Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:12, 2 January 2009

	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 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted May 4, 2007 Featured article review Kept
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:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encylopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service. Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Misplaced Pages". The Denver Post.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Important notice: This is the talk page for the article Global warming. Some common points of argument are addressed at Misplaced Pages's Global Warming FAQ. 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. Also bear in mind that this is not a forum for general discussion about global warming. This page is only to be used for discussing improvements to the Global warming article. Thank you.

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February–August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February–April 2005 April–June 2005 May–October 2005 October–November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January–April 2006 April–May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August–October 2006 October–November 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 February–March 2007 April 2007 April 2007 (2) April 2007 (3) April 2007 (4) April 2007 (5) April 2007 (6)
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

Oregon Petition

the oregon petition is a petition that (http://www.petitionproject.org/) has been signed by 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with PhDs, which states that they do not believe that human caused global warming is not going "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." its a really big consensus, much larger than the IPCC's 2,500 scientists, some of which dont even agree with the "consensus solution." If this article so willingly quotes the IPCC, surely at least some of the Oregon Petition should be quoted.

Nicholas.tan (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha! You wish! Unfortunately, the high priests of the new ecofascist religion will not countenance such apostasy. 01:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

< Before entering the diatribe below on “consensus”, the question simply put forth is why quote the IPPC group and not quote the Oregon Petition group ? This becomes more relevant considering that many scientists who signed the original IPCC (group’s perspective) have now changed their positions and signed the Oregon Petition (group’s perspective). If this Misplaced Pages article is going to be objective, both groups should be quoted. >

A disbelief in "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere" is entirely consistent with the findings of the IPCC. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is 11 years old

31,072 of what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Oregon_Petition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.180.90.87 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The original survey was over a decade ago but they sent out the cards again this fall. The wording was exactly the same as the previous cards, including the suggestion to get more cards to give to others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus is (POV) I think a fair and balanced sentence should be added to the scientific consensus sentence in the green house gases section, the strength of the words used can be debated but I would at least like to see a source to the petition project which holds 9,032 PHD scientists who disagree with the notion that the green house gas effect is causing appreciable or catastrophic harm to our environment. It also includes up to 31,000 other signatures which have varying levels of education from America alone, from B.S. to Masters to PHD. In terms of PHD's alone, this number is roughly 5 times the number of scientists on the IPCC report, which if the sentence is based on scientific consensus on that report alone, contains a heavy bias and thus makes the article (POV) instead of (NPOV) Further, there are world wide petition projections which are revealing even larger numbers of scientists who disagree with the IPCC's statement, and anecdotal research into how the IPCC is run suggests rather minority opinion affecting the tone and content of the report rather than a wide variety of actively involved collaboration - this is of course speculative and with few sources, so like I've said in the beginning the strength of the wording can be debated to put in (NPOV) but as it stands now without reference to the petition project, it is (POV) and violates Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflamable dog (talk • contribs) 14:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The scientific opinion is based on research published in peer reviewed journals, not on arguments by authority. So, whether or not you have a million professors who believe in something is irrelevant as far as the scientific consensus is concerned. In theory, you could have a large body of scientific evidence for something published in peer reviewed journals, written by people with no formal education. Then that would be a scientific consensus too.

So, what would be relevant is a list of 31,000 peer reviewed articles, not 31,000 signatures of people. Count Iblis (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not related words: consensus from latin "con" with sensus" minded. English: "Same-minded" if you wish to portray your view then please take out the word consensus and say, "a percentage of papers say" not "scientific consensus" which seems to imply the opinions of scientists are yielding to absolute facts and theory as we would see in evolution or gravity. The opinions of scientists in this field vary widely and are no where near a consensus, and a large number seem to disagree with the IPCC conclusions, even within the IPCC itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflamable dog (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that no harm is done in simply putting in the fact that a petition project was started in America and garnished almost 10,000 PhD level signers, if nothing else this may remove a bias from potential readers to read the word, "consensus" and believe a ubiquitous opinion of scientists. This is within the realm of NPOV and to say otherwise certainly reveals a strong bias of opinion of an objective thinker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflamable dog (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

pdf posted today (11 Dec 2008) on the US Senate minority website, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84 with statements from hundreds of climate scientists opposing the consensus. It has links to numerous peer-reviewed journals, and there are a lot more on the website itself. A lot of it is based on new data. Insisting that there is a consensus here because it was said so a couple of years ago seems to me to be a willful denial of reality. I am not sure that you could find as many scientists in favor of the supposed consensus as there are against. 162.129.251.22 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just cite directly from the peer reviewed papers. What matters is what the peer reviewed papers themselves say. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

May I just say I disagree with Count Iblis on this one. While it is true that academics work, by convention, through a process of peer review, there is no reason why this vehicle must always be construed as the definition of a "consensus", nor do peer reviewed journal articles equate to an indisputable truth. I too have just read the Senate Minority Report and there is enough evidence to discount the claim that "consensus" exists to the extent that this article currently claims. - 15 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.129 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any better way to build consensums than analyzing what is being said on peer reviewed papers. Still any consensus process need to address the subject so simply signing a petition is not enough to overthrow what we learned through actual academic work.--Seba5618 (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 coldest this century, 21st century shows cooling - no longer accurate to talk about warming in the present tense!

In light of the recent announcement from the met Office, I can see it is no longer accurate to talk about active warming because the trend this century has been for cooling now resulting in .

Therefore it is clearly false and against against Misplaced Pages rules to to keep referring to "warming" in the present, at least without qualifying it in such a phase as "long term warming" or "warming over a period of many decades". I therefore suggest that any reference to warming in the present tense is either changed into the past tense or replaced by a truthful phrase such as one of the above "long term warming trend" so that the reader is not misled into believing that the actual current trend (in terms of decades/years) is warming.

Bugsy (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking an article that says that global warming is still real is not consistent with changing the disambiguation-related text at the top of the article to say "that occurred at the end of the 20th century". How about making the disambiguation text at the top of the article say "This article is about the recent increase in global temperature. For other periods of warming in Earth's history, see Paleoclimatology and Geologic temperature record"? - Enuja (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that it is pointless me participating in this discussion as the article has been locked by Billy Connolly - and the chances of him ever admitting that global warming has stopped is zero, so, I'm wasting my time here!Bugsy (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the article is semi-protected. You and I both just edited it. It's been semi-protected since October 14. Here is the article protection log. - Enuja (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if you could disprove anthropogenic climate change, you can't disprove the fact that human beings exist and use the resources of the Earth unsustainably. There is alot that needs to be done. Devote your time to something more educative :] Help us! Nick carson (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The ice sheets at both poles are melting. What happens when you drop ice cubes into a drink? And later, after the ice has melted?

Cold water continues to upwell from the deep oceanic currents, while warmed water is being drawn into those same currents to create a reservoir of warmer water that will eventually surface. Anarchangel (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny, the ice extent gets quite alot of coverage on less-than-hysterical sites which keep linking to graphs showing global ice extent growing due to a solid positive trend at the south pole. But hey, "the polar caps are melting!" is a cool scary catch cry. Jaimaster (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that this has any place here - but global sea ice extent is not growing. Antarctica is growing, yes, but by less than the arctic is declining. (0.06 mio. sq. miles growth vs. 0.51 mio. sq. miles decline annually) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends on trend length of course. Still invalidates the pluralised catch-cry :) Jaimaster (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The trendlength here was over the entire record. And i really wonder what that invalidates... The arctic is receeding by >7 times more than what little the antarctic is gaining. (which btw. is so little that within the errormargins - it could just as well be declining). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The invalid statement being "the polar ice caps are melting", per the bolded plural. Not really in dispute. If I select say, a rolling couple-year trend and show since 2002 (being the latest 20% of the entire record... point is the "entire record" isnt exactly much basis anyway) we get a very steep pos trend at the south pole and an overall pos trend. Statistical manipulation? Of course it is - no more so than showing a 45* incline keeling curve, however. Jaimaster (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

May i just point out (amongst other errors you make), that 2008 most certainly won't be the coldest this century (as you claim the source says), that seems to be a (nother) misreading of yours.... 2000 was colder. (hint: "since" usually means that the year compared to is outside the envelope). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WikiPedia, the 21st century began on January 1, 2001 Q Science (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. And should have know better, since every programmer (should) know(s) that year 0 didn't exist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also like to think about it this way: Since the IPCC made a firm prediciton of between 1.4 and 5.8C of warming the world has cooled at a rate which would give -1.4C of cooling in the same 110 year period. It is unfortunate, that there is this common confusion between what uninformed people expect the century to begin and the actual date the 21st century really began. However, whilst I was out celebrating 2000 like everyone else, the correct date is 2001 unless or until there is some international agreement on dating and/or a worldwide body responsible for setting dates that makes a clear statement that the start of centuries will from henceforth be redefined to start on the 00. 88.110.190.9 (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the southern ice sheet is stable. Hadn't looked at the chart until then; it shows the ice sheet varying around a slightly rising mean, or median, w/e they are using there. So does anyone know the comparative means/medians of temperature variations between the southern hemisphere and the northern? My hypothesis would be expecting colder northern temperatures than southern ones. Anarchangel (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The Southern Hemisphere warms more slowly because it has relatively little land. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I am puzzled to see a thread in this talk page which argues the existence of global warming is incorrect claim. It is shocking to see argument in favor of global warming denial. Range and severity of a plant disease increased by global warming, global warming will severely affect the aquatic ecosystem. So many studies prove the existence of global warming, I find the claim that global warming is non-existent quite ridiculous. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So a couple of studies showing what will happen to plants or the aquatic ecosystem if the temperature increases by x more degrees somehow prove that man made emissions are causing not only most or all of the increase in temperature recorded since the end of the little ice age, but will cause further changes, possibly catestrophic and well above an extrapolation of the mentioned recorded increase?

No wonder you are puzzled. Jaimaster (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, i can say that i'm puzzled about the amount of strange conclusions you derive in your reply, which were not even remotely suggested by OC. Can we all now take a minute and read WP:SOAP, and stop this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange conclusions? OC Said they are puzzled that people still doubt AGW. They listed two reports on the potential effects of GW, then stated "so many studies prove...". Hardly a "remote" suggestion. I dont really see the link between soap boxing and pointing out incorrect grandoise statements such as this or "the polar ice caps are melting". Jaimaster (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes ice caps are melting . Disputing this claim does not make any sense. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Economic and political debate

I recently came across THIS article on the US Senate website, and I felt both the source and the content would likely merrit mention under the Debate section. I am aware that it would primarily fall under the article Global warming controversy, but perhaps a brief mention that current and former UN IPCC scientists now chalenge the consensus view of the causation. --Coldbourne (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a political hack report already debated in several threads over at talk:global warming controversy. It has no value at all as a scientific source, and hence no place in this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, it is not necessary to be a "scientific source" in order to fall under the catagory of Political Debate. I see we are yet again getting on the merry-go-round of POV Non-notable sources. Please find me a recognized external source who also shares this POV with you. Until such time I am afraid that I am going to have to consider your statement to be unfounded and based strictly on personel opinion, and thus baseless. The question was posed in order to be discussed, not dismissed. Cheers. --Coldbourne (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Whats to discuss? Its not a reliable source to anything other than Sen. Inhofe's opinion. It lacks any form of review or checks/balances which are required to be considered reliable. So Stephan's dismissal is quite correct. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And just to add: Political debate must also follow the guidelines set out in WP:WEIGHT, and i shouldn't have to point out that Sen. Inhofe's opinion is a fringe in the global political debate on this subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming is a theory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is addressed in the FAQ --TS 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It should state in the article that Global Warming is theory and not a solid fact as the article seems to suggest. Kluft (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Global warming is a theory in the scientific sense, in that it is well supported and has survived numerous attempts at falsification. It is also a fact, in that thermometers don't lie. It would be doing our readers a major disservice to suggest otherwise. So thank you for your suggestion, but consider it rejected. Raul654 (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Global warming is a theory that made its first scientifically testable prediction in 2001 in the IPCC report. That report predicted that temperatures would rise by 1.4-5.8C. This was the first scientifically prediction that was capable of being tested, and as the scientific method requires, whether it was "falsifiable" depends on how well its predictions compare with real data. (not against computer models). The question any decent scientist should ask themself, is "how good does this prediction of between 1.4-5.8C warming in 110 years appear to be". The answer is that far from warming, worldwide temperatures have fallen with a trend that suggests -1.4C of cooling. Whilst 7 years of cooling trend is too short to say conclusively the theory has been proven to be false, I think saying "it is well supported" is a slight overstatement to say the least, given the fact the prediction has singularly failed to predict even the sign of the temperature trend let alone its absolute size. 88.110.190.9 (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you have a logic failure. If the question is, how good does this prediction of between 1.4-5.8C warming in 110 years appear to be then the answer is "please wait for 103 years" William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent consensus building. Kluft - the warming is a fact; the cause is what the theories address. Unfortunately many users are unable to understand this distinction. Jaimaster (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a misdirection. This is far from being either the coldest or warmest time in the history of the Earth. Man's industrial contribution to the atmosphere is irrelevant. Consensus is not fact, and as a matter of fact, there is not an overwhelming majority of scientists that subscribe to the theory. I've found the linked PDF to be an excellent resource to back up my discussions and I'd like to include its charts in the article in some way: http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf Ryratt (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "thermometers don't lie", but an awful lot of them appear to be located in questionable places. On occasion, it appears that some data has simply been copied from one year to the next. And there are probably lots of other errors. Granted, the known errors are not enough to question the current cooling trend (over the last 7 years), or the longer warming trend (since 1980), but there are still a lot of monitoring sites that the skeptics haven't been able to survey. In addition, over 70% of the Earth is monitored by satellites and that data is highly questionable (according to NASA). Q Science (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I rephrase the original statement.

Man made Global warming is accepted and can account for approximately +0.6 deg C. Catastrophic warming forecasts created by positive feedback is a theory.

And from this article which I take from the main page it makes the theory bunk. We can not have catastrophic warming with a run away effect at the same time we have cooling of the oceans.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html

OxAO (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What is your definition of "catastrophy"? See the FAQ. The current effects of global warming are already quite catastrophic, but very diffuse. "We're all going to die" is not something that is seriously suggested by the IPCC or any scientific organization I'm aware of. And the article you cite does not say that "the oceans are cooling", but that the sea surface temperatures in some areas may temporarily decrease very slightly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

“This page is about the science of global warming. It doesn't talk about planetary doom or catastrophe.”

“Climate model projections indicate that global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.”

These two statements are contradictory.

If the planet rises in temperature 1.1 deg C per hundred years then eventually the human race and ever living thing on the planet will die. The Earth will be a sister planet to Venus. Catastrophic Positive feedback theory is a run away effect it has no end to how high the temperatures will go.

From the article: “Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade”

This is again contradictory to the run away effect created by the positive feedback theory. A good example of positive feedback is turning a bowl upside down then put a ball on top of the bowl. Then you push the ball off the slope and the ball will pick up energy as it falls.

If we have cooling in the middle of the positive feed back that would mean the ball is no longer falling down the slope.

02:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is a catastrophe id love to live in your utopia. Jaimaster (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because it does not currently directly affect you or me does not mean it is not happening. That's why I asked about the definition of "catastrophe". Was the 1996 Everest Disaster a catastrophe? The Galtür Avalanche? The Collapse of the World Trade Center? Global warming has easily killed more people than either of these so far. What is more, we are currently living through a major extinction event that is at least partially caused and accelerated by global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Global warming has easily killed more than 2,753 people? Show me the body bags. To borrow a certain journalist's response to this sort of claim, "name just 10". Ill settle for a source for 10 deaths where the cause of death is undisputably "global warming". Jaimaster (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the idea that "if warming happens then eventually every living thing on Earth will die", assuming it isn't clobbered with a doomsday asteroid at some point, eventually all life on Earth WILL be wiped out as our Sun changes. Long before it even incinerates the planet as it reaches red giantism, it will eliminate the oceans and make the planet incompatible with life. The planet is doomed whether we drive hybrid cars or not. Whether humans will have survived long enough to develop the technology to find another place to live and survive by that point is another question.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Amphibians are the primary targets of the latest extension. Global Warming Link To Amphibian Declines is in Doubt

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112113708.htm

03:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by OxAO (talk • contribs)

As you well know, few things are undisputable. Weather events are only probabilistically correlated with global warming. The 2003 European heat wave is generally considered to be at least partially caused by global warming, and has caused at last several thousand deaths. So has the 2006 European heat wave. And that is for major industrialized countries with an excellent infrastructure and easy access to good health services. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There were never any heat waves before global warming? I find this argument hard to take seriously. If the Earth was cooler, the weather would certainly be different. But there will always be freak weather and people dying from it. CO2 is plant food, not a satanic gas. The idea that the natural temperature is perfect one is a form of natural worship. According to the graph of satellite date, the temperature is same now as it was in 1980. Kauffner (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there will always be freak weather. But one of the predictions of the IPCC is an increase in the frequency and severity of freak weather events. CO2 is both a toxic poison and a necessary component for life - as is Oxygen, by the way (if you ever dive on Nitrox, don't exceed an Oxygen partial pressure of 1.6 atm). It all depends on the concentration. CO2 is well below the direct toxicity level for humans (though not necessarily for certain corals), but it probably is much higher than it ever was in the Holocene, and it is rising faster than at any other time we can make reliable claims about. As for the "optimal temperature" red herring, see the FAQ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

”But one of the predictions of the IPCC is an increase in the frequency and severity of freak weather events.”

Lets think about that for a second. For example: How are Hurricanes in the gulf of Mexico created? Real generally when there is a large difference in temperatures between the weather at the equator and the weather farther north. Right?

No offense, but -- wrong. Baroclinity (i.e., horizontal temperature contrast) produces vertical wind shear, which is well known to inhibit hurricane development. See e.g., here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is warmer weather in the north that would mean a more balanced temperature with the weather at the equator, in other words at it gets warmer there would be less sever storms.

There is no logic to their argument.

OxAO (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Why do they claim as it gets warmer that there would be greater severity of the storms?

Mostly because of greater low-level humidity, promoting moist convective instability. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of logic to it -- providing you understand the physics. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Id have said enhanced by rather than caused by myself. There is little doubt the extra temp made those heat waves kill more than they might have in say, 1950. How many? And how do they balance against a similarly extrapolated guesswork number of lives saved by warmer winters since 1980? :) In any case I still disagree on catastrophe. A positive feedback cycle kicking off would be a catastrophe, but we havnt seen that yet... as far as I am aware the numbers on extinctions are similar extrapolated guesses to the "death count" of AGW / salt / passive smoking / ozone depletion / DDT bans. No bodies, just guesses. Jaimaster (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This article explains the difference between theory and fact quite well. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you smoke and you get lung cancer, then you still cannot prove that the smoking caused the lung cancer in your case. So, despite the fact that it is now undisputed that a large fraction of all lung cancer cases are caused by smoking, no one can point to any particular case of a lung cancer that was caused by smoking. Count Iblis (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. What you can do, however, is look at the rate of cancer in non-smokers and smokers of similar demographic backgrounds and create an estimate. Any attempt to apply this to the rate of death by natural disaster since 1980 compared to before is going to be rendered completely meaningless by more modern disaster response greatly lowering the casualty numbers per similar disaster. Since AGW is caused by industrialisation, and modern disaster response is a result of industrialisation, AGW saves lives! (poor link, but amusing). Jaimaster (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A lucid summary by David Evans of the case against man-made global warming - and why the theory still has its fierce propagandists:

From 1975 to 2001 the global temperature trended up. How do you empirically determine the cause of this global warming? ...

The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics, and a combination of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming…

We have been observing temperatures in the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes - weather balloons with thermometers… The radiosonde measurements for 1979-1999 show broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming, but they show no tropical hotspot. Not even a small one. ..

Human carbon emissions were occurring at the time but the greenhouse effect did not increase. Therefore human carbon emissions did not increase the greenhouse effect, and did not cause global warming…

The only supporting evidence for AGW was the old ice core data. The old ice core data, gathered from 1985, showed that in the past half million years, through several global warmings and coolings, the earth’s temperature and atmospheric carbon levels rose and fell in lockstep. AGW was coming into vogue in the 1980s, so it was widely assumed that it was the carbon changes causing the temperature changes....

(But) by 2003 it had been established to everyone’s satisfaction that temperature changes preceded corresponding carbon changes by an average of 800 years: so temperature changes caused carbon changes… So the ice core data no longer supported AGW.

So if there is no evidence to support AGW, and the missing hotspot shows that AGW is wrong, why does most of the world still believe in AGW?

Part of the answer is that science changed direction after a large constituency of vested interests had invested in AGW… (S)cientists were being paid by governments to research the effects of human-caused global warming… AGW grabbed control of climate funding in key western countries… The alarmists are full time, well funded, and hog the megaphone.

< What is very clear to this reader is that messengers Kim D. Petersen, William M. Connolley, and Stephan Schulz have no tolerance for rational discussion on this subject. Unfortunately the gates they hope to hold shut are soon to overflow. The real data is showing cooling temperatures, cooling oceans, correlation with solar activity, not CO² and a larger collection of scientific minds questioning IPCC perspective. The climate is surely changing is this regard. > < mkurbo@comcast.net > Do your own research:

http://www.eworldvu.com/international/2008/9/10/melting-arctic-sea-ice-and-global-warming-hype.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.76.30 (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I wont be suprised to see that comment deleted, but I must say (and me as a dirty sceptic to them, at that) until such a time as peer reviewed scientific literature says what the blogs say, this article will - quite rightly mind you - reflect the existing literature. Like you I am quite confident that the day will come that the existing versions of this article can be pulled out of the wiki logs for some /point /laugh, but that day is still years into the future.

If you really want to help, instead of posting talk page rhetoric, find AGW related articles and try and prune back the rubbish-based alarmist hysteria that occasionally creeps in. For example, if a certain hysteric's recent "research" about how merely burning coal will "very likely" turn Earth into Venus to creeps in, be around to make sure it gets put back into the trashcan it belongs in, per wp:undue. Jaimaster (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Will Kim Peterson take this off as well ? Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria' Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man's activates are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased." They say the report, which was published on Monday, contained sweeping scientific errors and was a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. "If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it," said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue. In the article, Obama Left with Little Time to Curb Global Warming, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein wrote that global warming is "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid," and that "global warming is accelerating." Deming, in an interview, took issue with Borenstein's characterization of a problem he says doesn't exist. "He says global warming is accelerating. Not only is it continuing, it's accelerating, and whether it's continuing that was completely beyond the evidence," Deming told FOXNews.com. "The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980." Deming said the article is further evidence of the media's decision to talk about global warming as fact, despite what he says is a lack of evidence. "Reporters, as I understand reporters, are supposed to report facts,"Deming said. "What he's doing here is he's writing a polemic and reporting it as fact, and that's not right. It's not reporting. It's propaganda. "This reads like a press release for an environmental advocacy group like Greenpeace. It's not fair and balanced." A spokesman for the Associated Press said that the news agency stands by its story. "It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others," spokesman Paul Colford told FOXNews.com in an e-mail. Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho, is another academic who found serious flaws with the AP story's approach to the issue. "There's very little that's right about it," Fox said. "And it's really harmful to the United States because people like this Borenstein working for AP have an enormous impact on everyone, because AP sells their news service to a thousand news outlets. "One guy like him can be very destructive and alarming. Yeah it's freedom of speech, but its dishonest." Like Deming, Fox said global warming is not accelerating. "These kinds of temperatures cycle up and down and have been doing so for millions of years," he said. He said there is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. "It's silly to lay it all on man-made carbon dioxide," Fox said. "It was El Nino in 1998 that caused the big spike in global warming and little to do with carbon dioxide." Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes, he said. James O'Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans, said that global climate change is very important for the country and that Americans need to make sure they have the right answers for policy decisions. But he said he worries that scientists and policymakers are rushing to make changes based on bad science. "Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world," O'Brien said. "But everything that's attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming." He took issue with the AP article's assertion that melting Arctic ice will cause global sea levels to rise. "When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it's displacing water," O'Brien said. "When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down. "I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn't go up in your glass of water. It's called the Archimedes Principle." He called sea level changes a "major scare tactic used by the global warming people." O'Brien said he doesn't discount the potential effects man is having on the environment, but he cautioned that government should not make hasty decisions. "There is no question that the Obama administration is green and I'm green, and there's no question that they're going to really take a careful look at what we need to do and attack problems, and I applaud that," O'Brien said. "But I'm really concerned that they're going to spend all the money on implementation of mitigation, rather than supporting the science." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.76.30 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Snow in Vegas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This question is addressed in the FAQ, and this page is for discussion of the article, not arguing over whether global warming exists.

So how do you explain this? --Underpants (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the FAQ. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Dr. Jeff Masters addresses this issue well in a recent blog entry. Not sure if this is helpful or not but I thought I might add a link.

"Record snow events inevitably bring comments like, "so what happened to global warming?" First of all, no single weather event can prove or disprove the existence of climate change or global warming. One needs to look at the entire globe over a period of decades to evaluate whether or not climate change is occurring" http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1167&tstamp= —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-a-x (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC) The expression "Cherry Picking" comes to mind when people read admonitions about single events and then dismiss decade long data. DDB (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As with just about every discussing regarding global warming, there is a significant amount of quote mining, or in this case, numbers mining. Several feet of snow over several decades would indicate to me that Las Vegas needs to open a ski resort. I actually saw a snowstorm in South Florida many years ago, but global warming wasn't a worry back then, it was whether we were heading for a new Ice Age. OrangeMarlin 01:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to see List of snow events in Florida. Titoxd 20:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sea Level RISE/FALL

Sea level rise due to glacial melting but what happens after all the ice melts? More water in the air causing more global warming and lower sea levels? Or am I missing something? TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes - you are missing something (several things actually) The first one is that if Oceans warm - then the sea levels will rise, because of thermal expansion. The second is that while the atmosphere would be able to contain more water vapor, it wouldn't be able to contain that much. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a valid question highlighting that the research/modeling is so much guess work. In Australia the CSIRO said several months ago in a report that its modeling suggested petrol would rise from $1.50 to $8 in less than ten years. The figure is counter to any historical situation and it appears as if it will be just wrong .. suggesting that the models predicting the weather next century are similarly mistaken. It may well be that sea levels are falling because it isn't warming globally. Of more concern for model devotees should be that the sea levels are not significantly increasing, but may be decreasing. DDB (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Climate models do not predict what the price of petrol is or will be.

And sorry - sea levels are rising globally. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Really sorry Kim, but sea levels are NOT rising globally beyond normal trending from the last ice age ~ 10,000 years ago. Mk

Ddball is using the pathetic inaccuracy of one CSIRO model to highlight that other disaster-predicting CSIRO models probably arnt worth the magnetic media the code is stored in. Sea levels have matched the temperature trend plateau of recent times. Jaimaster (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really wondering how you can call it a "pathetic inaccuracy", when if you read the summary , the premise for a $2-$8 price hasn't happened? The question asked was "if peak oil happened in the near future, what would the result be?" - since peak oil hasn't happened - how can you be cock-sure that its a "pathetic inaccuracy"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Peak oil was not mentioned in the media reporting of the study, and I must admit I didnt care to read the report itself after dismissing it via the media reports as another rediculous scare-you report from the CSIRO. Jaimaster (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Glacial melting causes more earthquakes

Hi. There's this link from NASA that glacial melt in Alaska has spawned more earthquakes: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0715glacierquakes.html . Can this be added to either this or a GW-topic article? I realise discussion on this topic on Misplaced Pages previously has been controversial, but this is not a study and comes from a reliable source, please comment. Thanks. ~AH1 21:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty well known that glacier retreat causes rebound of the earth's crust (glacial isostasy, or glacial rebound). Is there a journal article on this work? Press releases aren't the greatest sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You probably wont be seeing this in the article without alot more than a 4 year old government agency press release to reference. Jaimaster (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's yet another link from The Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately it too is a news source and is two years old. However it shows that this isn't simply just a single unsupported hypothesis or study. ~AH1 16:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it time the global temperature graph was amended to reflect the recent cooling?

The Met Office have already published the global temperature for 2008, when will wikipedia update the graph to show the cooling this now clearly shows? 79.79.181.104 (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, we'll at least wait until 2008 is over, and the December data is checked over. - Enuja (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, only about 20% of temperature stations report in near real-time. Dragons flight (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable sceptic? Who is Dr Will Happer?

Who is Dr Will Happer? All over the web he's said to be a "noted energy expert and Princeton physicist" and to have published 200 papers. The claims then run: "In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him". But only in in October this year coming out and saying: "I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect ... Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science." MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

He's an atomic physicist at Princeton. Despite his claims to the contrary, I can find no publications by him that are directly related to the physics of climate change. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much satisfied with the standard model of Global Warming. So when I saw that someone called Dr. Will Happer had come out against it (admittedly, only published in the Daily Star), my first stop was this article. After all, there are a lot of people making money from doom and gloom on this subject, whereas Will Happer would appear to be an educated and neutral observer. He has nothing (obvious) to gain or lose from sharing with us his scientific view. Do I find any mention of Will Happer? No, but in the discussion page, I find there are 1,000s of others like him. It's difficult to have much confidence in an article that's written from only one point of view. (and it turns out that this is one of Misplaced Pages's top articles!!!!!!) MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This article accurately reflects the information published in peer reviewed journals. Our core policies, including verifiability require that we must use reliable sources to support all of the information in the article. Misplaced Pages does contain information about the Oregon Petition mentioned elsewhere on this talk page right now, about the Scientific opinion on climate change, about individuals who have problems with parts of the IPCC consensus List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and about the Global warming controversy. All of these pages (except Oregon Petition, which is linked from the controversy article) are linked from this article, both in the text and in the box at the bottom. It's not that the article is trying to hide anything. It's just that we can't fit all of the content on all of the global warming related articles on one page, and that the huge amount of political controversy creates a huge number of posts on this talk page from people who are individually global warming skeptics. The fact that "facts" that do not appear in the peer reviewed literature show up here on the talk page, and not on the article, is a strength, not a weakness, of Misplaced Pages. - Enuja (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the explanation. What you're describing looks like quite a serious weakness, with "paid lobbyists" for alarmism getting a free ride for their position, even if (when?) their work is not very convincing to other members of the scientific community. Not your fault. At least there could be a section "Opposition", guiding people to find the other articles that (rather badly) cover controversy. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the article, check the references - and then please point out the ""paid lobbyists" for alarmism" that are getting a "free ride".... If there are really such people there - then they most certainly have to be pruned. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oceans

Can we make another section similar to the solar variation section which talks about the PDO, AMO, La Nina/El Nino effects on global temperatures? Several articles have been published acknowledging the link between postive/negative PDO cycles and global temperatures and there's a lot of information on articles on wikipedia itself to be explored. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflamable dog (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Those are natural oscillations within the climate system and aren't directly related to climate change. There's been a little bit of work on things like the possibility that the strength or frequency of ENSO may change in future climates, but there aren't yet any conclusive results. In fact results to date tend to suggest that there won't be much change. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, icecaps.us and www.drroyspencer.com website don't qualify as reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What the heck do you mean unrelated to climate change? The PDO anomaly of the oceans heavily correlate to the temperature trends of the 20th century, these are outside La Nina/El Nino - ENSO forcings, these are long term trends in the ocean surface temperatures which correspond to long term trends. And BS we both know that this issue conflicts with a popular theme that man is the main cause in climate trends the past century, if you want me to hunt down sources directly from the journals, which I'm most obliged to do since the references I posted are/in the process of being published then I will. There's no need to delete the whole section, and I need to be given some sort of hint that others will help and contribute rather than go into a deleting frenzy at the first site of a conflicting credible theory to AGW. Otherwise why should I invest time in hunting down and possibly paying for the studies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflamable dog (talk • contribs) 04:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No, PDO isn't a trend, it's an oscillation -- that's what the "O" in "PDO" stands for. BTW if you need journal articles, I'll gladly look up any specific articles you need. I have access to most of the journals without paying for them (or at least, not paying any more than I'm already paying). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that enlightening detail, but I think we both know what I meant, if you don't know what I meant then I will gladly explain: when I said trend, I meant the 30 year trends heavily correlate to the 30 year trends in temperatures, as temperature itself has oscillated up and down - I'm talking about the first derivative or in calculus this refers to the rate of change and not the specific y-values of the graphs. In this case I'm referring to an average rate of change over the period of years of temperature and PDO slope values. Average rate of change is the rise over run of a linear "trend" line (though not limited to) which means as y moves up x moves over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.22.57.244 (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Age of the Earth

How is the age of the earth irrelevant when talking about the history of the temp of the earth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex25 (talk • contribs)

This article isn't about the "history of the temp of the earth". Its about the recent climate change. The geological age of the Earth is irrelevant here. Climate over the period of time that you are referring to is quite beyond the scope of both the discussion on climate change, and the recent climate. For one because during much of this timeperiod, the Earth didn't even have an atmosphere that would be breathable to life as we know it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"global warming isn't real"

whenever I mention global warming to someone in conversation, they say it's not real and that 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor. they also are all conservatives, I'm not sure how that ties in. this has nothing to do with the article, but can anyone give me a good comeback? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.102.57 (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The facts behind this misunderstanding are described on this article page and on greenhouse gas and greenhouse effect. One comeback might be "Any normal risks from my driving aren't caused by the alcohol content in my blood, but increasing the alchohol content in my blood will result in problems with my driving." It's a silly and poor analogy, but it might work. For future reference, please use talk pages on articles for improving the article, not for talking about the subject. If you can't get the information you need from Misplaced Pages articles, try making a post on the reference desk. - Enuja (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct them and say, Catastrophic warming forecasts are not real, but global warming is real.--OxAO (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The best thing you can say is nothing at all. If someone stands for a certain point of view because their choice of political affiliation stands for the same, that person will rarely be swayed by such insignificant things as facts. This applies to both leftards and neocons equally... Jaimaster (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Graphs and charts at the head of the article

The temperature graphs at the head of the article are now out of date by half a decade, and a decade, respectively. This makes them misleading, as particularly with the global colder weather we've been having in the past two years, and advances in scientific techniques, they are no longer accurate representations of the issue. Shouldn't they be replaced with something more up-to-date and appropriate? 80.47.220.22 (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The top graph goes to 2007. Since 2008 isn't over yet - i would say that its pretty up-to-date. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The real misleading point is using the LIA as the start point of a graph illustrating anthropogenic global warming. Jaimaster (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Its the point where the instrumental record begins, whats misleading in that? (and who is doing the misleading?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We lead with Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. yet to its right you can find a graph that shows a near 45* incline - from 1910. It looks quite impressive, but it is misleading, be it on purpose or by accident.

The second graphic also has an oddity. 1940-1980 is used as the reference period when it is neither the default at the site it was generated at, nor the usual ~1961-1990 more commonly used. Why was 40-80 chosen?

anthropogenic global warming redirects to this page, which is also interesting, given that we otherwise differenciate between "global warming" and its causes as facts and theory. Jaimaster (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bottom one, then, till 2004, five years out of date tomorrow. Think it's about time we got some new data, considering this is supposed to be a current issue. 80.47.220.22 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to update all charts and graphs until the end of 2008. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

More recognition of dismissive reports and data

I understand Wiki pages are encylopedic and there is an effort to explain the topic. However, with this topic, the fact that there is a daily increase in dismissive reports by scientists, not political committees, must be highlighted. For example, the U.S. Sentate's recent report with a rambling title that includes Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

I hope I entered the data correctly.

In any event, the current article can go off on its merry way, but I would suggest that, very much like other Wiki articles, there be a strong statement that this is not a "consensus" law, even though proponents say it is. It is silly to match credentials and votes when discussing nature, but if we do that, then the global warming people are unarmed in a battle of wits. As it is, the poor students reading this page will not comprehend they are being programmed to accept a increasingly peculiar theory as a basis for governmental and economic decisions. The page moves from definition to propaganda.

In my research I noted that the Mann hockey stick graph is mathematically wrong, Hansen of NASA makes statements contradicted by his own department, that "Global Warming" equations never included solar activity (Much to the surprise of Columbia University,) that there had been an incredible increase in undersea volcanic activity, that the world is cooling (if not entering some sort of ice age,) sea levels are not rising out of control, and that there was global warming on Mars during the last solar activity, that the antarctic has been incredibly cold and ice is growing, contrary to talking heads on the news. Indeed, this year will be very cold, in general, as the flare activity was VERY low this year.

I understand you don't want arguments while defining a waning theory, but it is intellectually dishonest not to link to the powerful arguments dismissing the whole global warming construct. At least, the Europeans had the sense to change their complaints to the evils of "climate change" since the warming argument was becoming more absurd with each passing day.

To demonstrate, I looked up "creationism." Here is what Wiki reports: Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins. Clearly, a position was taken to effectively counter the theory.

Now, look at Global Warming, in addition to being misleading, the growing rejection of the theory, even by those falsely claimed to support it, is rendered irrelevant. First there is a clear definition, a statement of fact (that avoid the last 8 years of data and sets up a myriad of unsupported, non-scientific assumptions,) then there is the invocation of the silly IPCC, a mild recognition of variables (a minor variable is the sun ???), and the approval of unnamed societies. Then, there is a mention of "individual" scientists who are not part of the overwhelming majority, which the foot notes says is the opinion of a Royal Society. I suppose the logic is a group of people who sit around in a society, who are unnamed, and who profit from their own decisions are, somehow, more on top of things than leading scientists who put their reputationson the line. This approach to slanting the issue is not in error; it is intended. Some of these individuals are actually named in the report noted above and listed with their relevant and profound credentials.

To wit:

"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the temperature increase since the mid-twentieth century is "very likely" due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.

Finally, see the Royal Society's pages Dr. Carl Wunsch's (MIT) article that end with:

"Many scientists therefore rely upon numerical models of the climate system to calculate (1) the nature of natural variability with no human interference, and compare it to (2) the variability seen when human effects are included. This approach is a very sensible one, but the ability to test (calibrate) the models, which can be extraordinarily complex, for realism in both categories (1) and (2) is limited by the same observational data base already describe. At bottom, it is very difficult to determine the realism by which the models deal with either (1) or (2)

Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof." http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1

Another individual heard from. Funny how committees like to make pronouncements and never tell you who decided upon the decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.246.18 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Senate reports have no value at all as a scientific source, find some proper sources and you will have a case. The rest of your points (Last 8 years show cooling, Mann's work been wrong, it's the sun, etc.) are no more than the same rebuted arguments that shouldn't be discussed here as this is not a forum for general discussion about global warming. All I'll say is that if you disagree with Mann's work you have many more reconstruction of past temperatures... --Seba5618 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's worrying that this article makes global warming appear to be a done deal (even though, until coming here, I was entirely convinced by the "standard theory"). To reject the commentary of learned outside observers (as was explained to me over Dr Will Happer, above) on the basis "non-specialist, no peer-reviewed papers on topic" looks like a recipe for a distorted article. When this much money is being poured in and the doubts of specialists are career-damaging (must be, almost by definition), then editors have a tricky job writing a balanced article. But that's what we're here for. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The article reflects what reliable sources have to say about it, while mentioning the opinion of single voices (and linking to an article with their opinions). Giving more weight to these non-specialist, no peer-reviewed papers will break WP:UNDUE. Further, giving that none reliable source rejects the IPCC conclusions, the present inclusion of this minority viewpoints is already in violation of WP:UNDUE in my opinion. --Seba5618 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I change your link to regular square brackets. The "ref" tag is used for putting footnotes in the actual article.

< "Senate reports have no value at all as a scientific source, find some proper sources" – This is a inconsistent statement - Will some rational person here please explain why a Senate Report stating multiple papers/sources/scientists is not a proper source, but a IPCC Report which is just (if not more) as political is a proper source ? At least the Senate Report links you to each individual source sited so one can do their own research. >

It's not a senate report, but a Senate Committee Minority report. It's not commissioned by the senate (or the committee), it's not discussed there, and it has not been accepted there. But even if the full house unanimously had voted for it, it would still be a purely political document. The IPCC reports, even if you do not seem to know it, are scientific reports - and they, of course, link into the original scientific literature. Inhofe's piece of propaganda, on the other hand, contains people who cannot, in the most generous way, be considered scientists, and it misrepresents several of those that are - and indeed many of the scientists mentioned have protested against this misrepresentation of their work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Which explains how some users may dismiss Senate Reports, but the argument is fallacious. The Minority senate report is not some paper put together by illiterate senators but a carefully compiled document. It has a political background as the IPCC report does too. To suggest the IPCC is compiled by scientists and the Senate minority is not is to be misleading .. except as an explanation of how those who dismiss the report think. DDB (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that Inhofe is illiterate, although that does explain some things. The IPCC is written by a large group of recognized experts named in the reports. The documents go through several rounds of review. Reviewer comments and replies are available online. Many scientific organizations have endorsed the result. The US National Academy has performed independent in-depth research and endorses the IPCC. I'm sure you can point out who carefully compiled that Inhofe report and why he or she thinks that Nigel Lawson is a scientist? And how somehow 30 or so scientists were counted twice? And why several scientists object to the misrepresentation of their research? No doubt the careful compiler(s) know(s) more about the original researchers results than they know themselves...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Senate minority reports are absolutely not reliable. This is already covered in the FAQ. Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• 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
• FA-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics