppose AGW. However to say that would be just as much a violation of WP:AWW as "few" - so just don't use any adjective unless you're prepared to back it up with a reliable source. --Tjsynkral 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "relatively few" - that is not a weasel word. It states the comparison within a specific group. We could also put it as a "minority" - numerous could be changed to "most" - that is supported by the subpage - and if not true then it is easy to disprove. (i'll accept "most" as being >75%). --Kim D. Petersen 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do I begin with the logical fallacies? First of all, "relatively few" is a weasel word because it still puts an editor's analysis on the number of scientists who dissent, without attribution. That's a violation of WP:A and by extension, a violation of WP:AWW.

What specific group are you referring to? Are you referring to the number of scientists whose names are mentioned on one subpage, vs how many are mentioned on the other? Misplaced Pages pages cannot be used as references! Many scientists may not appear on the disagreeing scientists page. To make a claim about all scientists, which is exactly what you're doing, you need a valid sample - and scientists that a WPer happened to hear about and add to the article do not make up a valid sample.

"Minority" is not supported by the subpage for the same reason given above: not a valid sample. When you have a valid sample you can start talking to me about words like "few" or "relatively few" or "minority."

Nothing is easy to disprove - and if you're inserting weasel words, the burden of proof is on YOU. Saying that "few" scientists dissent because of a lack of proof to the contrary is a blatant, and embarrassing for you, Argument from ignorance fallacy. --Tjsynkral 00:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also demonstrated that the phrase "climate scientists" is weasel-wording (see this discussion). William M. Connolley notably made a famous comment where he said that "I see no need for a precise definition of CS". This issue still needs to be adressed as well since this kind of weasel wording gives a misleading character of authority to various statements made by the climate change bandwagon. --Childhood's End 17:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your argument and do not feel you have demonstrated 'climate scientists' is weasel-wording.If a scientist is performing research on directly climate-related topics, they are climate scientists. There are many specialties, of course, and some are more directly related than others. --Skyemoor 20:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That does not seem to fit the notion of weasel wording as I read it, but perhaps the term "climate scientists" is rather vague. I note that wikipedia calls it "original research" when you introduce a neologism without citing the source for it. --Blue Tie 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As I tried to point out in the above mentioned discussion, if you define "climate scientist" as a scientist performing research on directly climate-related topics, this means that any chemist performing research on directly climate-related topics becomes a climate scientist. But the fact is that a chemist remains a chemist and his/her scientifc knowledge remains stricly confined to chemistry. It is thus more precise to call him a chemist rather than a "climate scientist", and calling him/her a climate scientist only gives the false idea that this person is qualified to give scientific opinions about whole concepts such as global warming, which is totally misleading. No wonder why William Connolley saw "no need for a precise definition of climate scientist". --Childhood's End 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Discusson on Copy editing

Per Raymond Arritt's request above, I opened a new section.

One of the criticisms of wikipedia is that articles are created and edited "piecemeal" and as a result they lose a sense of consistency and cohesiveness. In addition, the overall structure is sometimes a bit hodge-podge. This may be true here. I believe that the whole article could be improved, not so much by re-writing as by re-organizing the current content and then filling in holes or (in a few cases) deleting extraneous material or moving it to a better page. A HUGE amount of good work has gone into this already. But perhaps a reorganization would help. I have noticed in other articles that go through this process that some huge holes emerge that were previously overlooked. And a re-organizatation may be an appropriate improvement for a "top 100" article as I understand that this is.

I would see a re-organization along the lines of:

• Introduction (Summary)
• What Global Warming is (and how it comes about)
  • Factors that may produce Global Warming (The science of how it works)
    • Greenhouse gases
    • Solar Radiation
    • etc?
  • Factors that may mitigate Global Warming (The science of how it is reduced)
    • Aerosols
    • Volcanism & Disasters
    • Clouds and Albedo
    • etc?
• How Global Warming is Studied (and the history of its studies)
  • Historical Global Temperature Studies
  • The (alleged) role of civilization on Global Temperature Variation
  • Projections of Global Temperatures
• Possible effects of higher temperatures on other Climate and Environment factors
• Debates over Global Warming, forecasts and actions
  • An explanation of the difficulty in developing and interpreting evidence
  • Debates over the existance of the phenomenon
  • Debates over the role of man in the phenomenon
  • Debates over climate forecasts
  • Debates over efforts to mitigate anticipated warming

Where there are separate articles that cover these sections, they should be summarized reasonably and linked. The introduction should summarize these sections and should be written both first and then scrapped and re-written over again after everything is consolidated.

In short, rather than just revise the opening, I think that the whole article could be re-organized and then the opening re-written.

But, having said that, I have previously provided an opening that might work with the article as it is. I will reproduce my prior efforts, with any changes that seem right, below. --Blue Tie 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

New opening?

Per Raymond's request here is a potential opening. (I actually think just the first paragraph is enough and the rest should be distributed through the article). I do not think this is superior to a version that would be written after an article re-organization.

Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans of sufficient magnitude that it results in climate change. Although the concept had been studied since the mid 1800's the term "Global Warming" was coined in the mid to late 1970's and most of the research dates from that time forward. That research produced observations of recent, rapid warming and forecasts a significant continuation of this temperature rise for at least a century. Along with the forecasts, researchers have produced warnings regarding environmental and climate change but the findings and warnings are also a matter of dispute among scientists and politicians.

Global average air temperature near Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit) in the last century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), organized to study this matter, predicts that global temperatures will rise by 1.8 -4.0°C between 1990 and 2100 stating that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations," which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect.

The IPCC statement has been endorsed by National Acadamies of Science for the G8 nations and The US National Research Council. Other scientific organizations such as the American Meterological Society, The American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of London have issued their own statements of concern over global warming. (See Scientific opinion on climate change)

Other members of the scientific community such as Beate Liepert, Graham Farquhar, Michael Roderick, and Peter Cox dispute some or all of these findings, arguing that increased aerosols and increased atmospheric albedo mitigate direct anthropogenic increases on global temperature or that long-term global climate changes are a better explanation for the phenomenon. (See Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming).

Wrong on so many counts. You have the wrong Cox; and anyway Cox and Liepert doubt none of the IPCC findings; the aerosols/albedo point is confused to the point of meaninglessness; "results in climate change" is stupid: it *is* climate change. You appear to have dropped you concerns over sourcing (thankfully). The original version before you sstarted meddling was better William M. Connolley 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be that the details are wrong. It was a proposal. But the comments about "results in climate change" is from objective sources on the meaning of the term "global warming", so your issue may be with them more than with me. Would you like quotes? I have not dropped any concerns over sourcing. Sources continue to be critical to wikipedia and if that is something you do not like your preferences are contrary to the wikipedia standards. I am sorry but I disagree with your assessment of the "original version", it was not better, it was worse. As for your meddling comment, one last time I will request that you refrain from personal attacks. --Blue Tie 19:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, I do hope it *is* the last time. If you haven't dropped sourcing concerns, why are sources for your pet defn of GW absent? For the 1800's claims? For... so much of the rest of this nonsense. And... totally misrepresenting Cox/Liepert is hardly a detail - it just shows you don't know what you are talking about William M. Connolley 20:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope it is the last time too. But you seem to insist on being uncivil. I do not know why.

The sources are absent because I was being quick. It was just a proposal for discussion, not a full solution. I did not mean to misrepresent someone, I was trying to incorporate some other person's comments that I saw somewhere in the discussion. Once more: This was a proposal not a solution. It was for discussion and change, not for incorporation. My goal was to address the problems with NPOV.

One of the cool/annoying things about wikipedia is that it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It does not require you to know much about a subject. Instead you must be able to reference it and put things forward in an NPOV way. This is particularly difficult for people like you who do know things. You have to put up with those who don't know as much as you -- and the rules of wikipedia do not completely favor your personal knowledge. In fact, often when someone knows a great deal, they are not able to be objective and then problems with original sources and npov really start to kick in. I understand that. I am sympathetic. But wikipedia still requires adequate sourcing and npov, even when that is annoying. --Blue Tie 20:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The first process of challenge should be to the featured article status. Posting a nomination to check POV makes no sense to a featured article which has a higher standard of integrity to it. Therefore this POV tag tag should go.--BozMo talk 21:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of any such "process". I do not believe it is right. Can you cite a reference or wikipedia guideline supporting your position? (This unsigned comment was added by Blue Tie)

The only way a POV tag can be removed is if the article has been modified to meet Misplaced Pages standards. As it stands right now there are a number of issues with the article and, as soon as one of us corrects the problems, another edit warrer comes along and reverts the page to a version that blatantly violates WP:AWW and/or WP:OR by introducing statements and adjectives without any reference to back them up. --Tjsynkral 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Kim's latest edits

Ms. Kim's latest edit is blatant POV pushing, and flies in the face of WP:AWW and WP:WTA. Her edit summary is shows her ignorance of how Misplaced Pages and its policies work. I'm sorry, Kim, but you cannot reference Misplaced Pages articles as sources. That's the bottom line. ~ UBeR 22:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If there are trivial to check facts then you don't need sources at all. This is how wikipedia functons on practice in case of science articles. Count Iblis 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Iblis, I'm going to have to ask that you familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policy. Saying "most" and "few" is not trivial. Your subjective opinion matters little here. Read up on verifiability again. If it lacks sources (that is, not using Misplaced Pages as a source), and it questioned, the burden is on the editor who wishes to have it included. (Jimbo, of course, would argue it merits deletion on the spot.) Your backwards reasoning doesn't work well here. ~ UBeR 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I know about wiki policies, but some are not applicable to scientific articles, at least not if you take them literally. We had similar discussions about scitations of facts in the article about relativity and in some other articles. We don't cite trivial derivations even though they may be non trivial to lay persons. In this case the word "few" doesn't need a citation per se, because unlike what you claim, it is a trivial fact. In the relativity article we just removed all the "citation needed" tags without giving the requested citations. Count Iblis 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Read my above comment again. ~ UBeR 23:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. You can't just selectively use tags to hold an article hostage. If you belong to a minority of editors that disagree then your edits will simply be reverted regardless of what the relevant wiki policies in your interpretation may be saying. Of course, the majority of the editors are not unreasonble, so there is no real conflict with the wiki rules at all, just with your interpretation of them. Count Iblis 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with UBer's analysis of Kim's edits. I would revert to the last edit prior to her changes but I believe I may be hitting 3RR. I encourage any user who agrees that these edits violate Wiki policies please revert Kim's edits. --Tjsynkral 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Kim's edits to solar variation in intro

Kim's latest edit to the intro on solar variation shows WP:OR. We are not here to support the OR of a petty modeler in his field, but rather take what the verifiable and reliable sources are saying. The SPM states, "A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability over is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance." That is a far cry from what it currently reads ("Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have had a small neutral or slight cooling effect on global mean temperature since 1950."), but very closely resembles what Kim reverted. Further, if you wish to look at the literature, Solanki and Foukal "find a good correlation between solar irradiance and global temperature until at least 1980." Scafetta and West calculate 65-75% of the 1900–1980 global warming has a solar origin. This, too, a far cry from what Kim wishes to use.

There is a difference between prior to 1950 and since 1950. Scafetta and West say that "We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming." - notice the falling contribution. --Kim D. Petersen 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Falling ≠ cooling. It means less warming than previous. This is precisely why the SPM never states solar variation has caused cooling since 1950. And if you actually read carefully, what you reverted said "till" not "since." The previous version was correct, per the SPM, and even understated per the literature. ~ UBeR 23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The percentage wasn't stated in the SPM because SA and China protested the phrase that described the solar influence as less than 20% (see this month's SciAm). Skyemoor 01:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please differentiate between a section describing only solar - and a section describing Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes --Kim D. Petersen 23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Note btw. that Scafetta&West do not "calculate 65-75% of the 1900–1980 global warming has a solar origin." at all - neither in the 400 year paper - nor in the last century paper. - the 65-75% figure is no where to be found in either paper - nor in a following reply --Kim D. Petersen

Sorry for that, I unfortunately was using Lindzen from that I think. Of course, I meant "likely contributed approximately 75% of the 1900–1950 global warming but only 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming." ~ UBeR 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection - Summary of current issues with this article

This page has been protected due to the ongoing edit war. Please use this section to discuss the criteria that this page must meet to both adhere to Misplaced Pages policies and end the edit warring. --Tjsynkral 23:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll now chime in with my thoughts on the article.

The introduction of the article renders an opinion on the amount of the scientific community that supports human-caused global warming, and the amount in dissent. Words such as "numerous" and "few" strongly imply a large number for the former and a small number for the latter. If this is true, the use of these words needs to be followed immediately by a supporting reference per WP:A. Several users have claimed that the number of scientists appearing on either Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change or Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming is evidence of such. Not so - these WP articles are not a scientific amassing of all scientists' opinions, so it may be that one page has had more attention paid to it than the other, and there may be many scientific opinions not mentioned on either page. (And by the way, it's also inappropriate to fork opposing scientists onto a separate page, because their opinion is as scientific as any other, but that's an issue for that particular page.) Misplaced Pages pages cannot be used as sources for other Misplaced Pages pages. You need scientific literature.

Given that no evidence is provided to establish a "consensus" beyond saying that there is a consensus among members of IPCC, we should limit any mention of consensus to the IPCC and not say anything we can't back up.

By putting such a heavy statement as "numerous" and "few" in the introduction without basis, we may be introducing a factual inaccuracy and biased POV into the article. --Tjsynkral 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

--Kim D. Petersen 04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)::I've relayed my views in "Kim's latest edits" section of this talk page. Basically "most" and "few" are weasel words and words that are to be avoided. I had a good version which was neutral. It read, "While this conclusion has been endorsed by certain scientific societies and academies of science, there are scientists who disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming." Arguably, "certain" could be weaselly, and can easily be deleted. If you want to use otherwise YOU NEED A SOURCE THAT SAYS PRECISELY WHAT THE ARTICLE IS SAYING. (No, Misplaced Pages articles do not count as sources.) I hope that makes it clear. Also, there needs to be attribution to the people who are saying what we are in the article. WP:V makes clear instead of stating it as fact, we need to state the the source has stated it.

Also is the solar variation and its role on temperature up to the 1950 and 1980. Details in "Kim's latest edits" section above. ~ UBeR 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Tjsynkral - the climate change pages are part of a whole. This means (imho) that they are each describing subsubjects of the same issue - the only alternative to this is a sequence of monolithic pages because each is dependant on the same information. The subject of scientific opinion is described in detail (with numerous references) on the specific subpage - as for the opposing scientific view - that is described on yet another subpage. So there are either of 2 possibilities here - either we accept or correct the subpages - or we include the information as a whole in the current page. --Kim D. Petersen 00:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is whether we should say "numerous" and "few" without any valid sample - only citing Misplaced Pages pages as a reference for these hyperbole adjectives. No reliable sources have been provided to back up the notion that numerous scientists hold one view or that few scientists hold another view. I've made comments under your entry above in the Weasel Words section. --Tjsynkral 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is "few". That word cannot be legitiately supported except by Original Research without valid sources. But the word "numerous" is sufficiently nonspecific that it should also go. There have been solutions to this that do no damage to the article but these have been rejected for words that are not in harmony with WP:NPOV. --Blue Tie 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

numerous : indefinitely large numerically. Synonymous with "many" - which is a bad word. --Tjsynkral 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how the following is not correct, or does not adhere to WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:SYN (unlike the current version): "While this conclusion has been endorsed by scientific societies and academies of science, there are scientists who disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming." It removes subjectivity. ~ UBeR 00:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good way of putting the statement out of any POV. But that has been rejected. --Blue Tie 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the "numerous and few camp" feels that there should be POV (despite the Wiki policy against it. I've said numerous times that I would support this statement if it was 100% accounted for in a reliable source and the reference was included. Right now there's no substance to those words at all apart from the number of scientists who are mentioned on Misplaced Pages pages. --Tjsynkral 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that its misleading - and thus not neutral. --Kim D. Petersen 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is misleading about UBeR's version? --Tjsynkral 01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It gives undue weight to the scientists who disagree - we get the impression that this group is significant, and that is most certainly not the case if you check the subpages and verify the sources available there. --Kim D. Petersen 09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The basic problem is that many of us believe "many" and "few" (or whatever words one chooses to describe the dichtomoty) are objectively correct. The IPCC consensus supports that. The dozens of scientific societies supporting the anthropogenic view of global warming support that. The Oreske study of academic literature supports that. The cited wiki articles contain many references that underpin that conclusion. To say nothing of the interactions some of us have had with practicing scientists as our colleagues. The prohibition against weasel words contains an explicit exception "when contrasting a minority opinion". Within the scientific community, one view is the majority and the other is the minority and we should say so, and the guideline on weasel words allows us to do so. If you agree that their is an objective difference between the two groups then I don't understand the problem. If you don't agree that there is a clear distinction between the two groups, then that is the issue that needs to be discussed right now rather than the language being used. Dragons flight 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. Yes, you may use "many" or "few" or whatever you would like -- so long as you have Attribution. Otherwise, you have two choices - leave out "many" and "few" and let the user decide for himself, or else list exactly what societies support the AGW view in this article -- and if listing those societies, they all must be attributable. --Tjsynkral 01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree there is a majority or not? If you agree, then this is silly wikilawyering since the introduction of an article is not a sensible place to dump dozens of references in support of the consensus. If you don't agree, then please explain why not? Dragons flight 02:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no satisfactory evidence either way, so I cannot form an opinion. I prefer not to use my imagination for issues involving global policy. --Tjsynkral 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DragonsFlight; I see no reason why we can't use "majority" in relation to the IPCC/Academies opinion and "minority" for those skeptical of AGW. Neither of those are on the weasel words list and the use of those terms is Prima Facia. Attribution is covered on the linked pages.--Skyemoor 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reference that establishes majority and minority, can I see it? --Tjsynkral 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I said Prima Facia. The IPCC assessments are the opinion benchmarks, and the number of academies and societies backing it up are the proof. To argue otherwise verily borders on wikilawyering. --Skyemoor 02:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Prima facie? How can you claim something you can't even spell? You are saying that on its face it is true that the majority of the scientific community supports the IPCC stance. If that is the case, you should have no problem producing a source on that. Otherwise you're only going on your imagination, and that is definitely not WP:A. --Tjsynkral 02:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You've criticized me for spelling, but then you clearly misunderstand the meaning. Your continued stonewalling is nothing more than wikilawyering. --66.225.251.176 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a brilliant reference, but Benny Peiser thinks so pro bono. As you probably know, the G8+ Academies of Science speak of "consensus" in re global warming, which implies at least a supermajority. Also, quousque tandem, Tjsynkral, and quo vadis? --Stephan Schulz 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The pro-AGW camp are quick to shout dirty pool when someone introduces weak and unscientific sources on the skeptic side... so your reference deserves to be treated no differently. However, any reference is better than no reference at all - include this in a citation in the problem sentence, and let the reader decide for himself if this is valid research. --Tjsynkral 03:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See here  :) Count Iblis 02:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (complete reference (instead of Science abstract) --Kim D. Petersen 02:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikilawyering or raise doubt and manufacture uncertainty? Cheers, Vsmith 02:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Vsmith, thanks for bringing out that Red Herring. Because oil companies are skeptical of certain global warming conclusions, anyone who is skeptical of global warming conclusions is clearly acting on a vested interest. Unfortunately, that is a logical fallacy, and it does not look good for others on your side of the dispute. --Tjsynkral 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... went fishing, got a bite :-) Vsmith 11:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" Cosigned: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil), Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academié des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society (United Kingdom), National Academy of Sciences (United States). That covers the national science academies for the Group of Eight industrial powers plus some. Dragons flight 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

On Oreskes: "Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view." ~ UBeR 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is Peiser's view (please give the author when quoting). Oreske claims ~20% explicitly endorse the consensus (chapter in Climate Change, MIT Press, in press). Dragons flight 03:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And the noteworthy thing in the same Peiser letter is: "Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority." --Kim D. Petersen 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We could of course do it like this: "While this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science" - but the subpage link is rather more clear. --Kim D. Petersen 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, that still doesn't cut it. I'm going to assume that none of those citations has anything to do with what proportion of scientists share this opinion - so your modification would only be acceptable if the sentence read like "While this conclusion has been endorsed by the AMS, the IPCC, the Royal Society....." --Tjsynkral 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I right in presuming from comments you have made the only level of proof you would accept would be a poll of all relevant scientists? If not perhaps you would like to outline what level of proof you would accept. -- Michael Johnson 04:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To be able to say "few" "most" "majority" etc. a source is needed which establishes these words, preferably with numbers and empirical data. A valid sample is critical; saying that most of the members of the IPCC agree with this view does not allow a conclusion about most of all scientists. If the magnitude of support of one view cannot be established in this way, either list the organizations or leave weasel words out and direct the reader to see the subpages. It's never okay to have weasel words in the text. --Tjsynkral 04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of them say there is a scientific consensus (or similar words to the same effect) and hence would be directly relevant to the statement that a majority of scientists agree. Dragons flight 04:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but these statements are on behalf of the members and as mentioned above the statements are directly related - do you care to state why you believe that this isn't so? Preferably you will have to show how each statement is an incorrect assessment of the members opinion - for instance by linking to disagreements for each position paper and the amount of opposition that is demonstrated by these..... (your argument is getting rather silly). --Kim D. Petersen 04:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are claiming consensus based on X Y Z A B and C agree with this view, and then making the leap that X Y Z A B and C represent the majority of the scientific community without documentation. If the latter statement is true it should be simple to prove using a reliable source. Please read the Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding claims of consensus in WP:RS. --Tjsynkral 04:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry your argument using WP:RS is invalid - as all of the above sources are considered reliable sources - and do state exactly this. (ie. its a collection of reliable sources that endorse this particular consensus). --Kim D. Petersen 04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC has the consensus view of the IPCC, and so on. Nobody claims to have the consensus view for all scientists. --Tjsynkral 04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC process was constructed to determine the consensus of the scientific community. And the scientific community, as represented by the most respected organizations, has endorsed their conclusions. It is the consensus of the scientific community as a whole. Dragons flight 05:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. In case I was at all ambiguous, it is routinely claimed that the IPCC represents the consensus of the community as a whole. As for example, the national academies do. Dragons flight 05:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We've shown that even the skeptics admit that there is a majority consensus; to attempt to withhold the use of "majority" or "established" is simply obdurately wikilawyering. --66.225.251.176 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite please, showing how the IPCC was organized by scientists to create scientific consensus rather than by politicians to create advice for those politicians. --Blue Tie 05:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) PS. The consensus mentioned by the national academies seems to be specific to the claim that human activity had an impact on global warming. I am not sure that this is the same thing as a full claim that the whole IPCC study and all conclusions and results are agreed to as a consensus. But I get the impression that this is the halo effect that is sought. --Blue Tie 05:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite the need to provide proof that the IPCC was organized by scientists in order to use it as a reference for the scientific consensus. --Skyemoor 09:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC's self-proclaimed role is "to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." So much for the possibility of natural causes eh? --Childhood's End 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are | begging the question. --Skyemoor 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Begging the question is not logically incorrect when the question raised ought to be addressed... Besides, the list of sophisms used by the climate change cartel is pretty long and I would be pleased to discuss it with you. --Childhood's End 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll slightly restate the question, then, since you seem to have misattributed it; Can you cite the need/requirement to provide proof that the IPCC was organized by scientists in order to use it as a reference for the scientific consensus? No is a perfectly valid answer. --Skyemoor 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to answer no but unfortunately, anything that would be presumed to be knowledge about what really happens behind the political doors of the UN would be pure fantasy. --Childhood's End 15:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You've demonstrated no need or requirement, and instead have attempted to swerve this scientific discussion into the realm of international politics, so your insistence above for a cite has no basis of support. --Skyemoor 17:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, it is the idea of a consensus that should require a demonstration, not the other way around. A consensus cannot be presumed as you seem to do. If you want to use the IPCC as part of your proof of the existence of a consensus, what the IPCC is must be clearly understood. --Childhood's End 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with much of what you just said. That being said, because of what even the skeptics say about the consensus, I take the same stance that Bozmo does on this issue. --Skyemoor 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with citing the UN panel's assessment of the science. It should simply not be taken as the final word. Misplaced Pages has no policy which exalts UN agencies like the IPCC over any other source.

One would think that we'd be extra cautious with the United Nations, as it has a tendency to reverse itself. Look at Zionism is racism - passed one year (1975), overturned a dozen or so years later (1991). Or its pronoucements on human rights: violators like Sudan used to be criticized heavily, but were later allowed on the HRC and could vote themselves free of criticism.

Our IPCC article should examine the composition of the panel. Who gets on it, and how? Who decides what science to leave in the Summary For Policymakers, which is the part which offers an assessment of 'the science'? --Uncle Ed 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the political Zionism example as being pertinent to the scientific AGW topic at hand. The composition of the panel would be pertinent to for the discussion of the number of GW scientists, but anything more than that would be its own article. --Skyemoor 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The introduction biased

For several days, I've been meaning to open an account so as to edit this article. Interestingly enough, the changes I wanted to make have already been made in part. Frankly, I felt it was a disgrace that this article claimed "most scientists" blah blah. 1st of all, "most" is false and 2nd, so what about "scientists" - unless their field fo expertise is indeed climate change. I have a friend who's a soil scientist. What does he know about climate change? Nothing! Also, any assertions claiming appeals to authority must be backed up by un-biased citations. This article is a mess. Avamarie2k 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Provide us your rationale (or cites, if you have them) that "most" is false. --Skyemoor 11:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Negative proof. Remember, the burden is on you. ~ UBeR 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am saying "false" on this page. And, if I were to put that in the article, I would cite it. However, the article did say "most" and that was not cited and even it it were, there are other problems with that as per my comments above. Avamarie2k 14:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is this: just exactly how many scientists are there currently engaged in climate related study/research in the US, England, and worldwide? And of these scientists, how many have had their opinions/views/findings/research incorporated into the so-called "scientific consensus" (as it stands, a somewhat vague and meaningless term) on man-made global warming? Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me to discover that the number of scientists making up the so-called "scientific consensus" (of whom the majority are at present only anonymous individuals) are in fact but a tiny fraction of the actual number of highly credentialed scientist working in the areas of climatology and related fields. But without hard data.... In any event, I believe efforts need to be made to find and incorporate such information into the article. Doing so would undoubtedly go a long way toward helping with with, among other things, dispute resolution. And toward that end, I offer this as my small contribution; it is a table showing the Number of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States 1995 Profile (1998) (may not be much but it's all I've found thus far). Delta x 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your observation that the majority of the scientists making the so-called "scientific consensus" remain anonymous to this day is important. This idea of a consensus has been built around a presumption that since there are thousands of scientists around the world, the fact that only a few of them have expressed doubt towards the anthropogenic global warming theory is proof that all the others agree with the theory and thus is creative of a scientific consensus. All these other scientists are vaguely called "climate scientists" (a term that does not need a precise definition according to William Connolley). This misleading concept is in total ignorance of the fact that all the scientists writing climate-related papers (be it in chemistry, geology, physics, ...) have knowledge in only one or two scientific fields and thus cannot scientifically disprove the whole concept of global warming, which is built around dozens of research fields and climate models that these scientists know little about. To sum up, since the so-called "scientific consensus" is built from presumptions and from ignoring important nuances, it seems more and more to amount to original research. --Childhood's End 13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with letting this article declare that there is a "scientific consensus" on this controversial science topic:

• Science is not a matter of voting or polls. It only takes one scientist discovering one exception to a theory to "falsify" it (see falsification).
• The method of determining how many scientists (or what percent of them) agree or disagree with any particular "fact" or "hypothesis" has not been agreed upon. Do we go by signed statements, appeals and petitions; pronouncements by scientific organizations; UN assessments; opinion surveys; literature searches of journal abstracts? --Uncle Ed 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are prevailing scientific opinions, however. The SPM and statements by Academies are signed statements. --Skyemoor 14:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, what are you suggesting is the appropriate way to gauge scientific consensus? It seems to me that any intro is going to be brief, and we can not avoid some issues associated with that brevity. There is pretty clear evidence of a scientific consensus, at least measured by some of those metrics. I have no problem being a bit shy on details when writing an intro, and leaving the details to the article which focuses on it (Scientific opinion on climate change). --TeaDrinker 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much wikilawyering

There is far too much wikilawyering going on here as a cover for POV pushing. One exemplar is YOU NEED A SOURCE THAT SAYS PRECISELY WHAT THE ARTICLE IS SAYING. (No, Misplaced Pages articles do not count as sources.). Its not true: wiki does *not* need to precisely repeat outside sources and wiki articles *can* be used as sources for statements William M. Connolley 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention what looks like a fair bit of trolling (I name no names, so its not a personal attack). I am unable to work out whether some of the contributors actually doubt the things they challenge in the article or are enjoying an argument over a very prominent article. Anyway a featured article shouldn't stay protected for long. Perhaps the discussion on featured status is where all these questions should be thrown where by definition there is a wider community to take on the trolls? --BozMo talk 11:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This probably is at the heart of the issue: Should an article be required to abide by the standards of verifiability and original research or not? Some people feel that it does not have to do that. Others believe that this failure has led to problems with NPOV. It is a fundamental issue with regard to this page. I am one of those who believes that no injury is done and great benefit is done by adhering to the core values of NPOV, verifiability and reliable sources.

But I do consider it a lack of good faith to declare that people are trolls because you do not agree with their opinions. This is just inappropriate accusation and argunmentum ad hominem. And even though you do not name names, it is certainly a personal attack -- it is just a personal attack where the targets remain unnamed. I do not see how that helps the resolve the issue one bit. --Blue Tie 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing, by definition, would be using an article to advance one's own views - to use Misplaced Pages to endorse your own view's correctness. NPOV, on the other hand, means to refrain from drawing conclusions about conflicting views; to permit all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one; to refrain studiously from stating which is better; and to leave reader to form their own opinions.

I would prefer for Global warming to adhere to NPOV. --Uncle Ed 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This conversation just repeats and repeats. I think the issue is one of undue weight. There are people who disagree with all sorts of theories (evolution for example has far far more opponents amongst more credible scientists than global warming does). The article should represent the consensus respecting the overall size and importance of differing groups. FWIW Personally I doubt that things are as cut and dried as the current scientific consensus makes out (because specialist scientific judgement is always myopic; as per Y2K, and because the modelling is so complicated you could hide a herd of elephants in it) but I edit Misplaced Pages to reflect the consensus not my own personal views. In that regard stating impling that I "declare that people are trolls because you do not agree with their opinions" isn't accurate. I am not a climatologist, but I have enough training as a scientist to recognise roughly where the scientific consensus (rightly or wrongly) is. My judgement is that the article a month ago reflected somewhere nearer consensus but that every tiny piece of "evidence against" gets disproportionately rammed into this article by people who then get indignant about it and start claiming they want every word (even arbitrary ones) proven by outside sources. I am afraid I call a troll a troll. --BozMo talk 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with BozMo along same lines) Agreed that NPOV also warns not to give to minority opinions, especially tiny minority opinions. --Skyemoor 14:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said Bozmo. I agree (apart from the cut-and-dried, which it isn't) William M. Connolley 14:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, I'm interested in why you hold that opinion about evolution ... has far far more opponents amongst more credible scientists than global warming does. And do you mean in absolute numbers, e.g., 500 people you can name? Or in percentage terms? Last poll of biologists I saw was 99.8% in favor, 0.2% opposed. That would make opponents a tiny minority.

Also, you said: The article should represent the consensus respecting the overall size and importance of differing groups What did you mean here? Where is there such a consensus? Among supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, there's virtually no opposition to AGW theory. Is this the group you had in mind, or what?

• Maybe you meant a "consensus amoung contributing editors", here at Misplaced Pages. If so, what do we do then? Vote? And if 80 to 85 percent agree on anything, declare that "a consensus"?
• I would be happy with a rule that said if 15 to 20% of contributors to a page dispute the "factuality" of something, then the article cannot state it as a fact. We would have to change (blank) is true to According to source A, (blank) is true. If this is what you had in mind, I would think it was a step in the right direction. --Uncle Ed 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed i think that you know that Bozmo is referring to the scientific consensus and not to an editor consensus. Btw. bringing up the Kyoto protocol is rather irrelevant (and a strawman) since the consensus opinion can be used both to support and to oppose it (please see Pielke's comment on Oreskes here and the response by Oreskes in the same. --Kim D. Petersen 14:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There are, I believe, at least 700 "verified" scientists who dispute evolution in writing. See Project Steve. Of course that's almost none until you compare it to the people who are "skeptical" (perhaps rightly) of global warming. I am prepared to be convinced that I am wrong to perceive consensus amongst scientists. I would accept any group substantially representing the scientific community: I go for peer-reviewed scientific papers on the topic but in the UK you could equally take say Fellows of the Royal Society or similar. There are very very few people on record as still disputing the basic assertion ("mankind has had a warming influence on the climate" or similar). They could all be wrong. It is not Misplaced Pages's job to double guess them. --BozMo talk 14:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but since I'm a Steve (in fact, Steve #387) I feel compelled to add that Project Steve collects Steves that explicitely support the Theory of Evolution. --Stephan Schulz 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

William states that Misplaced Pages can be used as a source. But not even the most extreme of administrators or his patrons can agree with this statement. Lest it be forgotten, Misplaced Pages is user edit encyclopedia. To use Misplaced Pages as a source is circular reasoning (begging the question). "Wikis, including Misplaced Pages and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources." The problem isn't wiki-lawyering. The problem is people not adhering to the rules. The proposition is not so difficult: Find a source that clearly states what the majority of scientists think and find a source (if not the same one) that states a few scientists believe otherwise. If this source is, adherent to WP:RS, not Misplaced Pages then you case is settled. I do not understand why you act as if this is such a large and burdensome task that is incomprehensible and unfathomable so as provide verifiable and reliable source for our readers to view. ~ UBeR 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be asking for a source that makes a statement about other sources. This could be a secondary source making a statement about primary sources, or a tertiary source about secondary sources. The general case being any (n+1)-ary source making a statement about n-ary sources.

This does not appear to be a tenable request, since such a sequence can continue into infinity. You can keep up making requests and claiming that the other party is unable to satisfy it, basically forever.

I'm sure that that was not your intent. :-)

I think the best you can do is ask for statistics from some credible article tracking system (such as pubmed). Since the other option is logically untenable, citing a statistic from such a source is the best (and perhaps only) way to provide any kind of reliable reference for a statement about sources.

--Kim Bruning 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is indeed wikilawyering. There are voluminous references that were transferred to their own article as this article became too wieldy (and is getting that way again). Some editors want all cites listed again back in this article, because "To use Misplaced Pages as a source is circular reasoning (begging the question)". Aside from the improper reference to btq, they seem to want to tie the hands of editors that simply want to reference spillover material in another article, which is wikilawyering at its finest. If additional references will also be helpful, then that is a valid request; but to limit the ability to access other information acquired through the same process, merely on another page, is using WP policy as a bludgeon, instead of a tool. --Skyemoor 00:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop using the perceived wikilawyering as an excuse to avoid the real issue. Lest some do not know, Misplaced Pages holds no policy on wiki-lawyering, and using it as an excuse to evade what we're talking about amounts to little more than a fallacious argument. Begging the question is presupposing the premise of a conclusion, based on the conclusion itself: We should write in Misplaced Pages most scientists say because Misplaced Pages writes most scientist say. Do you see the problem in this logic? I'll reiterate so as to make it clear as day for you: "Misplaced Pages and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." Problem is not a difficult one in reality. It only becomes one when you choose to ignore the principles Misplaced Pages founded on. ~ UBeR 00:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are in effect saying that we are forbidden from using summary style, which is the recommended format for complex topics. Note especially from WP:SUMMARY:

"There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main 'Summary style' article: the 'Summary style' article summarizes the content of each of the subtopics, without need to give detailed references for each of them in the main article: these detailed references can be found in the subarticles. The 'Summary style' article only contains the main references that apply to that article as a whole." (emphasis added)

Linking to a more specialized article where references are provided is different from using Misplaced Pages as a source, which is how some insist on portraying the matter. Thus your argument has merit only if the subsidiary articles do not themselves contain references to support the question at hand. Raymond Arritt 01:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't. --Tjsynkral 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:Wikilawyering--WikiLawyering (and the related term pettifogging) is a pejorative term that refers to certain practices frowned upon by the Misplaced Pages community, including:

1. Using formal legal terms when discussing Misplaced Pages policy;
2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit;
3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and
4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

Skyemoor 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review?

I'm seriously considering a FAR request on this one. Not only has there been an eternal discussion about giving this article a POV tag, it has now actually been identified as containing weasel words and has even been protected over a dispute. In my outsider opinion, this is blatantly incompatible with the FA criteria of neutrality and stability. Any other views on this? Nick Mks 12:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think another wider discussion would help to put to bed some of the POV claims and trolling which keep reappearing: at any rate an FAR should have been done before flags were put on what was until very recently a very balanced article. "identified as containing weasel words" though is a bit of an overstatement: putting this flag onto the article was one of the things which was part of an edit war of some kind. --BozMo talk 13:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a review. I have been working on this article for around five years, but I verev dreamed it was good enough to be featured. It has neutrality problems and uses vague terminology.

• It takes sides on numerous points on which scientists are in disagreement
• It fails to clarify the several different uses of "global warming". --Uncle Ed 13:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I read no negative advice (apart from the assertion that the weasel word tag is perhaps unilateral), I have officially filed for FAR. Nick Mks 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology to all

I have read an accusation that I did 5rr. To be honest, I am unaware of violations of the 3rr rule, but if I did that, it was wrong and unfair to others. It is possible that a lack of good understanding of the rule may have contributed to my error. I have not deeply studied it, I do not typically review it to accuse others and thus, and I have never run afoul of it before. So, I may not have it well entrenched in my mind. However, I tried to avoid reverting the same passage or subject more than twice. Perhaps I lost count. In any case, if I did conduct myself badly in that regard (and some people are sure I did so particularly to them):

I apologize to all for such bad behavior

in advance prior to being blocked for some period. --Blue Tie 12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, Thank you, that's fine. You should read WP:3RR for reference, and try not to revert the same article repeatedly at all (which is edit warring) certainly no more than 3 times in 24 hours. As it happens the "block" rule exists to protect articles not as a vengence or anything so once the article was protected you got off without a block. --BozMo talk 13:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have apologized to each person that I may have injured individually. I am taking myself out of editing for 24 hours from the time it was reported, because I do not want it to be a matter of a technicality. But I also sinned ignorantly. I had read 3rr some time ago, but it has changed and is clearer now. Gotta run --Blue Tie 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One idea: "argurments against global warming"

Sorry to add more fat to the fire, but I have just one question. Is it possible to add a section for "Arguments against global warming"? it would give a valid outlet to many skeptics here, and also for many of the extended discussions on this talk page. Does that sound good to people here? --Sm8900 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This still raises problems with WP:Undue weight also with the fact there is a lot of different uncertainty about Global Warming and many parts to it. At present there is a whole article Global Warming controversy which maps out the debate and is linked too. --BozMo talk 15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a bad idea. ~ UBeR 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Uber. I appreciate your feedback. However, sorry, but I thought you were a global warming skeptic? I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck here, just actually curious. Do you oppose that section on formatting grounds, or because of something else? thanks. --Sm8900 20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why Undue weight would apply in this case. Are we saying, on such a controversial topic, that to give the many views which dispute Global warming would be undue weight? Who decided Global warming as described by scientists, who say themselves they are only 90% sure, is THE VIEW, and all others are peripheral? Judgesurreal777 21:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any requirement that the arguments against be published in an academic journal, or would an off-the-cuff remark on a TV show or newspaper editorial suffice? Raymond Arritt 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight would apply because of the dearth of a significant minority of climate scientists opposing AGW. Perhaps you would want to visit . Political or PR controversy is not the same as scientific controversy. -- Skyemoor 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't the critics go to Conservapedia?

See here. And even this article does not give too much undue weight on the minority view.

Quote from the article:

"The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ "

Count Iblis 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, why don't you join http://uncyclopedia.org/? ~ UBeR 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with UBeR on their equivalence. --Skyemoor 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/2/3/1 Mankind to blame for global warming says IPCC
2. http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/2/3/1 Mankind to blame for global warming says IPCC
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference grida7 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/2/3/1 Mankind to blame for global warming says IPCC
5. consensus statement from national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India
6. consensus statement from Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council]
7. consensus statement from the American Meteorological Society (AMS)
8. declaration from the US Climate Change Science Program
9. consensus statement from the American Geophysical Union
10. examination of consensus position from the National Academies of Science
11. consensus statement from the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
12. A position paper of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London.
13. Position Statement on Global Climate Change adopted by the Geological Society of America
14. Australian Medical Association statement on climate change
15. American Chemical Society (unsigned) statement on Global Climate Change
16. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics