Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:55, 13 November 2007

	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:

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

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.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about editors' personal beliefs about global warming. Talk page guidelines are vigorously enforced on this page, as per this consensus. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about editors' personal beliefs about global warming. Talk page guidelines are vigorously enforced on this page, as per this consensus at the Reference desk.

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 March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

unjustified global warming revert

The number of efforts to actually physically inventory the quality of the USHCN weather station network is exactly 1 and that's the effort that I'm citing. How can you revert for undue weight when I didn't do anything but adjust a categorical statement that everybody thinks that UHI is a minor deal to the more accurate "many" and put in qualifiers as to the recent vintage of the Watts effort data and its partial nature at this time. This was a good faith edit and you might want to consider Misplaced Pages:Reverting specifically

Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

So let me assume good faith on your part and just ask, notwithstanding all the above, do you have any legitimate reason within the wikipedia rules that I might have missed to act as you have? TMLutas 09:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to put a link in to the diff. TMLutas 09:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, that is one study, and as far as I am concerned, it is not peer-reviewed. As I see it, it is as good as taking their word on faith. Most of the article makes claims from studies that have been corroborated by many other studies. Thus, even mentioning that "study" might violate weight issues. Brusegadi 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The rules on that effort are that every station maintainer has to be told what's going on and given the opportunity to challenge the survey form, any diagrams, and any pictures taken as being misleading or wrong. That's a stronger level of independent editorial oversight than academic peer review in a journal. If the site maintainers aren't challenging the CRN ratings as biased, the only thing left that's not peer reviewed is the arithmetic. Look, this is a basic level study, the first ever physical review of 1200+ USHCN stations. There's not much to review here. Either the study is accurate or it is not. If it is not, either the volunteer surveyors are lying and site maintainers will eventually catch on and correct the lies with Watt or Watt himself is distorting the submissions and the maintainers will crucify him for not following his own published standards. It's not rocket science, just basic foundational science that matters for every other study that uses the station data.

Assume for a moment that Watts is not lying, that there really is something wrong, and the statistical efforts to fix UHI have been woefully inadequate. Now either we don't mention the study at all and then, when things become way too obvious, Misplaced Pages has a 'Pravda moment' and everything changes at once. Studies that depend on the station data being right disappear and major changes in global warming and related articles happen overnight. That's rather ugly and pretty rough on the reputation of Misplaced Pages. The other alternative is to monitor this study, mention it lightly as possible trouble if trends hold up, and adjust in small ways as the data keeps coming in. Then when it's published, it's old news to people who depend on Misplaced Pages, the adjustments will be small, incremental, and Misplaced Pages's reputation does not take a hit over this. In fact, it will be enhanced over other news sources who will have to do the 'Pravda moment' routine.

I've tried to give my best effort to improve the article with respect to this issue. Obviously this isn't popular as two separate editors reverted it and nobody's supporting me. So what's consensus? Is it for ignoring this until its' impossible to ignore anymore and have that Pravda moment? Or is there a better way to introduce the information and keep updating it as new data comes in? I really am curious what everybody else thinks? TMLutas 03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When (if) the results are published in a decent peer-reviewed journal (not something like Energy and Environment), we can seriously consider them for inclusion. This isn't discrimination; we've included various things from skeptics that have been published in peer-reviewed articles, even in cases where their findings were later refuted. This article has time and again been mentioned for its solid sourcing from peer-reviewed sources. Let's not weaken that. (By the way, tossing around language like 'Pravda moment' doesn't help your argument.) Raymond Arritt 03:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, 'Pravda moment' certainly has the advantage of being both catchy and descriptive. But catchy and descriptive doesn't help? I wonder what does. Come up with an alternative that isn't long, clunky, and ineffective and I'll certainly adopt it in preference to my own tag. I'll enjoy your literary efforts if you decide to apply yourself.

To be clear, I'm not claiming discrimination. That's a straw man. What I'm saying is that the ground stations are foundational. Foundational data sources are used by a lot of papers and if they are overturned they have a huge effect on the entire debate. By their very nature, they should be monitored especially closely. The ground stations heavily depend on the statistical correction schemes for error being reasonably effective. Any serious challenge to them via physical inspection is something that should be watched very carefully and readers of the global warming article should be given at least a hint of it before the survey is finished and the whole field erupts in an uproar as everybody scrambles to find out how much the ground has suddenly shifted when this eventually gets published. Nobody's seriously challenging the data, the collection method, anything other than its nonpublication so far. They can't attack funding sources. Watts is doing this out of his own pocket so that red herring's not available.

Another thing, if this isn't included after being published in a serious peer reviewed journal, that standard should be applied to all the points in the global warming article in a NPOV manner. How much would be left of the article then? Are you just trying to be provocative with your use of the word 'consider'?

I'm more than open to working out a road map at this point. At 100% completion (minus any stations that don't permit survey) how bad would it have to be (% of stations where CRN error rating exceeds warming signal) before there's a consensus that things have fundamentally changed and a general article review is warranted? Whatever that point is, I would certainly think that 50% is well above the figure. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd like to hear some hard numbers that provide an indication of what's a prudent way to proceed. TMLutas 23:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right the ground stations are important and should be monitored closely. A seriously challenge to them should indeed appear in the article. But a serious challenge requires a peer reviewed article. Perhaps the reason why not one has challenged the data is because it's so stupid or poorly done that it's a waste of time. I really have no idea. I do know wikipedia is not the place to make such a decision. Misplaced Pages BTW is not a crystal ball. We should not in fact give the readers a 'hint' of something which may very well turn out to be nothing. If the study turns out to be as important as you suggest then our readers should only find out it when the study is published, the same as the rest of the world. As for your point about the article, I'm pretty sure most of the scientific opinions and facts are supported by peer reviewed studies. (Obviously stuff like the opinions of thinkthanks are different matters). In some cases, we may link to a non peer-reviewed summarisation of the peer-reviewed studies which is generally perfectly acceptable and indeed can be better (since understanding a scientific paper usually requires the person has some expertrise on the matter). If you feel the summarisation doesn't accurately reflect the studies then you're welcome to raise the issue here, these should indeed be removed. If the study had receive significant mainstream coverage then there might be justification for including it in another article but definitely not in this article. But from what I can tell it hasn't anyway. Nil Einne 08:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nil Einne - Peer review is not a black box, a plaster god to pray to. What, pray tell, would adding 3 reviewers do to the reliability of the project when it's virtually all data gathering and <1% trivial analysis?

You assert that Misplaced Pages is not the place to decide whether to include the project in a wikipedia article. Excuse me? This makes no sense. I think you must have meant something else, please clarify.

Please read WP:Crystal which you seem to be citing. The edit was not about (or not mostly about) the speculative future effect of the project. It was an assertion that the present level of data gathering was sufficient to note. I would be open to a pure 'just the facts' presentation if anybody wants to submit an alternate text

We give people a 'hint' at something which turns out to be nothing all the time. That's why all our keyboards have delete keys. What you seem to be saying is that the turnaround time on ideas being included or excluded should be academic journal publishing cycles. As a simplistic crutch, I can see that being workable most of the time. But it should not become a hard unwritten rule even for science articles as it would cripple wikipedia. Peer reviewed treatments are preferable. They are not the exclusive documents that can and/or should be used in a science article, even one as controversial as global warming. Your assertion that "our readers should only find out it when the study is published, the same as the rest of the world" is neither accurate (press accounts and opinion pieces already exist on this project) nor in accord with Misplaced Pages's principles. If I submit some of those press accounts instead of the project site, would that be acceptable to the wider community?

You should be aware that I've submitted this information to the relevant pages so far as I'm able to discover which are, in order of relevance Instrumental temperature record, Urban heat island, and global warming. I'm taking feedback from any of these edits and applying them to all three to improve it all so no need to follow me. If you would support inclusion in ITR and/or UHI but not here, please make that clear (that's a general request to all editors btw:). I would be open to arguments that it should be in one or two of these places but not all three.

I think that the edit is important in its own right but it also has wp policy implications that add to its value. That makes it worth discussing fully in talk to a proper conclusion. I've given two areas where I'm open to alternate places and ways to present this information. I believe I'm being appropriately flexible. I hope that this is answered in the same spirit of flexibility. TMLutas 13:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"What, pray tell, would adding 3 reviewers do to the reliability of the project when it's virtually all data gathering and <1% trivial analysis?" For one thing, it can catch the bias inherent in a project that depends on volunteers. For example, you'll note that stations near high-population densities (see also: Urban heat island) are more likely to have volunteers. (More people=more potential volunteers.) This is not trivial. Ben Hocking 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please also see the discussion at User talk: Stephan_Schulz#global_warming_revert (but if possible continue the debate here, not there). --Stephan Schulz 14:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to keep the debate here, I'd like to quote the most relevant part (in the sense of not being repetitive of what's already been said here) of Stephan's argument over there:

"A good reviewer wold e.g. insist that the "2 degrees" error is described appropriately - is it the average error? the maximum error? the range of error? is it a systematic bias or a random error? what is the influence on the national temperature record? and on the global one? As you may or may not know, it is very easy to get a good signal from a large number of noisy sources if the noise is reasonably well-behaved. None of these issues is addressed. They might also ask for a random control sample evaluated by specialists to see how good it matches the volunteer effort."

Ben Hocking 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ben Hocking - Re: volunteer bias. If there was any sampling going on instead of a network-wide survey, you'd have a very good point for a peer reviewer at survey completion. Read the project goals and you find they're trying to get every single one of them. Volunteer bias is thus not an issue for a peer reviewer.

It is, however, a legitimate issue in the partial data. Thus I'll reissue my question of what would be a final bad stations rate (CRN 4+5 ratings)that should make us all sit up and take notice. Let's say consensus would be 25%. Divide 1221 stations by 4 and you have 305 bad stations. I would say that the edit should go back in when/if the 4+5 stations top 305 because the volunteer bias that does show up as a transient flaw would not matter. If all stations past that point are 1,2, or 3 you'd still hit the 25%. But try as I will, nobody seems to be biting and giving me a reasonable number that we can chew over and form that consensus.

I don't know how often I need to repeat myself regarding the error rates. The CRN set up the error ratings. Watts did not. He merely applied the existing rules which state that if you have paved roads near the station at x or y distance or other such microclimate bias inducing feature you downgrade the station rating to 2,3,4,or 5 based on CRN's formulas. CRN separately says that stations in a particular category have a temperature error rating. Watts adopts their standards wholesale. I think it quite unlikely that a peer reviewer would go after the NOAA's CRN standards via this route.

Requesting a random sample to be rechecked is a possibility for a peer reviewer. It is also a possibility for everybody. The data gathering is transparent and open. I would agree that somebody going back and rechecking the Watts group results would increase reliability. But that's not something special only a peer reviewer could do and thus if I do it or you do it, it would change things in exactly the same manner as if a peer reviewer did it. With transparent methodology and transparent data gathering, peer review's advantage as a method of independent editorial review is reduced to ensuring that the independent review that could have been done, actually has been done. In a case like this, I believe it's a safe bet that others are quietly verifying Watts' results. In fact, querying the USHCN site maintainers as to their signing off on the data that ends up on Watts' site would be a relatively inexpensive way to do it. I wonder how often *that's* been done already. TMLutas 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how often I need to repeat myself regarding the error rates. The CRN set up the error ratings. So? Do you know what they mean? I tried to find a description, via Google, searching in surfacestation.org, and looking at NOAA. I couldn't find anything apropos. Without a reasonably description, the value is anywhere from ueless to misleading ("this station always reads 2 degrees to warm" is slighty different from "there is a 95% probability that the worst decadal error will be confined in a two degree interval centered on the true temperature"). --Stephan Schulz 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Surfacestations effort is still very much in its infancy, and does not warrant inclusion until it appears in the peer reviewed literature. It is interesting, however, that the results so far have shown that the aggregate record from the "best" rural stations mirrors GISTEMP closely (see http://yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/1007_surfacetemps.htm)128.36.28.61 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your repetition of other commentors objections that have already been answered. Perhaps if you would read my replies, you could actually move the conversation forward and explain why you feel my replies/answers are insufficient to change your opinion and what it would take to actually get you to budge. Again, peer review is not actually a rule, policy, or guideline that limits scientific article edits. Peer review, if there's something peer reviewed out there, is simply a very good idea, superior to most alternatives in most cases (though I've always been fond of the hand of God writing fiery letters on the wall as a superior alternative).

I'm not sure if I can go along with saying a survey that's over 1/3 done is "very much in its infancy", surely if a person is adult at 18 years old, we're talking about a 7 year old kid of a project. At 7, you hit "the age of reason" and in certain very limited matters, it's common to start taking a child's opinions into account.

I read your link and will get back to you on it as it's time to go home. I'm not entirely sure that the opentemp and Watts groups are so much at odds but other than mislabeling a graph (temperature v temperature anomalies) I can't quickly find any faults to it. TMLutas 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Choosing a number, say 25%, would be WP:OR on our part. We choose inclusion based on the impact or acceptance a result had in the wider scientific community. Brusegadi 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're actually going to follow WP:RS and at least sometimes use stuff that's on its way to peer reviewed publication when there's nothing better available, I don't see how exercising judgement on when pre-publication material is 'ripe enough' for inclusion can be avoided. In fact, by that standard all the comments I've received about "considering" including the information when it's published seems just as guilty of WP:OR as I would be. I objected to that on other grounds as it being a sort of POV pushing to hold differential standards, not OR to have standards in the first place.

I read through WP:OR and just don't see how your interpretation can sustainably work nor how it is supported in the text. Could you provide some specific quotes from the document so I might understand your concerns better? TMLutas 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I say that having us choose a figure like 25% is OR because we would essentially be doing editorial oversight that is supposed to be done by the scientific community. We would be coming together and SETTING a new bound for validity, which we are not supposed to set. We are supposed to include stuff based on how well it reflects the state of the science out there. So the following is good: "the study was published in journal X and several other studies confirmed the results, lets include it." The following would be bad: "I think they did a good job at station assessment and they have assessed over X% of stations, we should include it." Statements like the one preceding this sentence should be made by the scientific community and not us. Brusegadi 23:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that we can avoid even the level of editorializing you're talking about and still include information on the survey so we may not be entirely at odds. How about this for a potential variant? "In a first ever physical survey of the USHCN network, 23% of the total network has already been discovered to have >=2C error ratings (according to CRN's error rating system for urban heat island effects) with the more rural 2/3rds of the network yet to be surveyed." It somewhat understates Watts' results, after all, some rural stations have already been surveyed but I think it's a fair first cut and would welcome proposed improvements to the draft text. TMLutas 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Without context, this is grossly misleading. Context should at least include information about what the "2 degree C" is supposed to mean (I asked you before: Do you have a source that describes this?) and the fact that temperature records using only "good" stations correspond very closely to the GISS temperature record.--Stephan Schulz 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

128.36.28.61 - Thinking things over, your link would require additional material to be added and does not, in fact, support the de facto policy of immediate reversion that occurred here and elsewhere over this information. If you want to make a sandbox and improve my edit, I would support that. As a more interpretive addition though, it would tend to fail my (apparently scandalously liberal) 5 point standard for exceptions to the peer reviewed rule of thumb since it's non-published, is mostly interpretive, and would thus benefit more from the peer review process. I could see something on the order of 'there's a lot of bad sites out there with some claiming that the bad sites are affecting final results while others maintain that statistical corrections fix the problem'. What I don't like is flat out rejecting what's becoming plainer with every data dump into surfacestations.org, there are a lot of bad surface data sites. TMLutas 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't put the list in this article but over at Instrumental temperature record and realized it after I hit submit. Those who have not been following both conversations would therefore be confused.

In short, there should be sensible rules about this sort of thing and I took a stab at them. Not a lot of people seem to have had positive comments so far. The rules I suggested would open a fairly small hole for expansion of admissible information and better follow WP:RS as it is currently written. TMLutas 16:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Watts' work should most definitely be included in this article. His research is quite prominent in the GW community and certainly qualifies as notable. It seems the only hang up for some people is being published in peer-reviewed literature. There is no actual policy stating that scientific article references need to be peer reviewed--this is only a custom (although one I generally support). If anything at all qualifies, Watts' work is a perfect example of the type of source that need not be peer-reviewed to be mentioned in this article. Zoomwsu 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support for my proposal. Do you favor any particular version to be included? TMLutas 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Watts' work should most definitely NOT be included in this article. Quoting from Anthony Watts:

Linking the SurfaceStations.org project to global warming has been criticised by Gavin Schmidt, who commented "They have not shown that those violations are i) giving measurable differences to temperatures, or ii) they are imparting a bias (and not just random errors) into the overall dataset".

Watts' work has not yet been shown to have *anything* to do with global warming whatsoever. And the reason that science articles should cite peer-reviewed papers ought to be obvious to anyone; without peer review, the author in question could just be making the whole thing up. The thing that protects against this is the desire of the journal in question to maintain its respect and integrity (and hence, commercial value). Quoting from peer review:

The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.

Chris Bainbridge 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the recent reply of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen to Lockwood and Fröhlich be referred to?

After a paper by Lockwood and Fröhlich which appeared this year in Proc. R. Soc. A, the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al. has been proclaimed dead. Recently I discovered a reply by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen on the Danish National Space Center web pages which presents a new analysis including data up to the year 2006 and which rebuts the arguments of Lockwood and Fröhlich comprehensively. Since Lockwood and Fröhlich are presented in the WP article as main argument against any solar link, I thought it appropriate to include a link to the (as yet unpublished) reply of Lockwood and Fröhlich and a description of its content. It immediately got censored with the following reason given:

From my Talk Page:

I deleted your Svensmark add -- his Galactic Cosmic Ray theory hypothesis for global warming is really just fringe stuff now and not considered a serious alternative explanation anymore, and you were comparing a unpublished paper to a peer-reviewed analysis. Plus he already has way too many refs already on the Global Warming article, and there has been a debate on the Talk page about moving/removing those. -BC aka Callmebc 23:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

N.Nahber 18:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole Solar variation business is not just a discussion between "Lockwood & Fröhlich vs. Svensmark & Friis-Christensen". We either give a short summary of the scientific consensus on this matter, or we should discuss the issues in detail. It is a bit like saying that the Bullet Cluster proves that dark matter exists and then some preprint appears by the MOND people disputing this. Even if the MOND fans have some valid points, the Bullet Cluster is not the only evidence for dark matter... Count Iblis 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We also need to consider parity of sources. Lockwood & Fröhlich is published in highly regarded a peer-reviewed venue (Proceedings of the Royal Society). The rebuttal is a self-published essay on their own web site. If S&F-C get their material published in the literature (and I would guess they likely have submitted it somewhere), we can include a reference to it here. Raymond Arritt 19:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPS says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That criteria would be met, I guess. Given the significance that is usually attributed to Lockwood and Fröhlich, I think that a reference to their recent reply and their new data analysis would be of general interest. By the way, a paper with the title "Reply to ..." is usually submitted to the journal where the paper in question has appeared, so I'd have no doubt that it has been submitted to PRSA. N.Nahber 19:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that there might have been an undertone in the notes above that it was submitted but not accepted... Anyways, there is still a weight issue since much of the literature is at odds with this ONE result. I am just saying that the publication issue is not the only issue. Brusegadi 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they are at odds with much of the literature. They stick to well documented data, they don't question that there is global warming, they leave 0.14 K/decade unaccounted for (but point out that it could be just positive feedback from water vapor), but they do see a significant correlation with cosmic ray data by looking at tropospheric instead of surface air temperatures. So they are just at odds with Lockwood and Fröhlich who by using surface air temperature data have jumped to the conclusion that there cannot be any link and who got a lot of attention for that. So I believe it would be appropriate to add some qualifier to the reference to L&F at the very end of the solar section informing the reader that their sweeping conclusion is not undisputed. N.Nahber 20:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why S+F-C have any kind of "right of reply"; if they can get their stuff into a published journal then it can be considered for inclusion, otherwise no. This section is already about as long as it should be and is a fair reflection of the balance of opinion and papers William M. Connolley 21:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If S&F can get their paper through peer review, then it will have some weight. The WP:SPS exception you quote is ok for non-contentious material. If Knuth writes about Quicksort, fine. But this material is currently under dispute. As long as it is not properly pulished, it should not be accepted here. Evaluating the correctness and WP:WEIGHT of an unrefereed contentious paper is WP:OR. --Stephan Schulz 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point at least as far as the "Global warming" page is concerned, given that you do not want to make the section on solar activity any longer. However, you (Stephan Schulz) have removed an analogous contribution of mine to the "Global warming controversy" page. There the L&F article is not just briefly referred to but quoted literally to emphasize that the issue of solar activity is closed by now. With the reply of S+F-C this is certainly no longer the case, even if it will take some time that it gets through the peer-review process. The L&F paper was criticized for various reasons before, but the S+F-C reply does add a new analysis which is in fact consistent with L&F as far the latter goes (surface air temperature). Unless there is really an ongoing discussion that the new S+F-C analysis of tropospheric temperature was flawed, I think WP:SPS would permit its mention, and WP:WEIGHT seems to me to make it even indispensable to do so, at least in the Controversy page. N.Nahber 15:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with N.Nahber that (a) it's not appropriate here, but (b) (in appropriate context) it is appropriate on the Global warming controversy page. ("Appropriate context" being that a very brief mention that the reply has not yet been peer-reviewed, and/or that the reply being used to indicate chiefly that they disagree with the assessment of their work, which this is clearly a reliable indication of.) Ben Hocking 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from this diff from before and after its deletion, my addition explicitly mentioned the fact that this reply has not been published in a peer-review journal so far. N.Nahber 15:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably advocate shortening it a bit, and altering the wording to make it slightly more neutral (an admittedly tricky task). We can discuss it over on that article in more detail if you like. Ben Hocking 16:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. As concerns the Solar Variation section in the Global Warming article, I would propose to augment the concluding sentence "A 2007 paper by Lockwood and Fröhlich found no relation between global warming and solar radiation since 1985, whether through variations in solar output or variations in cosmic rays." by something like: "but in particular the latter is still being debated in the continuing Global Warming Controversy", and thereby provide a link to the Controversy article. N.Nahber 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The vagueness of "still being debated" gives excessive weight to a tiny-minority position per WP:WEIGHT. It makes it sound like there's a general debate in the relevant scientific community, when in fact there isn't. Why not simply state "S&F-C dispute this refutation of their results"? Raymond Arritt 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I second Raymond's suggestion. Ben Hocking 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that belongs here. The case for the controversy article is stronger since this study has made it to the popular arena. Yet, it has not made it to the scientific world, at least for now, with enough momentum to warrant inclusion in this page. If it bothers you so much that we mention the paper to which they respond, maybe we can try to find another survey of the literature on this manner. Yet, I really see no grounds for any inclusion of them on this page until the paper gains more weight on the science community. Brusegadi 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, have no strong feelings on the subject. I feel that if the paper is mentioned, along with its refutation, then it makes sense to briefly mention the refutation of the refutation. I am not arguing for inclusion of the paper itself. Ben Hocking 21:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Raymond Arritt. In fact, a simple statement like this plus a link to the reply in question could be added to the content of Ref. 35, which now carries both the publication info and the punchline of L&F. N.Nahber 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now added "The recent as yet unpublished Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich - The persistent role of the Sun in climate forching by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen disputes this refutation of their results." to the content of Ref. 35. N.Nahber 23:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I, too, would agree. I, however, inserted a small sentence about the S+F-C dispute in the text with a reference to their reply to L+F. I personally prefer this slightly more than having two sources in a reference, but I'm OK with whatever most people prefer. ~ UBeR 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your version doesn't emphasize that this reply is not yet (properly) published. Since I do not see much of a problem with having 2 sources in one reference, I find my version a more elegant solution to all the issues that have been discussed. N.Nahber 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am therefore reverting to my version, but would not insist if others side with you. N.Nahber 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is published--by the DNSC. It is apart of their "scientific report series." If by "proper" you mean peer-reviewed, you may well be correct, but I can't be sure of that. More notably, it's not in a journal, which you might have meant by proper, so that may problem, though my sentence simply stated they refuted the findings, which is true in itself. I leave it up to you to reconsider. ~ UBeR 00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they have not refuted the findings, but rather disputed some of them - and, after having read the thing, I'm not really impressed about the strength of this challenge, either. --Stephan Schulz 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that Brusegadi has promptly undone my reversion of UBeR's simplification to "Svensmark and Friis-Christensen dispute these findings." of my "The recent as yet unpublished Reply ... disputes this refutation of their results", which was only inserted in the references rather than the main text. This is kind of amusing, since I was trying to take into account the insistence of many participants in this discussion that this reply has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal and also that inclusion in the text would give it too much weight. Stephan Schulz should furthermore notice that my formulation did not say "refuted". I'm not going to revert once more - I'm getting the impression that I'm simply not sufficiently in-group to be allowed doing anything. N.Nahber 10:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not published. Brusegadi 23:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is. ~ UBeR 00:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, of course it is published, I've read it! I meant to say that it is not peer rvd. Brusegadi 01:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Appearing online as only basically "self-published" material (Svensmark a director there) doesn't quite, I think, qualifies as being truly "published" per se. -BC aka Callmebc 03:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, it's not published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is the information that you have deleted by rushing to undo my edit. Please take the time to read what you erase. N.Nahber 08:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when I say not published I meant it was not peer-reviewed and that is my grounds for excluding it. To make such claim merit, you will have to have a paper (or papers) that was published in a highly regarded journal; not a web-page. Brusegadi 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I did read it -- hence my deletions and my asking you to present your case here. Svensmark's hypothesis of cloud seeding being done by galactic cosmic rays, even if valid, would be tied to modulation of the heliosphere by cyclical solar cycles, and there is no significant correlation, if any, between that stuff and the global warming patterns of the past 100 years and beyond. And Svensmark's "reply" does nothing to change this. -BC aka Callmebc 13:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear! I was replying to Brusegadi above - about his quick undo of my reinserting the "not published" qualification that got lost by UBeR's edit of my addition to ref. 35. N.Nahber 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Northeastern U.S. states

I made this small change because the section is referring to measures in the 3 countries but this is a US measure. While Australia may not have 8 Northeastern states and Kazahkstan doesn't have any states, I think it's still wise to make it clear we're referring to the US here. 09:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Making sure

Obedium seems to dislike this passage's lack of refs:

"Increasing global temperatures will cause sea level to rise, and is expected to increase the intensity of extreme weather events and to change the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors."

The editor removed it and I re-added it because I recall that we agreed the refs should be in the core of the article and not on the intro. I even have a diff where Uber removes refs added by Dr. Arrit and myself. I am ok with Uber's logic, but I wanted to make sure that everyone was ok with having the refs later on. Is that ok Obedium? Thanks, Brusegadi 05:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro should only refs in it if the specific information is not explained further down in the article. We already explain al these effects in the effects section. Further, the effects section is a summary of the effects article, so the main article is the place where the refs should be, and that's where they are. ~ UBeR 17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the refs the first time something is brought up and see no harm in putting little footnotes in the intro. That said, this isn't high on my priority list. Ben Hocking 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there shouldn't be refs in the intro if the same information is in the body. There especially should not be redundant references stacked up on each other to make a point. The lead is just supposed to be a summary or overview of the body. WP:LEAD says it should be handled on a case-by-case basis for complex or contentious material, except for quotes and contentious biographies, which are always referenced. ~ UBeR 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Highly Politicized

This article does not represent a neutral point of view. However, I am not suprised since the topic is highly politicized, and spin is used to promote political decisions. These two specific words should be mentioned as a disclaimer, and that its effects are only predicted by models and unknown, untested, and speculative in nature. Buildings being built in wikipedia have disclaimers on them because they are "future projects", so claims about global warming are no different than fortune telling. Since when has using scientists made speculation part of the scientific method? I think this article superbly misses the point that pollution and waste of ALL TYPES are stupid ways to go about doing things where better ways are known, and we are making guinea pigs of all our planet's species. However, destruction of habitat and environment isn't really a new phenomenon solely related to global warming, we have been doing this for centuries, again, not to excuse it.

Despite this, the effects are not adequately addressed, particularly in the "benefits" column. All processes create problems as well as create opportunities. Particularly important of note is that 11 million sq miles of land (Russia, Canada, Kazakhstan), or a fourth of the world total, if warmed sufficiently, will have the potential to be far more arable and economically active. Of course, this may mean more destruction, but that is totally up to how we make it. While its true that arid regions may grow, they currently don't support much population anyway. Also, the idea that "tropical diseases" spreading are a bad thing is a Western stereotype. These diseases have been long ignored by the West, and it's time they find cures for them. Especially since ever greater numbers of Westerners now travel to the tropics because of globalization. —Preceding comment added by Doseiai2 19:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the main article on the effects, and note that predictions made by various models have indeed been tested. Ben Hocking 19:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Testing predictions? HA! It's like Merril Lynch predicting where the euro will go in 10 months. The may be correctly "guessing" that no major catastrophe happened, and the general trend, but certainly can't give me an exact figure. Wake up, folks, this isn't science! Doseiai2 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Science. Here is an excellent article by them that compares predictions to observations. If you don't have a subscription to Science, you can find the article in your local library. It's from the 1 February 2007 issue and titled "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections". Ben Hocking 20:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence is not science. Science must be right every time. Sorry, but even major magazines are guilty of fortune telling. Science may be involved in producing data that shows past trends, and even then its based on a collection of discrete point values, but prediction itself isn't science! Doseiai2 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best if the supposably offending "speculative" portions of the article were gathered together in a "future trends" section rather than tagging the entire article with a speculative "Disclaimer". In any case there is nothing speculative about observed historical data on global warming to date. Furthermore if the "future trends" section focuses on current models of climate change and their predictions rather than focusing on the predictions themselves then it would not be in any sense "speculative" either. it would just be a description of climate models.Zebulin 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You were obviously unable to read the article. The article compares recent climate observations to past projections, this is not the same as matching "past trends" as you suggest. Yes, prediction itself isn't science. Who suggested otherwise? There is a lot of theory here (I assume you've read the article), and you were lamenting on the lack of predictions. Now that I've shown you where you can read up on how well past predictions have done, you're now lamenting that predictions aren't everything. I'm possibly mischaracterizing you, but re-read what you wrote to understand how it looks that way to me. Ben Hocking 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody appears to be lamenting a lack of predictions. Rather they wanted to tag the entire article as speculative. My comment was merely a description of how that would be inappropriate.Zebulin 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that comment was directed towards Doseiai2, who said "its effects are only predicted by models and unknown, untested, and speculative in nature". I would argue that was a complaint about the models being untested, i.e., having a lack of tested predictions. Are you suggesting that I read too much into that comment? Ben Hocking 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

my apologies! sorry to muddy the waters. Your comment was well said.Zebulin —Preceding comment was added at 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the entire article should be tagged as "politicized", and the part about future trends as "speculative". My points was that 1) scientists are learners, and we are increasingly using them as know it all teachers. Yes, they probably can make educated guesses better than anyone else, but its still an educated guess. 2). Climate data is still discrete. Scientists are doing a great job at collecting enormous amounts of data, but their main fault is they are still discrete data points. Also, if you didn't notice, I am totally against spewing unnecessary carbon as this statement I think this article superbly misses the point that pollution and waste of ALL TYPES are stupid ways to go about doing things where better ways are known, and we are making guinea pigs of all our planet's species points out. Doseiai2 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

encyclopedia articles are supposed to miss such points ;) Misplaced Pages articles are not intended as vehicles for any sort of public service message however sensible it might be. It doesn't matter what your views on "carbon spewing" might be or if readers of an article might not read an important relevant piece of advice. If the article misses such points then it is working as intended.Zebulin 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, while we're at it we can make sure that we mark quantum mechanics and general relativity as speculative, too. Is that what you're suggesting? (After all, scientists are just learners and not "know it all teachers".) We're presenting the science here in as neutral a way as possible. How is it different from other science-based articles on Misplaced Pages, or are you seriously suggesting this for all scientific articles? Ben Hocking 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We here at Misplaced Pages are not interested in your points. If you have a suggestion for amending the article, then by all means we would be more obliged to listen. Rather than talking about the topic and making clearly false statements about science, try to focus on the article--otherwise we can't help you. ~ UBeR 21:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Most of my article was the suggestion on how to improve, but you obviously attack me more making a 1 sentence opinion, UBER!

Encyclopedias have a mandate not to misrepresent. Global warming and carbon should be discussed under the greater framework of pollution in general. The word "pollution" is mentioned only once in the middle of the article, and a key point that it is but one of the many "types of pollution" is not even addressed. This key point along with the disclaimer in the "future predicitions section" that it is speculative should be added as Zebulin had suggested, I'd do this myself if it wasn't locked. Doseiai2 21:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So this is my list of requests to the administrators:

1. Add that carbon is but one of the many "types of pollution".
2. Move predictions, but not theories to a section, and place a disclaimer on that section only that it is speculative in nature. (Theory is how things work, prediction is how things will turn out in the future, predictions can be based on theories and that's ok, but the prediction itself is speculative)
3. Place an article wide disclaimer that claims and even scientific research may be politically motivated, and should be further investigated in detail.
4. Add to criticisms section that scientific data collected, despite increasing amounts, is still discrete point data (location x,y,z adn time) instead of continuous data over the whole earth and all time. Of course, I make no claim how to collect better data, only that it must be interpreted as not fully complete.
5. Beef up the area of potential opportunities created

• Opening up of Russia, Canada, Kazakhstan, and Greenland for more arable land
• Opportunity to tackle long ignored tropical diseases

Sorry for any confusion this has caused. In the future, I will give a rquest list like this. Doseiai2 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Request denied. --Stephan Schulz 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've listed some actual proposals, I would like to address some of them. First, carbon (dioxide) in itself isn't a pollutant, but I know what you're saying. We already list the other major greenhouse gases in this article and there's no need to go off on a tangent about other pollutants. About your earlier proposal about making this article simply about pollution--that isn't possible. The pollution, and even the air pollution articles are already too big. This is a separate topic that is deserving of its own article. Second, theories are based upon hypotheses, which are often times predictions and projections (because of x, y). See here for more on the scientific method. Third, our readers are typically not children; they can think and deduce by themselves. Fourth, I can't say I would disagree. ~ UBeR 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. This isnt science AND this article is *not* neutral. Where is the statement that the neutrality of this article is disputed because at least one person besides me disagrees with the neutrality. At least place that at the top. Its junk-science, at best. And, if the Misplaced Pages continues to approve the quality of this particular topic's content then it will force me to consider what other topics are also suspect.

After having read the article, and watched its evolution over the past year, and having read this discussion page, I noticed that anyone who even tries to interject an alternate view or dare add an opposing view gets pounced on. It follows, perfectly, along with any of the blogs and the forums out there. Those who attempt to show that there is a considerable amount of population that disagree with the belief that humans changed an entire planet's climate in the span of a few hundred years (out of 4+ billion years of continual climate changes, shifting continents, solar radiation changes, bombardments from space and so on), are deleted.

This entire global warming topic is definitely off kilter and NOT neutral. There IS another side to the conversation. It is spin and the media loves it because it brings ratings and, well, its far better than reporting war and terror so they run with it. Also, corporations left and right are jumping on the bandwagon (and thats all that it really is - a bandwagon) because it brings them publicity. Not everyone is buying into this human-created theory and there are a LOT of raising of eyebrows during these conversations. No one disputes that the climate is changing - its always changing and who is to say what is "normal" with this planet? Species have come and gone and so, too, will we. Its a fact a life. It is complete arrogance to even think we could destroy the planet and even more arrogant to think we can REVERSE this so-called destruction of the climate. I have to laugh at it all. And I am not the only one laughing.

You either MUST believe in this global warming BS or you're labeled a skeptic and shunned. Its ironic that, one of the most controversial topics (Jesus), there is alternative points of view allowed to be written right into the topic. Views from the Jews, Hindus, Buddhist views and even from views of the Islamics toward Jesus. Why allow those other views right in the open and not only on the talk-page? Because we HAVE TO BE politically correct now, dont we? And those alternative views are right there in the open, not just in the "talk page" that almost no casual reader sees. Where are all of the references to alternative views in this topic? There are hundreds of blogs and forums that disagree but yet none show up here. I have been continually amazed at the one-sidedness of this absurd topic. MediaPlex 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion for the article? Is there a specific claim made in the article that you disagree with and can provide a counter-argument against (with citations)? johnpseudo 00:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Described by some"

User:Callmebc asked me to explain my rationale for my edit to the following passage , in which I removed a remark that the opinions of conservative think tanks Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute are "described by some as climate change denial." My rationale for removing this remark is:

• As is explained in the Misplaced Pages style guideline Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel terms, use of terms like "some people" is to be avoided. Writing in this way makes it easy for editors to covertly add third-party opinions or underhanded jabs against this or that view. A much more concrete, encyclopedic writing style would require an attribution. Who says this is "climate change denial?"
• I considered the fact that the positions of these two bodies is patent climate change denial by any meaningful definition of the term, and so it might seem silly to challenge the remark. But if it is really so obvious that Cato is a body of climate change deniers (damn the Man!), then what is added to the article by this remark? The reader should easily discern this for his or her self.
• According to the Misplaced Pages core policy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and we are told "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long." I believe that removing this remark follows the spirit of the rule, because (A) it added nothing to the article and (B) could not possibly be sourced.

--Ryan Delaney 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If we want to label them that way we need to source it. There might be a source for it in the politics of gw page. I'll look into it later, unless one of you gets there first (my computer cannot load large portions of text, so I need to do it from home.) Brusegadi 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it would definitely be better if it were sourced. Still, I'm leaning toward the view that it would be best to just leave that out of the article entirely. It smacks of advocacy to me, since it should be easy for the reader to determine that for herself. --Ryan Delaney 06:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...no. So-called conservative think tanks like the not exactly accurately named "Competitive Enterprise Institute" have been front and center in spreading disinformation about the true state of global warming, including running the disinfo site, Globalwarming.org. (It's been unnerving to see that particular site's high ranking in Google searches.) They are, by any definition, global warming skeptics/deniers, if not outright corporate toadies with zero demonstrable interest in presenting what the true science is actually showing and what the real climate researchers are actually saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the purpose of an encyclopedia, paper or otherwise, is at the very least not to make people less knowledgeable. -BC aka Callmebc 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, providing one blatantly biased source to counter another is not a strong base for an argument. ~ S0CO 15:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Claim it's biased all you want - numbers don't lie. If they were false, somebody would have sued Mother Jones. They didn't. Raul654 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And that's another thing -- progressive media sites like Mother Jones tend to be meticulous in backing up their claims and in demonstrating verifiability, whereas conservative/right wing organizations/sites like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Junk Science do anything but that. One side does not negate the other in this case, nor even balance or "counter" unless you want to put it in terms of knowledge versus ignorance, honesty versus duplicity, and such. -BC aka Callmebc 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be genetic... Count Iblis 00:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another incarnation of the "few" war

IceAge77 is POV pushing again on this article, rewriteing it to falsely imply that contrarians are numerous. Raul654 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No I am trying to achieve a semblance of neutrality. Claiming two dozen on the basis of an incomplete list is totally dishonest. Iceage77 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not doing any such thing. The bottom line is that the IPCC stance on Global Warming does indeed represent the consensus of climate scientists, and the vast bulk of scientists in general. And any attempt to downplay or misrepresent this is both an act of dishonesty and an attempt to make the article worse, not better. -BC aka Callmebc 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to dispute there is a consensus. The fact remains a significant minority of scientists disagree with this. Climate scientists who have published a great deal of peer-reviewed research like Richard Lindzen and John Christy. Iceage77 17:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Significant minority? Uh, no. Insignificant, almost negigible minority would be a more accurate description. There remain a dozen-or-so very vocal hold-outs - many of whom have direct or indirect ties to the oil industry. Raul654 17:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than give their number, I'd rather stick with the original wording of "a few". As for the lack of climate expertise... I suppose that is necessary, given the name of the page that is linked to, which is misleading in this context William M. Connolley 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's explained on the page. It's inappropriate for the lead of this article. Gone back to the original. ~ UBeR 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can live with that version. The old ways are he best William M. Connolley 21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I changed it again, sorry, in lieu of stuff like this. The idea, I do believe is to improve the article, and keeping it static in sections just to appease people rather than make use of the changing scientific climate, so to speak, is not helpful in making the article better and more informative. I think, but what do I know... -BC aka Callmebc 00:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaced Callmebc's edit. The source provided is valid - yes it is an editorial, but hardly "activist nonsense". Discuss further please. Vsmith 02:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

UBeR reverted it twice already -- one more time and he gets a 3RR warning. Yeah, "Nature Magazine" is such a leftist, activist source blatently biased in the favor of science, reason and logic. Shame on them. Gawd.... -BC aka Callmebc 05:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Uber reverted three times today, so I asked him to watch it. Admins have some liberty in enforcing it, and reverts do not necessarily have to be of the same material. Brusegadi 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I think the current version (Nature) is far more preferable than what was there before. It certainly has a more appropriate citation, and perhaps we can avoid the SMF argument once and for all. ~ S0CO 05:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence created through consensus was the original version I kept changing to; The one William M. Connolley agreed to above, and the one that has been discussed since the start. You should therefore have a really good reason to change it to a lesser sentence. The current, more wordy, inappropriate for the lead sentence says the same thing over repeated throughout the intro and the body ad nauseam. Just before the new, poorer sentence, it says there's a consensus among the academies, etc. The very next sentence, the new sentence by Callmebc, it says the same thing. There's no sense in redundant sentences. Oh, and there's the still the spin game no one has won yet. ~ UBeR 18:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll play the "spot the difference between the source and the spin" game. Lets see who wins. ~ UBeR 07:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the idea to improve the article, as well as keep it up to date? Climate science is not only a very active field of research, but one with a lot of popular misconceptions, especially in regards to the "consensus" issue. The Nature editorial, from a very recent issue, makes it quite clear that there is indeed a very strong consensus among researchers -- which means that bringing up lists of random scientists, with very few, if any, being active, credible researchers, is misleading and hence not in the best interest of the article. -BC aka Callmebc 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Referring back to the edit originally cited by Raul654 , I think that the edited section could have been written better, but that Iceage77's proposed version is intensely misleading and the original must be preferred. --Ryan Delaney 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put in a more accurate "several dozen". The linked article had 34 scientists listed. This is more than what "a few" implies, and should be a good enough description to cover a list of 20 to 40. 03:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No -- you're counting crows when you should only be counting ducks. Those 34 scientists are for the most part irrelevant to climate research. Hence your edit is grossly misleading and so was reverted. I suggest that you read the Nature article. -BC aka Callmebc 04:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain. If the 34 are mostly irrelevant, why are they listed? And yes VSmith, Nature's articles are reliable sources, but an anonymous editorial with no references is less reliable that the average blog that has a known author and includes references. 01:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the reliability of the opinion/editorial, the sentence is redundant and unnecessary. It will be reverted back to the original, per the consensus and common sense. ~ UBeR 01:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Rossnixon's numbers are WP:OR, counting names in another Wiki article...

As for Uber's spin complaint, I assume he's upset about using a reference that mentions the Nobel Peace Prize, must be quite irritating. Anyhow, I feel the referenced editorial is a valid source (a print editorial in Nature carries more weight than any blog) and far better than the bothersome "few" it replaced. Vsmith 02:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Rossnixon's number is on the talk page, so that's irrelevant. Anyhow, I agree with you, Vsmith; the "A few" is bothersome (it's because it's a weasel word, which should be avoided). The "There are individual scientists" replacement is a much better choice, but that's about as far as the sentence you keep reverting to improves anything. The source is fine, I don't care about what it says or who wrote it. The problem is the sentence you're keen on reverting to. Do you see how a paragraph that states "all major national academies, etc. agree with the IPCC view" and then in the very next sentence states "the IPCC view is the consensus." Or do you not see the redundancy? What you accomplish through this type of redunancy is creating a much longer sentence that adds absolutely no substance, context, or anything remotely meaningful--and this degrades the article. I agree, the sentence there isn't perfect, but you don't remedy that by putting in a lesser sentence. (P.S. game still open). ~ UBeR 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am VERY tired of the game playing that goes on involving "politically sensitive" articles by people with zero demonstrable interest in actually improving the article, regardless of whatever attempts at wikilawyering they do. In any case I posted a formal 3RR complaint about UBeR. Let the admins sort it out. I'll also revert him to the last good version. -BC aka Callmebc 04:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"In recent decades"

I have looked at this article many dozens of times and always meant to bring this up. "Recent" should only be used around here in comparative descriptions ("...more recent than"). Might we change this? "Since the beginning of the industrial era" perhaps. Marskell 19:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed quite a bit before. I would not oppose "since the industrial era". This is technically when humans began affecting climate through emissions. ~ UBeR 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A pedant might argue for "since the development of controlled fire" :). Anybody else? Marskell 10:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This unsatisfyingly vague statement may be the best we can do given the facts as they are. We don't have a good handle on when anthropogenic warming began, and it's not a very meaningful question anyway as implied by Marskell's comment above. "In recent decades" implies a lower limit of about 20-30 years ("decades", plural) and an upper limit of about 100 years (where we cross from decadal scales to centennial) which is about right. Raymond Arritt 15:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "in recent decades" is sufficient. I am in agreement with Raymond. Zoomwsu 17:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Solar Variation Clean-up

I did some tidying up -- or attempted to -- on the confusing Solar Variation subsection. There were all these multiple references to Svensmark's stuff, but in a very confusing way: his idea is that galactic cosmic rays seed clouds, and the amount of galactic cosmic rays are modulated by solar activity, and this wasn't made at all clear. I know there are going to be some reverts, but do try to make it less murky and confused at the least. -BC aka Callmebc 23:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about language in introduction

This entry says that "most national governments" have signed and ratified Kyoto. Since something like 170 out of less than 200 existing countries have signed and ratified the accords, should this language be clarified? "Most" is vague to the point of misleading understatement. I won't change it till I hear from others...Maybe I'm missing something.Benzocane 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you could say something like "176 nations have signed ..." but I don't think most of our readers care for numbers like that and are unnecessarily specific for the intro of this article. If anywhere, that'd belong in the body or simply in another article. "Most" is both simple and correct. ~ UBeR 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is more accurate: "most countries are members of the U.N." or "All countries save Taiwan and Vatican City" are members of the U.N.? "Most" reads as indicating a majority; that indication would be misleading here.Benzocane 22:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither are appropriate for the lead of this article. Most is fine (so is majority). ~ UBeR 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why we wouldn't cite the specific numbers. --Ryan Delaney 00:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, it would help me understand your opinion -- which I respect -- if you supported it instead of just stating it. Why is a vague and very understated phrase more appropriate than, say, the exact number? Benzocane 01:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well your two example sentences are inappropriate because you're wanting to change the lead (I link to the guidelines because I want you read them). The lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article, not a collection of facts not represented in the article. Like I said, specific information would probably be more than welcome on their respective articles. ~ UBeR 01:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am of course familiar with the community standards regarding leads; the prior, question, however, is whether or not "most" is misleading. If it is, it can hardly be justified because leads are supposed to prioritize economy. I won't make any changes until I hear from others, but I agree with Ryan that specific numbers make the most sense (172 takes up no more space than "most" and it certainly isn't specialized language).Benzocane 04:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is of course even more misleading to say 172 countries have signed the treaty without mentioning in the same breath that of these 172 countries, 137 countries have *no obligations* beyond monitoring and reporting emissions under the treaty. Perhaps instead of "most" vs 172 we should consider simply stating that 36 countries have agreed under the Kyoto protocol to reduce their CO2 emissions as that number is the information that is actually relevant to this article. The ratification by the other 137 countries is almost totally irrelevant to the efforts to contain global warming which is the context for this statement.Zebulin 08:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The standard should be to have something that's both accurate & clear to an assumed uninformed reader seeking info. And proper context is always a necessity, especially when dealing with numbers. Saying that the DOW went up 100 points won't mean a whole lot to someone who has no knowledge of the stock market -- is that a lot or a little? Saying, though, instead that it went up .7%. In the case of Kyoto, things are a bit more complex because of the politics involved. The bottom line is that only the US and Australia have refused to sign it outright. So whether this is 2 out of 198 (1%) or 2 out of 36 (5.6%), you still end up with at the least not just "most" but an "overwhelming majority" of countries signing the treaty. I think. You think? -BC aka Callmebc 14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, Callmebc, you would at least be slightly convincing if you ever got your facts straight. First, both the U.S. and Australia have signed the Kyoto Protocol. Neither have ratified it, however, nor has Kazakhstan, as this article clearly points out. Also, I'm not "overwhelmed," are you? Do you see the problem with using non-npov language? ~ UBeR 17:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

?? According to the list of Kyoto Protocol signatories wiki, it has only Australia and the US as "Not intending to ratify" and Kazakhstan as "Signed but not yet ratified". Perhaps you should correct that article if it's wrong. And wouldn't you say that for a situation where the majority is 94.4%, never mind 99%, a wholly, truly NPOV description would be "overwhelming majority" and not just merely "most"? 60% would be "most," maybe even 70%, but when it's over 90%.... -BC aka Callmebc 19:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc... Kazakhstan signed it in 1999, and both the U.S. and Australia signed it in 1998. If you don't believe me, take a look at what the UNFCCC has to say. Like I said, try with the facts first, then make an argument--not the other way around. ~ UBeR 23:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Most" is accurate and simple. Let's keep it that way. Zoomwsu 16:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah.... See the my reply above yours. -BC aka Callmebc 19:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite an unconvincing post. I stand behind my position. Zoomwsu 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The weird thing is that Argentina and Kazakhstan once spoke of agreeing to voluntary restrictions... wonder what they get out of it (or think they'll get.) Brusegadi 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Overwhelming majority, or the actual number, or the percentage of signatories -- all would be more accurate than "most." I think we are all aware that what might lurk behind this discussion of a relatively minor point is the tendency of certain GW skeptics to consistently understate the existence of scientific consensus. I vote for putting the actual numbers in the entry and keeping editorial nuance out of it.Benzocane 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're wading in to assumption territory, and I would ask you assume good faith on the part of editors, regardless of their positions on broader issues. I think "most" is simple and concise, and suitable for an introduction. The numbers belong in a lower section. Zoomwsu 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

this issue has *nothing* to do with the scientific consensus. This is politics. 137 countries ratified the treaty with no obligations whatsoever but with financial incentives for doing so. How do their signatures reflect the scientific consensus? There is in fact a fairly broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are directly enhancing the earths greenhouse effect and that the observed increases in post industrial temperature averages correlate well with the expected effects of those emissions. The kyoto protocol however, does not in any way illustrate that scientific consensus.Zebulin 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying the intensity of the tone that surrounds such terminology is displaced intensity from other debates.Benzocane 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I say again why not cut through the gordian knot entirely by replacing the statement with one that states that 36 countries have agreed under the kyoto protocol to control their CO2 emissions? The article is about global warming not politics and only the actions of those 36 countries under the treaty would have any impact on global warming. The ratification by 172 countries is irrelevant and belongs only in the Kyoto Protocol article.Zebulin 21:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're distorting the issue that way, in part evidenced by BC's post. "Most" avoids the political football of which number to use and serves the purposes of brevity that an introduction demands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomwsu (talk • contribs) 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it would make the article misleading? In any case, even if we took your "36" number, did you not see the calc a little further up? 2 of 36 equals only 5.6%, meaning that 94.4% of those 36 approved it, with Australia and the USA being in the minority. -BC aka Callmebc 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That calculation is pointless, because neither the U.S. or the United States are apart of the 36 nations required to reduce emissions under the KP, because neither have ratified it. So, if I'm correct, I think Zebulin's argument is that 36 (wiki says 35) of 172 who have ratified the KP (i.e. ~26.28%), which is a minority, have any obligations under the KP. ~ UBeR 00:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

More "Few" Stuff

I changed the sentence in the lead paragraph regarding the scientists who oppose the IPCC consensus. I used "There are individual scientists who disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC" instead of the previous instance which contained a weasel word ("few"). My thought was this was precise and avoids the weasel word. Apparently Raul disagrees and I can't see why. Zoomwsu 04:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Few" is only a potential weasel word if it's inaccurate. If it is accurate, then it's the attempt to sidestep it that risks being POV. So the question is: are the dissenting scientists small in number relative to the relevant population? "Individual" is just vague; at worst, it risks the implication that only scientific organizations support the IPCC. I am not accusing you of bad faith, I'm just saying that the accuracy of the term must precede it's POV status. I certainly disagree that "individual scientists" is precise! Precision requires clarifying the proportion of dissenting scientists.Benzocane 04:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole problem, and the reason why countless pages have been written on the talk page is because reasonable people disagree on what the definitions of subjective terms are. "There are.." solves the problem by removing any of these subjective terms and sticks to a pure statement of fact. It is also more encyclopedic. Better to perhaps be a slightly more vague than to confuse the issue with subjective terms anyways. Zoomwsu 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

user:Osbojos, please explain what is misleading about the statement: "There are individual scientists who disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC". Zoomwsu 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

because your proposed language deemphasizes the fact that these contrarian scientists are a small minority. --Osbojos 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view, "small minority of climate scientists" is better because it tells the reader what the relative ratio is of the non-supporters to the supporters (few does not necessarily communicate that). And qualifying "scientists" with "climate" is important to indicate that the opinions of climate scientists are, necessarily, far more relevant in this field than those of other types of scientists. - Merzbow 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "small minority" seems most accurate. --Osbojos 05:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely opposed to using that wording, but that is something that would need to be cited with a pretty reliable source, which presents a whole host of other issues to endlessly debate on the talk pages. The "There are..." doesn't emphasize anything--that's the point of the revised language. If we can reach a consensus, there is less of a likelihood this battle will continue on. Zoomwsu 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats what was good about the version that had the nature article. I agree that having too much stuff in the intro is not good, but it was mostly a footnote. What you propose right now is not good because it removes the relative weights of the opposing views. We need something that will convey that. Using 'few' is appropriate here. Brusegadi 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the link to the nature article? - Merzbow 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc had added an editorial pub in nature. See: diff and relevant link. Brusegadi 06:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"few if any will seriously question that what the IPCC delivers is as good a chunk of scientific advice on climate change as anyone could hope to get." - seems a reasonable source for the "small minority" characterization to me. - Merzbow 06:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the list of scientist linked is not a list of people who necessarily deny the existence of global warming; mostly they take issue with certain aspects of the IPCC's conclusions. ~ S0CO 07:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. One person used the term "small minority" above, and you said, hey that sounds good, and the other person agreed. That's hardly cause to change the lead. Further, contrary to your claim that the Nature editorial is a "reasonable source for 'small minority'," the source actually states "Few" scientists question whether the IPCC has produced the best advice on climate change. So, in fact, the source quite strongly supports the original sentence, which is "few." I strongly recommend a self-revert in this case. ~ UBeR 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"few if any" seems to appropriately support "small minority" to me, and I prefer the latter wording for the reasons above: it more clearly indicates the ratio of the number of scientists who support the consensus vs. those who oppose it. - Merzbow 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I beg to differ. The Nature editorial uses almost identical the previous AMQUA source, which used "few people." We obviously know the "if any" can be disqualified, so again, we're left with "few." Now, someone, such as yourself, can subjectively say, "hey, that looks like 'small minority' to me." But from a purely objective point of view, which is necessary under WP:NPOV, you can only deduce they in fact meant "few," because that's the wording they chose, so it ought to be ours (if we want to use that source). The obvious choice is to use "few" because it is both used in your preferred source and is what was suggest under the consensus. There is no consensus for small minority and there definitely isn't one for Callmebc's purely awkward and poorly written sentence that suggests randomness (which is appropriately ridiculed by Mr. Johnson). ~ UBeR 03:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I put back the Nature ref and "individual" scientists as before -- you can probably count on a maimed hand all of the scientists in the entire field of climate research who disagree with the IPCC in any significant way. To say even that a "few" disagree without context is like saying a "few" disagree that the Earth is round in an article about the planet -- there will always be people who will disagree on virtually anything you can bring up. Who here knows people who think the moon landing was faked? -BC aka Callmebc 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

BC, I think you overly minimize the number of scientists who disagree with some of the IPCC's conclusions. In particular, you're too prone to hyperbole (i.e. "count on a maimed hand"). There are scientists who disagree with the IPCC's conclusions; there are more than a single-digit number; and most are not being "paid off" by the O&G industry. Zoomwsu 23:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

so then you are actually claiming that there is no disagreement on this issue whatsoever? saying that any disagreement come only from a small number of souurces which are invalid and are only non-sources, is, by your own admission, the same as saying there is no disagreement whatsoever at all. --Steve, Sm8900 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, did I say there was "no" disagreement whatsoever? I'm saying that you have to put these things in context. Just because, say, your aunt and some random dude in a bar thinks the moon landing was staged doesn't mean you can then casually add "A few people disagree that we ever landed on the moon" in a encyclopedia article about the Apollo missions, especially in the opening introduction. Maybe much further down in an "Odd Myths" section or such, but it would be giving it way, WAY too much weight to bring it up right away as though it was something worthy of serious consideration. Same deal with this "few" or "some" nonsense going on here. -BC aka Callmebc 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous comparison, as the moon landings are a documented historical event, whereas here we are dealing with uncertain predictions about the future. Iceage77 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not so ridiculous, unfortunately, and it does indeed directly compares to Global Warming: on one side you have the scientific community; on the other you have a lot of confused or badly misinformed folk courtesy of a lot of deliberate disinformation. -BC aka Callmebc 17:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous, as the point is that undue weight is consistently given to skeptics under the claim of neutrality. The skeptics are a radical minority and constantly referencing them creates an image of a divided scientific community when in fact there is unprecedented unity around these issues. But I think we should stay focused: what's at issue is not our beliefs about climate change, but the fact of consensus and the language such consensus demands from an encyclopedia. Even if editors dissent from the scientific consensus, that doesn't justify using language here that obfuscates the fact of that consensus. Little alterations like the proposed one -- dismissing "few" as a weasel word independent of its accuracy -- is POV wherever it subtly exaggerates the existence of dissenters. Even a self-declared skeptic should be able to separate his opinions from the encyclopedia.Benzocane 18:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well this quickly went down the toilet. The objections to "small minority of climate scientists" still make no sense. It's clearly a true statement; if the Nature ref is not as perfectly fitting as you want, another can easily be found. And I think it's clearly the most relevant statement to make in the lead. Why? First, because the opinions of non-climate scientists are not nearly as notable on this subject as those of climate scientists. Second, the reader wants to know the ratio of supporters vs. opponents of the consensus view, and the word "few" does not convey that information. - Merzbow 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious if there is a list of the scientists who support the IPCC, sorted by discipline. I wonder how many of them you would consider "non-climate scientists" if you didn't know they were supportive of the inter-governmental panel. Zoomwsu 23:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to your last post above. ~ UBeR 07:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting read on the history of global warming

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml&page=1 --DHeyward 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting in the sense of being a useful compendium of septic nonsense. The first thing it mentions, global cooling, it gets wrong. They even manage to get the date of the first IPCC report wrong! (it was 1990). I think its fun that they seem to be blaming the entire thing on Gore William M. Connolley 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The article says IPCC started in 1988 and the contradiction in the first report was obvious in 1991. I didn't see where they actually got the date wrong about the release, just a parsing difference between when it was released and when it the problems with it were exposed. There certainly was hysteria about 'global cooling' in the 1970's even if the science was misapplied by journalists. I know they taught it in schools because we were taught that clear cutting the rain forest would lead to more reflected sunlight and catastrophic cooling. That's anecdotal evidence but it's a gauge of how pervasive it was. --DHeyward 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being very creative in re-parsing what they say, as creative as they are being in their history. If you can find a decent ref for your anecdotal stuff, do add it to global cooling - thats a new one on me, so it would be nice William M. Connolley 14:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to nitpick them on the dates. As for "blaming" Gore, I got the impression they were blaming Gore and IPCC equally, similar to the Nobel committee. I don't have any intention of adding to the global cooling since it's bogus science. The hype, though, was real. I'm not sure what you think they got wrong on global cooling. --DHeyward 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The obvious question is "what does this have to do with this article?" My assumption is "nothing." ~ UBeR 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an article on the history of global warming in the context of other scientific scares. It's a prelude to a book. It's not an insignificant viewpoint. Why wouldn't it be relevant? --DHeyward 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

please elaborate on the reversions of my contributions

Ok I've had some very bizarre edit summaries for the reverts of my recent contribution below )with the part I added in bold):

There is ongoing political and public debate worldwide regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions but as of 2007 most national governments have not accepted any treaty obligations to control those emissions.

This has been reverted twice. the first time with this summary:

"v., misleading. Most _industrialized_ countries have, and they generate most CO2"

I interpret this to mean that the contributer user:Stephan Schulz means that it is misleading to say that most countries have accepted no treaty obligations to reduce CO2 emissions because he thinks the countries that have accepted treaty obligations to control CO2 emissions are all of the industrialied (annex I under kyoto) nations and that together these obligated nations produce most of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is untrue. The US at the least has not ratified the treaty and currently has accepted no treaty obligations to reduce CO2 emissions. The US plus all of the non annex I nations already contribute more than half of global CO2 emissions. So my statement would remain true even in the sense that Stephen seems to be interpreting it in that most CO2 emissions continue to occur in countries that have accepted no treaty obligations to control them. It also remains true in the simple literal sense that most national government have not accepted any such obligations. So in what sense is my edit untrue or misleading? It is simply informative of the state of progress in international efforts to tackle global warming through CO2 reductions.

My edit was reverted again! this time with the truly bizarre edit summary of:

"rv: POV interpretation of most" by user:BozMo

"POV interpretation of most"??? how is that even possible? I'm at a loss to understand how that summary explains the reversion of my contribution.

I think I need help understanding why people want this edit removed. The current status gives the impression that 172 countries have already accepted a framework that aims to reduce their CO2 emissions when in fact there has been nowhere near such progress. Why is it important to remove that edit?Zebulin 22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already given you my take here. First, it should be sourced. Second, the details are inappropriate for the lead of this article. ~ UBeR 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How is the fact that most countries have signed the treaty somehow more appropriate than that most countries are doing nothing about it? If such "details" are inappropriate then kyoto itself has no place there.

Here is a source that shows that without the US the Annex I countries contribute less than half of the world total of CO2 emissions. Check out table 8. substract the US total from annex I and we see that less than half of the world total of emissions will be in obligated countries. all projections show that share dropping even further. Zebulin 23:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is certainly factual and I would fully support its inclusion in the body of the article. However, I do not think it belongs in the lead. Zoomwsu 23:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with the WP:TE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Editors

We know who they are and the intentions behind their edits. While the main page is fully protected yet again, I suggest we have a little discussion about what exactly "improving" the article should entail, especially one that is suppose to be based on science, and a rapidly developing one at that. The promoting and slipping in of fringe and politically-based nonsense keeps getting out of hand. Unlike some other politically charged wiki articles seemingly owned by, shall we say, people of a right wingish/anti-fact disposition, the Global Warming wiki does have more than a couple of people apparently genuinely interested in improving & updating it, as well as protecting it from people who would transform it into a right wing blog outpost. Any thoughts? -BC aka Callmebc 07:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

the above is uncivil. while skewering those you perceive as biased, your own biases have leaked through like grease in a paper bag. quite offensive, and completely lacking in WP:AGF. please reconsider posting in this manner. Anastrophe 07:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. BC, you've betrayed your own bias on a number of occasions, including this one. You are failing to assume good faith on the part of all editors, including the ones you disagree with. BTW, I love how you lump "right wingish" in with "anti-fact". Zoomwsu 23:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Locked page

I've requested the page be locked, and now that is, I hope we can end this nonsense edit war. This, like most edit wars, involves the lead, particularly the "few scientists" sentence. Instead of going back and forth between myself and Callmebc and a few others, it would be prudent for more people to discuss. Keep in mind this has been discussed tirelessly before, and I don't expect much to change from past decisions. (It's not like the numbers have significantly changed since last debate!)

Two recent discussions on the particular sentence can be read here and here. Obviously, there have been many discussion on exactly the same thing: (just from mid-year and up). Each and every time, the only clear consensus or compromise, whichever you choose, was the current sentence: "A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." I personally don't like "A few" because it's both subjective and a weasel word, and would much prefer a neutral "There are," but detractors claim undue weight. Clearly, I can live with that consensus/compromise. What I can't tolerate is two or three people who insist on using terms like "tiny minority" or the one person who suggests the scientists are "random," and choose to use sources that in no way validate their edits. I really don't know what else to say other than to ask people discuss this... again. ~ UBeR 07:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(This is substantially similar to my comment above). The objections to "small minority of climate scientists" still make no sense. It's clearly a true statement; if the Nature ref is not as perfectly fitting as you want, another can easily be found. Assuming I do find one, consider the following points. I think it's clearly the most relevant statement to make in the lead. Why? First, because the opinions of non-climate scientists are not nearly as notable on this subject as those of climate scientists. Second, the reader wants to know the ratio of supporters vs. opponents of the consensus view, and the word "few" does not convey that information. - Merzbow 07:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I really dont care either way. So, I say, lets go by the KISS rule, and leave it as it was? Otherwise, we are bound to having these pointless discussions that do no more than saturate my watchlist with absurdity. Its the intro. The interested reader will find out the exact fraction of supporters and "playa-hataz" and everything she ever wanted to know. Brusegadi 16:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I hardly find the present discussion pointless, nor unresolvable, nor the status quo text unimprovable. - Merzbow 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How many scientists, out of how many total, have publically disagreed with any of the how many IPCC conclusions in some way? Are we talking about in public or in private? Opinion or peer-reviewed work? How many points and to what extent? If I'm a scientist, and I am interviewed and I answer a question with "I think the low-end estimate of a 2.5 C rise a bit too high, and it's more likely half that." then am I one of those "disagreeing"? Or do I need to publish a paper proving something to "disagree"? The issue here is the question is not answerable because we don't know what the question is; "a few" is vague, because what it's saying they disagree with, and how, is vague also.

Why not something more like "Here are some of the scientists that disagree with various aspects of some of the IPCC's conclusions." Or whatever. You get the idea. Just a pointer to the other article.

Oh, and can somebody specify that the WG 1 SPM in AR4 is the source for "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" via the greenhouse effect." instead of just "the IPCC"?Sln3412 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are questions better asked at list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I can agree, however, that "a few" is too much a weasel word to ever to be useful or meaningful. ~ UBeR 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my first point I think, UBeR. Tell me specificly what "disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." means. "A few scientists" is a vague and inexact subject, and it introduces an inexact predicate. What's wrong with that?

But my point is why not just change it to something totally meaningless on this page like Oh, "There is not universal agreement with all aspects of the IPCC's conclusions made in their reports, please -go here-." (To see what the disagreements are, who's making them, and how much they disagree.) I don't know, word it better. Send them to that page and don't discuss it on this one AT ALL.Sln3412 00:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what you call an POV fork. ~ UBeR 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The big problem is that there is no clear data on scientific opinion that is acceptable to the crowd here. A while back, I tried referencing a study that showed that approximately 45-50% of the scientists surveyed concur with the IPCC perspective, while significant minorities (15-20% for each) believe the IPCC overstates or understates the influence of anthropogenic CO2 forcing. Unfortunately, this study was not accepted in the scientific opinion on climate change article because of its self-published status, among other (IMO) petty justifications.

My point is, until there is an acceptable source that surveys scientific opinion (I am NOT talking about unscientific editorials or pronouncements, no matter how "reputable" the source), we cannot describe the proportion of scientists who disagree with the mainstream assessment. Hence my suggestion to use the "there are..." wording, which does not make any judgment on the proportion, but merely states a known fact. Zoomwsu 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, again, I don't think so. Write neutral languge saying nothing, that is simply a link to the list of those that disagree somehow and why about what. Sln3412 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlock proposal

The "few" is constantly challenged but I haven't seen it improved upon. I don't think locking the article is a good idea. I propose unlocking it, but with the additional rule of 1RR (or perhaps 1/7RR) for that particular sentence. Leaving the article locked till we all agree on that sentence means leaving it locked forever William M. Connolley 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good plan (and we want to remove the block) but how do we label the 1RR on that sentence so no one does it by mistake? Comment text not shown on the page? --BozMo talk 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs labelling - there are only a few people warring on it, and they will all read this. Anyone who does it by mistake can be offered the chance to self-revert to save themselves. But an inline comment would be OK William M. Connolley 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, situations like this are precisely what the ability to include a hidden comment is useful for. If the article is unlocked on the basis of this 1RR rule then it would seem very strange indeed to not comment the relevant portion of text.Zebulin 19:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

1RR is an unnecessary evil (just kidding of course). But we've tried that before, and I don't think it turned out well in the long run. I'm fine with unlocking the article--one of the edit warriors has already been blocked for a week. But, if the current sentence is the proposed one to keep, that ought to be made clear to anyone who wants to go around making un-agreed-upon changes to the sentence.

Also, I'd like to point out the edit war also involved other parts, such the Kyoto sentence and the SV sections. But I think we can be responsible and discuss these without a full lock on the page. ~ UBeR 23:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Either the current version or UBeR's "There are individual scientists..." is fine. If we do a 1RR on that sentence we'll need an inline comment and someone willing to enforce the terms. Although I think I could do so impartially, as an involved admin I'd rather not. My preference would be for a 0RR; we continually waste far too much time warring over this point. Raymond Arritt 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not been monitoring this article long enough to know the history here, but I generally agree with UBeR's point and believe that the "There are individual scientists ..." wording is preferable because it doesn't imply anything regarding the number of such scientists and, therefore, should remove the objections from a purely numerical perspective. The fact that the wording still refers to individual scientists should suggest to the reader that their numbers are low which should satisfy those concerned about WP:WEIGHT. Having expressed my opinion I defer to the existing group dynamics on the issue. --GoRight 03:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A 0RR or 1RR reeks of censorship.

I would like to see a vote. I would expect to see "a small minority", "several dozen" or "some individual scientists" to be more popular than "a few". 01:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Per your edit summary, Misplaced Pages isn't a democracy. In any case, I wouldn't mind a vote, but I also don't think I would be surprised by the outcome. (Of course, voting has little to do with actual consensus building or meaningful discussion, per applicable Misplaced Pages rules.) ~ UBeR 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with UBeR. What we can do is the following. Why don't the involved editors explain in detail his/her views? On the talk page OR is allowed. E.g., you are allowed to argue on the talk page that you think that the true number of dissenting scientists is a few hundred. Just explain what you think is the situation regarding the consensus. Then explain why you think that way, what sources can you give to back up your point (they don't have to be Reliable Sources, we just want to know how you formed your opinion).

It is better to do this without people commenting on the views of others. You just write your own opinion. Then we can discuss which views are backed up by Reliable Sources and which are not. The people who hold views that are not backed up by reliable sources can then say that they may be right, but that their views are not based on the type of reliable sources that this wiki article must be based on.

This procedure prevents people from engaging in "wiki politics" by going to the hearth of the matter first and only later bringing in the wiki rules. Count Iblis 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected it and added an inline comment to the sentence William M. Connolley 10:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Template + WGI

First, I think the semi-protect template isn't as useful here as other temporarily locked articles, because I believe this article is always on semi-protect. (Plus it's ugly.)

I've swapped back to the "small" version William M. Connolley 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Second, an edit by Sln3412 change the IPCC statement sentence to: "In the most recent Assesment Report, AR4, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis) stated in their Summary for Policy Makers that" most warming since mid-20th is anthropogenic. The previous sentence was "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes ..." I know earlier the user suggested that someone change the sentence to show that it was the WGI (in the SPM) that made the conclusion rather than "just the IPCC," but no one seemed to agree (or respond, for that matter). My argument is that the WGI is very much a part of the IPCC and that their conclusion are very much the basis for the IPCC's stance on climate change, and that the other working groups base their work on the WGI's conclusion (i.e. their views represent a consensus, per IPCC procedures). It is not as though they are independent entities. So I feel trying to differentiate the WGI from the IPCC body as a whole is rather pointless in this situation. I also will argue the conclusions stated in the SPM reflect the same ones found in the full report, so trying to differentiate them in this case also provides no useful context. If any distinction is needed to be made, I suggest it be made later in the article, rather than the summary. ~ UBeR 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The SPM is a summary of the full report, and both consistently show the same position. Moreover, the details overwhelm the lead and are clear from the footnote, anyways. --Stephan Schulz 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and removed William M. Connolley 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As always, I defer to simplicity and your judgement. I just thought "The IPCC" was a bit too terse... Thanks. Sln3412 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm probably belongs somewhere but I'm not sure where - likely not in this article William M. Connolley 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should this have any more credibility than Milloy's survey of the IPCC? Check out the last question: "oh btw are you bought and paid for by big oil?" Iceage77 11:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the BBC more credible than Milloy? Tricky one. I wonder if you can answer that for yourself if you think for just a little bit William M. Connolley 12:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Jeremy Paxman, "the BBC's coverage of climate change abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago". Iceage77 12:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, they have today published a good critique of the IPCC by John Christy . Iceage77 12:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being stupid. You know full well that JP's quote doesn't affect the BBCs cred. Why are you wasting our time with this nonsense? William M. Connolley 12:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-334.pdf

• 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