Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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.
Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. Preloaded case page
This is the talk page for the article Global warming. If you are new to this page please take a moment and have a look at some of the frequently asked questions before starting a new topic of discussion. Thank you.
Ok, I am not home so I do not have my own reference materials but I will find established definitions and statements and then let's see what they say:
an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect. - Global Warming. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved March 31, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Global%20Warming.
The above definition does not describe it as recent but does describe as associated with Greenhouse effect.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change. - Global Warming. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Global%20Warming
Again this definition does not describe it as recent. It leaves out Greenhouse effect but mentions climate change being important.
An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate. The Earth has experienced numerous episodes of global warming through its history, and currently appears to be undergoing such warming. The present warming is generally attributed to an increase in the greenhouse effect , brought about by increased levels of greenhouse gases, largely due to the effects of human industry and agriculture. Expected long-term effects of current global warming are rising sea levels, flooding, melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, more frequent and stronger El Niños and La Niñas, drought, heat waves, and forest fires. -Global Warming. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Retrieved March 31, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Global%20Warming
Note that this is a Science Dictionary and provides the longest description. It describes the greenhouse gas issue as being recent but discusses global warming in the context of the longer earth history.
Definition of Global Warming: Gradual increase in the earth's surface temperature. --Per Zfacts at http://zfacts.com/p/49.html.
Not sure of the reliability of the source but its another brick in the wall It seems like the source is ok.
Increase in the global average surface temperature resulting from enhancement of the greenhouse effect, primarily by air pollution. - Britannica as quoted here.
Note that it definitely says "greenhouse gas" but also pretty much describes these as being from "air polution" which is probably recent.
Global Warming, increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses of Earth. The planet has warmed (and cooled) many times during the 4.65 billion years of its history. At present Earth appears to be facing a rapid warming, which most scientists believe results, at least in part, from human activities. - Encarta Online Encyclopedia as found here: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567022/Global_Warming.html but you might not have access to it without a subscription.
This source discusses the warming and cooling exactly as I did.
An increase in the near surface temperature of the Earth. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is most often used to refer to the warming predicted to occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Scientists generally agree that the Earth's surface has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past 140 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing an increase in the Earth's surface temperature and that increased concentrations of sulfate aerosols have led to relative cooling in some regions, generally over and downwind of heavily industrialized areas. -- Webster's Online Dictionary found here: http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/gl/global+warming.html
This is a very comprehensive review of the meaning of the word from a web basis.
I am hoping that this set of definitions will serve as the basis for discussion. Certainly I can validate that my edits are not silly. They might not have been comprehensive, but the current version is also not correct. Note, for example, that none of these involve "observation". Note that many of them have absolutely no reference to time period and thus could be considered as having no significant time dimension. Those that do mention time, tend to mention both recent and historical. --Blue Tie00:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. But what of scientific papers? For non scientific journal related:
The EPA writes, "Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities."
this site uses almost the same language used on this article.
NOAA writes, "The term Global Warming refers, without any implications for the cause or magnitude, to the observation that the atmosphere near the Earth's surface is warming. This warming is one of many kinds of climate change that the Earth has gone through in the past and will continue to go through in the future." ~ UBeR07:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi UBer. Thanks for the EPA reference. The reference on the "timeforchange.org" is invalid. It says: "The question about the definition for global warming or in other words "what is global warming" is relatively easy to answer. We hereby lean at the definitions and explanations given in Misplaced Pages". So that site is a mirror of an older wikipedia page. I went to the NOAA site and did a search. I found this page but I cannot find the statement you quote there. Can you link it? It seems like it is the one source that so far identifies "observation".--Blue Tie13:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I just did a quick analysis and the shortest sentence that contains ALL of the most common words found in the definitions above is:
Global Warming: An increase in earth's average surface temperature.
That sentence represents the core to all of the definitions.
A slightly longer version using a few more words that appear less frequently is:
Global Warming: An increase in the average temperature of the near-surface temperature of the earth's atmosphere due to greenhouse gases, that effect climate change. --Blue Tie06:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
---
Newly Coined Intro #3
Global warming refers to an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near surface atmosphere that is large enough to change the global climate. Although there have been periods of both global warming and cooling in the past, it is currently a topic of hightened international attention due to observations of increased average temperatures over the last ten decades and projections of continued increases in the next century. This recent increase is believed to be caused by the greenhouse gas effect. The phrase "global warming" came into use during the late 1970's.
Not good. It oversimplifies to the degree that it is wrong. I'm happy with the current version, and that seems to have reasonably strong support.--Stephan Schulz22:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a strange objection. I am proposing changing a shorter, more simplified sentence with something that has more detail and you declare it to be an oversimplification. I do not undertstand that logic at all.
To be clear, I am proposing that this sentence:
Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.
should be replaced by the new intro.
Please, also note that the current first sentence has elements that do not match any of the sources cited above and thus it is either incorrect or it is correct but only on the basis of original research.
Global warming refers to an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near surface atmosphere that is large enough to change the global climate - this is wrong/meaningless. T is part of the climate; *any* change to global T is large enough to change the climate... what is this sentence supposed to mean? William M. Connolley10:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you are right, but that would be original research. Note some of the sources quoted above:
An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate. - American Heritage Science Dictionary.
an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate -- Dictionary.com
"Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. -- EPA
So, though you may consider it redundant (and I would agree with you) others do not see it that way. But it's not about personal opinion on such things. Misplaced Pages reports other sources. If something can be reasonably supported through a verifiable and reliable source, that's valid for entry. --Blue Tie10:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Change of Title and High "Opinion Content"
I believe that we should change the title of the page to Global Warming Theory, since it is just that; a theory.Also, as you already know, the article leans very much towards the "Global Warming is because of People" crowd, and fails to mention many of the controversies surrounding the topic itself. These controversies should be included in this page, so it is known that human-caused global warming is not a proven or unchallenged fact.
We have been over this before. For the title: WP:COMMONNAME. The Googlewhack is roughly 400:1 for "global warming". Also, relevant scientific questions are discussed, and the controversy is mentioned and linked in the lead. See the archives. --Stephan Schulz22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it should be called "Global Warming Theory" unless it only focuses on speculative matters. --Blue Tie11:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The issue isn't with "speculative material," since that isn't what distinguishes a theory from other scientific constructs. The issue is that this article deals with global warming, both theory and observations. So "global warming theory" is inappropriate, except when describing a particular explanation of the experimental observations. --Clt51006:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Grammar on this page
i believe that the wording of glacier retreat should be changed to glacial retreat, glacial describing the word retreat, whereas glacier which is the noun form of the word. Kyt320:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"Glacier retreat" is a compound noun, denoting the retreat of glaciers. "Glacial retreat" has the double meaning of "very slow retreat" and "glacier retreat", so I'd prefer (not by a large margin) the current version. --Stephan Schulz20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Glacier retreat implies the retreat of glaciers. Glacial retreat modifies retreat. Glacier retreat > glacial retreat. ~ UBeR22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration Monday for its inaction on global warming in a decision that could lead to more fuel-efficient cars as early as next year.
The court, in a 5-4 ruling in its first case on climate change, declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
According to what was said on February 2, 2007, global warming is inevitable. Also, I read in the book Our Earth, Ourselves that even if humans halted their emissions of greenhouse gases today, there would still be a 1 degree (probably Fahrenheit) increase in the Earth's average temperature. This includes those greenhouse gases already loaded into the air. 67.126.76.126, 02:14 3 April 2007 (UTC)
US officials can't talk about polar bears, and neither can you
This is copied from User talk:UBeR. UBeR deleted the following passage from this page on March 12:
US officials can't talk about polar bears
...Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.
The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.
Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."
I recommend that this be waved in front of every US science official's face at every meeting possible in public. As a US citizen, I don't think keeping it under wraps is going to help. I wish we had an article about this kind of science censorship. James S.01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I deleted because Misplaced Pages talk pages aren't for discussion about the topic. This isn't a discussion forum. Talk pages are reserved for discussion improvements to the articles. P.S. Last I checked, polar bear population was rising. Thanks. ~ UBeR16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I fully intended to incorporate that news item into the article. I have further questions:
Why do you suggest that the instructions of the Fish and Wildlife Service to refrain from discussing polar bears would not have been an improvement to the global warming article?
Why did your edit summary contain no hint that you had removed the passage?
What reason is there for anyone to believe that your deletion was made in good faith, and not as a deliberate attempt to censor information that you find personally uncomfortable?
On what grounds do you claim that the polar bear population is increasing?
According to Polar bear#Conservation status, "The population of ... polar bears has been shrinking. On the west coast of Hudson Bay in Canada, for example, there were an estimated 1200 polar bears in 1987, and 950 in 2007." James S.07:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"For example" looks like you've chosen the only example? mentions no shrinking population elsewhere just a theoretical threat and they should know. Threat to polar bears from global warming looks localised to me. --BozMotalk07:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to point out: :"In areas where long-term studies are available, populations are showing signs of stress. Canada's Western Hudson Bay population has dropped 22% since the early 1980s. The declines have been directly linked to an earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay. A long-term study of the Southern Beaufort Sea population, which spans the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada, has revealed a decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males. Such declines were observed in Western Hudson Bay bears prior to the population drop there. Another population listed as declining is Baffin Bay." Hal peridol11:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
looks alarmist to me, certainly POV or only talking about North America. At any rate Spitzbergen doesn't seem to have any problem, and there is data going back there although you may have to read Norwegian. --BozMotalk11:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually i do read norwegian - and they do not have measurements for the area of Svalbard/Spitzbergen - estimation: stable but could be declining. Iirc this is the same for the data collected elsewhere. --Kim D. Petersen14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
In case this discussion would result in an article entry, perhaps these Canadian news regarding the US "discussions" would be of interest... bear numbers up, but rescue continues : As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears." --Childhood's End15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, not a discussion forum. My responses to Mr. Salsman's fallacious arguments on my talk page. ~ UBeR20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Denying the existence of a controversy
Hey, if you want to keep this article biased in favor of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, I can live with that. But to assert or imply that there are no, or even few, dissenters, that's just downright fraudulent. The intro of this article should acknowledge the controversy and link to Global Warming controversy. Otherwise it sinks to the level of propaganda. --Don't lose that number14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is a controversy, but that article is already linked to in the intro. The sentence containing "hotly contested..." links to it. Mahalo. --Ali'i15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
All that this article is saying is that there are only a few dissenters who are experts in climate science. Count Iblis17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but this isn't a discussion forum about the topic. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. ~ UBeR20:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean improvements that advance your extremist left-wing ideology? Cause that's all that's allowed on Wikijoke. 12.145.184.618:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you imply that this section is not a discussion about improvements to the article, and what evidence of that position do you have? James S.11:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's dishonest to quote from the IPCC summaries as if they represented the consensus of all the world's scientists. These "summarizes" were written by UN civil servants to conform with a political agenda. They are produced separately from the scientific portions of the IPCC report. Lindzen was responsible for a whole chapter of IPCC report, but his views are not reflected in the summary.
Why give the figure for warming over the "last century" so prominently in the lead? The article itself admits that pre-1950 warming is unlikely to have anything to do with CO2 buildup. Kauffner13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
L was not responsible for a whole chapter. The summaries are not written by UN civil servants. Warming for "last century" is the value everyone uses. The article does not admit that pre-1950 is unlikely to have anything to do with CO2 - which particular bit are yuo misinterpreting to say that? William M. Connolley14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Strange: "Richard Lindzen, lead author of Chapter 7 of the main IPCC scientific report (IPCC, 2001a), has stated that the IPCC use the SPM to misrepresent what scientists say (Lindzen, 2001, p. 18)." ~ UBeR19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Lindzen was only one of 10 lead authors for Chapter 7, so WMC is entirely correct in saying he was not responsible for a whole chapter. Lead authors usually work on one subsection of a chapter. If anyone is responsible for a chapter as a whole it would be the coordinating lead author(s) (in this case Thomas Stocker), but even then the CLA doesn't write the whole thing by any means -- they "coordinate" the work of each LA as the title implies. Raymond Arritt19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the UN process can be found here, and is nothing like the process you describe, Kauffner. What are your sources, so that we can compare? --Skyemoor14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Or a different description of the IPCC process can be found here (p.3) and it could be at least acknowledged that Lindzen has been a lead author for the IPCC whose views have never been reported by the summaries, as well as it could also be ackowledged that we cannot say that all the scientists participating in the IPCC reports agree with the whole of the reports. --Childhood's End14:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually Lindzen only disagree's with the SPM - he's on record as calling the report and the technical summary "an admirable description of research activities in climate science" - that should be acknowledged as well - don't you think? --Kim D. Petersen15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
One would never expect 100% of thousands of scientist to agree 100%; such a criteria would have sunk every single scientific stance. --Skyemoor15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
So should I understand that you agree that any statement begining by "The IPCC says (bla bla bla)..." does not necessarily encompass the views of every individual scientist who has contributed and that as such, it is hypothetical to say that the IPCC represents a consensus view? --Childhood's End16:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a hypothetical scenario that ignores the preponderance of confirmation by, for example, the industrial nation science academies and societies that you are, by now, quite familiar with, so I will politely decline to comment on such a narrow, unduly constrained context. --Skyemoor17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is a first-hand report from Lindzen on the how the IPCC process works: IPCC report criticized by one of its lead authors To summarize, Lindzen was a "lead author" of the IPCC report who contribute to chapter 7. This is a 35-page chapter that discusses clouds, water vapor, modeling, and feedback, effects that can make several degrees worth of difference in projected warming. This is the only part of the chapter that got into the "Summary for Policymakers": "Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapor, sea dynamics and ocean heat transport." Here's a money quote: "The 'most egregious' problem with the IPCC's forthcoming report, said Lindzen, 'is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on.'" Kauffner15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If the SPMs were so far off as alleged, then where are the 1000s of scientists that protested the inclusion of incorrect language? Ok, perhaps there were 100s protesting? No, then maybe 10s? Indeed, any one country could have blocked any wording, so if there were serious question about any of the text, at least one country would have cut it.
In the most recent SPM, this actually did happen; China and Saudi Arabia protested the inclusion of a sentence that stated that solar influence in the recent temperature record was less than 20% that of GHG, so it was deleted. In this month's Scientific American, they report, "The difference is really a factor of 10," says lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England: compared with its historical output, the sun currently contributes an extra 0.12 watt of energy for each square meter of the earth's surface, whereas man-made sources trap an additional 1.6 watts per square meter. --Skyemoor16:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Another point Lindzen makes is that IPCC has no effective peer review, so the even the technical material doesn't represent any sort of consensus. In other words, any given passage from the IPCC report is just the opinion of whoever was responsible for that particular section. Kauffner18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Odd -- I served as a reviewer for both the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. Guess I must have been hallucinating. Raymond Arritt18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Also odd that Lindzen, being lead author, under the above assumption would have had full sway to make it say whatever he wanted it to say (or not say). --Skyemoor19:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Raymond, I think the comment was "no effective peer review." When individual nations have veto power over the scientific content and can strike phrases like "8 out of 10" , that sort of limits the value of the peer review system, don't you think? When we think of peer review, we think of it as an (on average) unbiased critique that is the basis of editorial decision making on the future of a manuscript. When editors eventually have to make decisions based on poitical expediency, I think that removes much of the value of the peer review process. --Clt51006:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added more material to the chart showing CO2 levels over 100s of millions of years. Pertinent to the subject of GW is the combustion of sequestered CO2. --Skyemoor20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Noah's Flood
I originally added the section on Noah's flood in early March, but it was almost immediately pulled without any prior discussion in the Talk section, which is the way it is supposed to be done. The one who pulled it, TeaDrinker, had this to say to me privately -
"Howdy, I wanted to let you know that I removed the section you added from the Global warming article. It did not appear that the position is particularly widespread, certainly not warranting an entire section. Feel free to discuss the removal on the talk page, if you wish. Thanks."
He also posted this note when he made the edit -
"rv to last edit by UBeR, probably original research, certainly not notable position on gw."
While articles in Misplaced Pages are formed by consensus, that does not mean that it is majority rule, as such tends to repress the obscure or unpopular, but nonetheless true, ideas. The matter we have here is certainly strange because of the position of those who want to make it appear that they are in the majority, and thus must be without fault in their position.
In the 1500-1600 AD the majority of the so-called learned men said that the world was the center of the universe and the sun, moon, and stars revolved around the earth. But the few who were in the minority (Capernicus, Galileo, etc.) were observing things which countless many before them had, and were coming to the same conclusions - that being that the earth was round and was rotating in space. The notion that the earth was the center of the universe and flat was, at best, a Johnny-come-lately idea, and not grounded in antiquity.
What is odd when it comes to the matter at hand is that then it was the so-called Biblical scholars who ignored natural phenomenon that could be scientifically evaluated were wrong, while those who not only observed nature as it really was, and who also based their conclusions on the science in the Bible were correct. The Bible speaks of the "circle" of the earth, and the courses of the seas. It was those things which Columbus and others relied upon when they headed out for the what many believed to be the edge of the earth.
But today we have almost the reverse of that situation. The so-called scientists are coming to conclusions based on fairly recent observations while at the same time denying the oldest facts of recorded history as preserved in the Bible and the vast majorities of cultures throughout the world - that fact being that there was a flood which destroyed the world. The belief that there was a worldwide flood is the most widely held story in the world, regardless of the differing religious , philosophical, or mythical views attached to it. All those people must had had some kind of common experience which generated the stories and beliefs. The Mayan story includes not only the flood, but a tower of Babel equivalent which includes the speaking of one language which was later confused when the people were scattered over all the earth. The thing is that many believe that the Bible record is the purest record of the common known event.
So, while TeaDrinker says that the position stated in my posting is "probably original research, certainly not notable position on gw," such is based on a very restricted view of the matter. Just because there may not be many among those who believe the Bible who understand what the Genesis record of the waters above the firmament being divided from the waters below the firmament (as explained in my posting) is really depicting, that doesn't mean that what I have presented is incorrect as to what that record portrays, or that the conclusions mentioned are scientifically unsound.
Where is the science that shows that when a thermostatic heating system (the waters above the firmament), as is shown to have existed before the flood (according to the Bible), breaks down that the poles and much of the area surrounding them would not almost instantly freeze, and then later melt as the earth reheated? This is not an unfair question. There is nothing else which can explain why animals have been found frozen stiff with food still in their mouths.
Any consensus reached on this article must be above political agendas and just present facts which a truth seeker may evaluate. But unless my posting is allowed to be evaluated by people reading it, there can be no consensus but only democratic bully-fest.
As a note on one of the leading proponents of the popular teaching of Global Warming, Al Gore. With all due respect to the man, he flunked out of divinity school. As one commentator put it, "He flunked God!" So it is not surprising that he is embracing a theory which is disconnected from the science of the Bible. Global warming is happening, but why is another matter.
So if anyone is intending on pulling the posting again, please use the proper procedure in discussing the matter before doing so, for anything short of that will be unfair and not look well should this matter go to arbitration.
Anyone703:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if you feel slighted, but I think removal was and is the correct thing to do. You certainly did nothing wrong by posting it, that is being bold, however it is controversial and consensus should be reached before it added back, as is the custom/policy on Misplaced Pages. I have grave concerns that the material violates the no original research policy. Misplaced Pages is not the place to put new ideas, or even give new ideas a fair hearing. You are correct to say that Misplaced Pages is a democracy, but neither is it anarchy. Inclusion in an article follows rules, sometimes fairly restrictive ones. -TeaDrinker05:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Your saying that that which I posted in the article is "original research" and thus not worthy of being presented to people makes it appear that all of you suffer from a bad case of tunnel vision. In the link which you also removed were quotations from a tract published in 1940. I know that at least 50,000 copies of that study have been distributed, and more than likely more 100,000. But the basic theory did not originate with the author of those quotations for the idea has been debated longer than any of us have been around.
The idea that there was a layer of water above our atmosphere is certainly not original with us for it is discussed in the Wiki articles "Vapor Canopy," and "Firmament." Also, if you do a search on "water above the firmament" you will find many pages of links discussing different thoughts on the subject, including the one stated in my posting. So your whole argument that what I posted is"original research" stands without merit, and you must come up with something much better before you maliciously pull my posting again. Your past actions are of the very nature complained of in the "The Real Issue" section of this Talk area - that being that you all are acting as bullies and refuse to allow any opinion that is contrary to that which you have embraced.
The very fact that one editor uses the fact that the link is to a section on a web site titled "Latest Studies" as supposed proof that what I have presented is "original research" is just plain laughable. I say this because the introduction to the Global Warming article under discussion states this, "Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." Therefore, the whole subject of Global Warming is something which has only been an issue "in recent decades," and most all written on it is "original research." For that matter, the very fact that the article contains "its projected continuation" shows that those who allow such speculation in the article do not mind an "original research" which fits their fancy because all such projections are nothing more than that as they have nothing historical to base their projections on.
I have noticed that others have complained about there not being an opposing position in the article, yet they too have been bullied out of the forum. It would seem that it would be necessary for them to have a completely separate article wherein they state their opposition, whatever it may be, and that one's such as myself will have to also have a separate article explaining the Biblical reason for the observed warming. But, of course,those new articles would rate links to them from the original article, so those additional articles would just be a burden for the seeker of truth to investigate as they would have to be jumping from article to article to get the overall picture. But those who know that is no better way than to keep people in ignorance than to obscure a matter by dividing it up in little pieces and scattering them all over the place would love to have such a state of confusion exist in this matter.
It appears that there is to be a show down on this matter. So if you have some better arguments than my posting being "original research" please present them so that all can fairly evaluate the matter, and not just base their opinions on the type of bald assertions you have made.Anyone702:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, we have comment from the same type of bullies that condemned Galileo. There are reputable scientists which have shown that the earth has what some call a "bathtub ring" around it, and that it was cause by a worldwide flood which practically all ancient culture acknowledge in one way or another. Those some cultures have added all kinds of false notions onto the historical facts doesn't leesen the reality of the flood which you and most of the scientists who are putting forth theories on global warming ignore because it doesn't fit into the picture that they paid a lot of money to be educated (wrongly) in.
As a note, about 2000 years ago the apostle Peter wrote, "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:3-7.
Is he not saying that people in a time after his will deny that the flood occurred? The very fact that we are seeing that very thing today (and especially among those who claim to be scientists, and their blind supporters) would cause a candid mind to think that Peter had a special insight on today, and that some of the very "scoffers" he mentions may wake up and strengthen the things that remain when they realize that people back then were not ignorant of this world's true history.
I can't see how any of you are qualified to be editors on this article because of your lack of knowledge and prejudices. This opinion is not sole mine, as it is expressed by others' comments in this Talk page.
Anyone715:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Attributed and expected effects
N has bloated this section - it has a see-main, it shouldn't be this big. I've cut it down somewhat. I regard the graph added as misleading and have removed it. For newbies, we've had similar wars over this in the past. The section needs to be trimmed further, IMHO William M. Connolley08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you please kindly refrain from characterizing this debate as a 'war'? You have in the past agreed to portions which you deleted, and for the reasons below I am restoring the removed passages and ask that you try to remain civil towards practitioners and advocates of actuary. Just because some stupid mob deleted your gambling page is no reason to suddenly start implying that actuary isn't science. James S.09:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I'm quite happy for actuary to be science if you like. I meant, *natural science*. And we had an edit war in the past over this, where you kept trying to insert an inapproriate graph against everyone else. Please don't do that again. The section you have added is too big, and inappropriate for this page, and misleading/wrong William M. Connolley09:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Your use of warfare as a euphemism for editing disagreements is upsetting to me. If you want to continue using that terminology, then that will be your decision, but don't say I didn't try to warn against it, please. I believe that my application of a trend line and confidence intervals has been proper, and I reserve the right to continue. However, as a courtesy to you and those who agree with you, I have decided to refrain. I am sorry that you feel that a concise summary of the best available actuarial reports from the past five years is too much. I do not. I will continue to replace about the same amount of material. I also intend to establish a survey of how many paragraphs should be devoted to expected non-financial and financial effects, voting 4 and 3. James S.12:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Censorship of Financial effects
I strongly disagree with this edit, and I ask that it please be restored. However, what really bothers me is the edit summary; in particular, "Financial effects - rm section. too big, not very good (too much stern), too far from page focus (science)"
Actuarial science is a science, and has been recognized as such for many centuries. I think the suggestion that Global warming can not afford seven paragraphs for it shows serious issues with WP:OWN from the climatologist who has the most edits on this article.
I have seen far too much mollycoddling of those who do not think twice about spouting lies if it serves their preconceived notions or their party line. If this behavior continues, I will ask for a third opinion about whether actuary should be excluded from the article because some climate scientist says that it isn't really "science" while at almost the same time supporting a detailed graph of an extrapolation to 220% CO2 which seems contrary, by the way, to several other studies.
And what exactly does "not very good (too much stern)" mean? Stern is the most recent actuary to address the issue, and his 2006 report is only given half the space of the leading reports for 2005-2002. If there is a critique of Stern's work, I have not been able to find it. If editors want to bad-mouth a respected scientist, I would respectfully request that they cite sources instead of putting such rubbish in edit summaries where they can not be removed or tagged.
And then there is this edit, which asserts, "may be partly due to increasing severe weather" in the face of several peer-reviewed authorities to the contrary, and deletes this vast swath:
"Kerry Emmanuel in Nature writes that hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with temperature, reflecting global warming. Hurricane modeling has produced similar results, finding that hurricanes, simulated under warmer, high-CO2 conditions, are more intense than under present-day conditions. Thomas Knutson and Robert E. Tuleya of the NOAA stated in 2004 that warming induced by greenhouse gas may lead to increasing occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms."
Again I object and although I see much good faith, I see substantial elements of bad faith, probably due to being worn down by those who are paid to lie. I recommend a wikibreak. James S.09:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The evidence for inc in disasters due to population is strong. Due to weather is weaker - I'm not really sure. Actuary is science (perhaps) but not natural science. If there is a critique of Stern's work, I have not been able to find it - then you haven't looked very hard. Try Nordhaus or Tol. Or stoat :-). Your section is far too long for something with a see-main William M. Connolley09:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If this were the Misplaced Pages of Natural Science, I would agree to exclude the finance section. As for the critiques which focus on inflation adjustment, storm damage is a recurring cost causing depreciation of durable goods. If you were to use a 5% per annum inflation adjustment year-over-year, it wouldn't make much of a difference because the bill for storm damage isn't a balloon payment at the end of time, it's a recurring cost paid periodically. However, the greenhouse gas pool in the atmosphere is elastic: If we overspend on mitigation, we can recoup our losses by spending less on mitigation in the future. Have any of Stern's critics achieved peer review of their critique? James S.10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No - I mean this page primarily focuses on the natural science. Re crit of Stern - are you now saying that yuo *have* read the Nordhaus/Tol stuff? Either you have (in which case your original comment is deceptive) or you haven't (in which case your reading around this is woefully inadequate). I disagree with your reverts - but will allow others to comment before editing further. Your refusal to admit that societal changes are primary, and your insistence on putting weather first, is unpromising William M. Connolley 10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I read a few summaries of them after you pointed them out. If you have any actual evidence that "reading around this is woefully inadequate" then please state it. When have I denied that societal changes are a major source? Since we have no way to predict future population growth with any accuracy, I can not say whether population growth will always be the primary determinant of financial losses to disasters. When have I ever said that it hasn't always been that way? This "much/most" distinction is interesting, but I think reacting to a disagreement with deletion shows an inability to edit well with others. If your deletions were based on the weakest evidence, then I would agree with them, but you are apparently trying to delete information about artificial sciences of global warming instead. James S.11:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The wind measurement system was change some years back and that resulted in more storms being put in catagory 5. Whether there is a financial impact depends on whether a storm hits a high-property value area, which has nothing to do with global warming. Katina hit a major city, so everyone heard about it. Meanwhile, a series of catagory 5 storms in the 1960s go unremembered because they didn't hit land. Kauffner10:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you detail what changes you understand the wind measurement system to have undergone, and provide references? I don't doubt the first part of your statement, though it is overly broad. And what is remembered is not as important as what the trend is. Let's be careful not to gear this article to the perception but to the evidence. --Skyemoor11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Check this out. The Weather Service got some new toys in 1997 so they can measure higher wind speeds now. Andrew, a financially significant 1992 storm, has been reclassified as a catagory 5. (This article has one cool satellite photo of Andrew. Blow it up -- It makes a great desktop.) Kauffner18:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the section should stay, however I would like to see it improved over time with more facts on existing effects and less speculation. But to say this article is already without speculation is completely wrong. The machine51210:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Financial impacts should go into Effects of Global Warming, and must take into consideration not only population growth, but growth along coastlines. Yes, increased violent storms will increase damage, and insurance companies view this as a high risk, but higher valuation of exposed properties makes a difference in total financial risk, as Kauffner mentioned. --Skyemoor11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't find the section about financial effects too big. Well, maybe a little (Tony Blair's opinion seems not to be that important to me there). We have a small paragraph about the Kyoto Protocol, which is surely not dealing with natural science, but with politics. We have a quite big section about the relation to Ozone depletion, which I think is a minor topic compared to possible financial losses. While I recognize that this article needs a strong natural scientific pillar, for me this does not necessarily mean everything else should be excluded. To make my point, I'm in favor of cutting a few sentences out of the contended section and put it back into the article. Hardern12:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Guys, you're right. A section on financial effects is pertinent, and there is no reason a general overview like this article should not encompass a wide variety of subtopics. however this article is currently under the control of a small group of users who have decided they alone can decide the scope of the article. Since they have decided that, any other opinions count as peripheral and non-important. So that is a problem which we are facing. There seems to be little we can do about it. We currently have a mediation open, but it seems likely to accomplish little. So we're not sure. If anyone wants to put in a complaint, please feel free. Thanks. --Sm890013:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
it is unresolved, and still pending. Apparently the mediator did archive it, just because they felt they had sufficient input from all parties.--68.164.203.4115:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I need to look at the financial stuff. I think the article should emphasize science but should not be solely about the science. On the other hand, without seeing the information, I think financial impacts would have to be shear speculation at this point. If it is, wouldn't that sort of demand a bit less space and a note to the effect that it is speculation? --Blue Tie14:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what any of us think. Users do sometimes have the right to try out some new ideas, without having a few people veto them for no solid reason. --Sm890014:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Come on, don't worry. As for what any of us think, I think you use the word "few" rather flexibly. But I also tend to agree with the ?few ?majority that the article is too long and the financial stuff is largely effect... --BozMotalk14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the financial stuff, it seems to be relevant. (I note that risk is a combined measure of probability and cost so this is not a terrible addition). I agree users should be able to contribute without too much stress, but sometimes that means proposing on the talk page first. --Blue Tie15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Not an expert but doesn't the answer swing too much on discount rates, which is arbitrary, and isn't that too much for this article? --BozMotalk15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. I just surveyed without going into detail. I don't think the biggest problem is discount rates. The problem here is that we are talking about *forecasts*. One forecast is about the temperature rise. Another forecast is about the general climatological effects of that temperature rise. And now, a forecast about the financial effects of that forecasted climate change from the forecast tempera--ture rise. Do we say that 3 forecasts are too many? Based upon what critieria? If 3 are not too many, what about 4? If 3 are too many is 2 too many? Why is 1 not too many? and so on. --Blue Tie15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, if you feel something should be included, you should just recommend that. I have yet to see any major revisions accepted which did not align with the people controlling this article. With a major mediation under way, we should not be clouding the issue with these side-discussions, which we already know will never result in any new sub-topics being included. --Sm890015:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I *think* I have not edited the article in a while. (Because I think it clouds things) I am letting others do that. I do not mind commenting on the edits. I have already said that I have proposals for changes but I think the mediation should proceed first. --Blue Tie16:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The financial information looks relevant, but some is redundant (e.g. first and second sentences repeat the same information), and there are significant criticisms of the Stern report, which should temper the use of it as a source for economic effects. Also, I think that the Risks and Impacts image File:Risks and Impacts of Global Warming.png is more informative overall than the glacier thickness image in this section. Hal peridol16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The graph on the right is weird. It has the appearance of some sort of quantitative analysis but it is really just opinion overlayed on numbers. I cannot detect any methodology for arriving at those conclusions. It just looks like a way to convey a belief, not a graph of objective information. I like the concept of the graph and would like to see something like it in the article but I do not think this one is right. The correct way to evaluate risk is to have P(scenario) X (delta) Cost of Scenario. Both may be subjective evaluations but there should be a methodology and transparency to the madness. --Blue Tie18:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstood me. I think you are absolutely entitled to edit this article. :-) I only meant that since we know there is a major conflict going on now regarding people's ability to edit this, then if something is cut which we feel should be included, we should call for its inclusion more simply and directly, and not get bogged down in minor points, since this is the major issue of dispute right now. --Sm890016:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
"Major" mediation, "major" conflict, "major" dispute but involving only a "few" people outnumbering you. Hmm. Anyway, BlueTie, on nested assumption my rule of thumb based on the essay "fernseeds and elephants" (by C.S.Lewis) is 0.7*0.7*0.7=.3 or put another way three pretty likely outcomes are unlikely all to be true so a theory based on three nested assumptions is rarely worth talking about. As I say these kind of broad scientific principles are the ones which entitle some degree of cynicism. --BozMotalk18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about with "Major" mediation, "major" conflict, "major" dispute but involving only a "few" people outnumbering you., But I tend to agree about nested assumptions. However, we get into a question of original research, particularly about how likely the issues are. 0.70^3 is a different number than 0.90^3. With just .70, even a single nest is questionable and the original topic is not so sure as to be legitimately uncontested. Just what level of probability do you ascribe to the first level here -- temperatures are rising?--Blue Tie18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
First bit I was just being flippant to Sm8900 so ignore it. On the probabilities what is the 90% spread of estimates of financial impact in 2100? Narrower than the difference in changing the discount rate from 0% to 4% I think. I am not in solution mode yet, just kicking ideas around. --BozMotalk18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, I have some specialized software and experience in evaluating answers when inputs are ranges and vague, but that would get to original research and I would need lots of help with the "understood" inputs. Having said that, I think that the probabilities of temperatures rising is well over 90% and approaching 100%. As for the consequences, I believe that these are presently speculative and I think 70% is about as high as you can go. Once you assume a consequence the financial impacts are relatively much easier to evaluate, subject to what are probably reasonable assumptions -- including discount rates to bring the numbers into net present value, which can be estimated based upon the last 100 years history or something like that. Some of the financial impact is not even related to discount but rather to percentages of aggregate GDP which does not lend itself to discounting properties. A key issue for financial impact is the cost of a human life. This is very political. Courts tend to rule that an average life in the US is worth about $3 million. In the USSR, its about $118,000. They might both be right, but that is a minefield and I doubt any investigative body is going to openly walk into an industrial fan of that wattage. But, bottom line is, that in this case, I think the weak part of the nesting is more in the nature of the consequences rather than in the cost of them. --Blue Tie19:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Temperature rising? Well, over 50% chance... the question is how much. Probability of at least 3C by 2100? God (or some of his self-appointed representatives on this talk page) knows...--BozMotalk19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to do financial impact, what about the benefits of global warming? CO2 is plant food and promotes agriculture. Can anyone explain why Canadians hate global warming so much? To assume that the natural global temperature is the perfect one is join a nature worshipping cult. The global temperature has always been changing, and always will be -- sorry hockey stick believers. Kauffner03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Increasing extreme weather catastrophes are due to increasing severe weather?
I don't think Increasing extreme weather catastrophes are due to increasing severe weather and an increase in population densities. is supportable.
So what does the article support it with? The World Meteorological Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have linked increasing extreme weather events to global warming. Indeed? 29 is a link to an excitable Indie article, but what the WMO actually *say* is: "Recent scientific assessments indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme events might increase,". This is not the same. 30 is a link to an EPA page that does not appear to link disasters to cl ch at all.
And so on. *nothing* there supports the assertion that there have been mor weather catastrophes because of GW (I'm taking the commonplace meaning of "weather catastrophes" as extreme weather events that inpact people/economics.
I would prefer: Increasing extreme weather catastrophes are primarily due to an increase in population densities and may be partly due to increasing severe weather but N keeps reverting it out. I admit I've provided no support for my version, so I'll offer this (part of a series) and perhaps better this workshop report wot sez 8. Analyses of long-term records of disaster losses indicate that societal change and economic development are the principal factors responsible for the documented increasing losses to date. and 11. Because of issues related to data quality, the stochastic nature of extreme event impacts, length of time series, and various societal factors present in the disaster loss record, it is still not possible to determine the portion of the increase in damages that might be attributed to climate change due to GHG emissions.
Thats not all thats wrong with Ns additions, but I sense that its the core of the problem, so lets fix this. The new stuff is also too long.
I have not been paying attention, but maybe, without good attribution, the whole statement should just go. However, I appreciate, value and commend your efforts at working with the editor. --Blue Tie19:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
WMO does say, "might," and EPA says, "potential future impacts of global warming – such as sea level rise and increased storm activity and severity," and both of those, while non-absolute, are certainly a "link" for the purposes of the statement they support.
Why do you completely ignore Science, Nature, and J Climate, which directly support direct causation? Why are you not addressing those references?
I might be inclined to place the WMO and EPA after the stronger Science, Nature, and J Climate references. James S.20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
WMO says "might" *of the future*. So you cannot use it to support present and past. Ditto EPA. I don't think Science says anything about weather catastrophes - its about a shift in hurricane categories. Emanuel does not claim any trend in cyclone costs in the past. Etc.
So the initial statement - Increasing extreme weather catastrophes are due to increasing severe weather and an increase in population densities. - is not supported by your refs William M. Connolley21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you really claiming that a shift in hurricane categories doesn't say anything about catastrophes? James S.21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I said I'm taking the commonplace meaning of "weather catastrophes" as extreme weather events that impact people/economics - that is not the same thing as shifting hurricane categories. The damage (cost) signal is so noisy that you can't see SSTs in it (Pielke refs above). Permit me to repeat my Analyses of long-term records of disaster losses indicate that societal change and economic development are the principal factors responsible for the documented increasing losses to date. - given that, why do you object to the phrasing Increasing extreme weather catastrophes are primarily due to an increase in population densities and may be partly due to increasing severe weather? William M. Connolley21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, so you'd be happy with ''Increasing extreme weather catastrophes are primarily due to an increase in population densities... then? As to weather cats from severe weather... I don't see you've provided *any* sources for that at all. "may be" is the best you can get. Can you point to even one source that clearly attributes increased costs to recent cl ch? There must be some, but you haven't found them William M. Connolley22:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The statement you are objecting to doesn't talk about costs, it talks about the number of catastrophies, which is fully attributable to the sources which state storm strength is increasing due to GW. James S.22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
A suggestion: The financial impacts are at the very least interesting. And with the information that both of you have in mind, there could be enough room for another article. If that article is written (which would involve its own negotiations) then a summary could be included here and the issues would already be resolved. I would be interested in participating in that article also (and I realize that revelation might kill the idea).--Blue Tie22:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to see such an article. Once its of a reasonable standard it could reasonably be *briefly* see-mained into here. We might even manage to work on it together, since I suspect we are likely to agree William M. Connolley22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't like "Increasing extreme weather catastrophes are due to increasing severe weather" because that is a completely circular statement. It's like saying "Bigger hamburgers are caused by the increasing mass of beef in sandwiches." Also, "increasing" needs to be an adverb to modify an adjective - e.g. "Increasingly extreme weather catastrophes." Try to improve this section or state your case... I'll stop by later and see if it's gotten any better before I change it. It seems to me like if there's a causal relationship to be suggested, it's between Hurricanes and La Niña. (Which, by the way, has not increased since 1980 - only had natural variability despite what GW propaganda implies .) --Tjsynkral23:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just made some improvements to the effects section. I've added better sources and removed sources that don't make sense and uncited/miscited statements. Keep an eye out for the inevitable POV-reverts that are sure to follow. --Tjsynkral01:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to harp on this; if you do feel that POV reverts are habitually occurring, could you please state that for the record, at the mediation page? the more that we objectively state the problem, on the record, the more we can work towards some sort of resolution. Thanks. --Sm890016:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Stern
The financial effects section leans too heavily on Stern, and reports no alternative views, apparently because of N's If there is a critique of Stern's work, I have not been able to find it (why did none of our resident skeptics jump on this? Because they don't know their stuff of course. I'd have expected better from RonC though).
Alternative views are: the wackos in Wurld Economics (available here); Nordhausthe Review was published without an appraisal of methods and assumptions by independent outside experts. and The Review proposes using a social discount rate that is essentially zero. Combined with other assumptions, this magnifies enormously impacts in the distant future and rationalizes deep cuts in emissions, and indeed in all consumption, today. If we were to substitute more conventional discount rates used in other global-warming analyses, by governments, by consumers, or by businesses, the Review’s dramatic results would disappear; Tol via PrometheusThe Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent.
If an economic analysis spanning decades and centuries does not use a discount rate (discount rate=0) that would seem to be a serious problem in the results. There would be no capability to discriminate between issues over time or consider wise use of investment capital for competing issues. I cannot see any way to fix a problem like that. I was trying to imagine a scenario where I could agree. Suppose, for example, that we knew for sure that a large meteor was going to strike the earth in 150 years, with life extinction possibilities. How much is it worth it to me to spend money to fix a problem that I will not be alive to deal with? Maybe it is worth something if I am altruistic, but I must actually live today and cannot spend all my waking hours and days thinking about that issue -- which is the result of a zero discount rate. Maybe, under altruistic motivations, I might lower the discount rate, but I still cannot bring it to zero. --Blue Tie20:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thats largely besides the point; *your* opinions (or mine) don't matter; what matters is the crit that has been made of Stern. And there is plenty of it. Somehow N managed to miss it all. I think a "finance" section that leads with Tol is broken and should be removed pending fixing, not left in place. Stern is *not* mainstream: he is way out on a limb William M. Connolley20:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree that what we think does not matter -- and I note that you conclude your comment with your assessment of Stern. Here on the article talk page, a discussion related to the quality of the information and sources is not out of order and I was adding my two cents (if it is worth that much) to the issue. This is the sort of conversation that is reasonable when making editorial decisions, though it is entirely possible that my input is not useful or welcome. But from my (niave) perspective, a priori I am unaware of that. --Blue Tie20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
folks, the way things work at Misplaced Pages is that if you don't like something, add some text providing the other side. Not these constant, ongoing, wholesale reverts and deletions of entire sections which some people may not like. Not saying we're headed there, but just wanted to mention that. thanks. --Sm890020:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No, thats not how it works: that just leads to a hopeless mis-mash of counterarguments. We should be providing a decent representation of current opinion. The current version is completely broken. I'm going to add some counterbalance but it will still be broken William M. Connolley21:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It is, in most political-topic articles. Maybe it isn't that way in most scientific articles. however, if this article is becoming a slightly political-topic article, we should try to reflect that. BTW, I appreciate the overt constructive tone of your reply. thanks. --Sm890021:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It might do well to have a whole "Economics and global warming" article that would treat not just the economic consequences, but the economic assumptions that go into the SRES scenarios and so forth. The present article could then have a summary that would point the reader to the main econ article for more info. Raymond Arritt20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The financial effects section starts out with Stern because he is the most recent in the series. If any of them are doing more than just self-publishing, then I might agree that Stern's critics should be cited, but I think they're full of it. If you ignore the discount rate for a long-term balloon payment, it makes a big difference. For continuous depreciation of durable goods and capital structures, not so much. Are any peer-reviewed economics journals taking any of Stern's critics seriously? James S.20:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Stern is self-published, as Nordhaus points out. Have any PR journals taken Stern seriously, or are you keen on double standards? You do know who Nordhaus is, I hope? William M. Connolley21:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The decision on discounting depends on two factors: first, how to take into account the fact that people are likely to be richer in the future; and second, whether the future should be discounted simply because it is the future.
We discount in the standard way to allow the possibility that people will have higher consumption in the future. Climate change implies that strongly divergent paths for future growth are possible. The use of a single set of discount rates for all paths is inappropriate when looking at non-marginal changes.
The degree of discounting depends on attitudes to income distribution, which are captured by the elasticity of the marginal utility of consumption. We use an elasticity of one, in line with some empirical estimates. For this case, the contribution to the discount rate is equal to the rate of growth of consumption of the path. This reflects an assumption that society is moderately averse to income inequality and therefore is more worried about adverse impacts that fall on poorer generations. If society were more strongly averse to income inequality, it would be appropriate to use a higher multiple of the average growth rate.
In addition, we carefully examine the case for discounting the future just because it is the future – which in economic terms is known as pure time preference. This requires a consideration of the ethical issues involved in comparing the incidence of costs and benefits between generations, some of which are distant in time. We argue – in line with economists including Ramsey, Sen, Pigou and Solow – that the welfare of future generations should be treated on a par with our own. This means that the only justification for a positive rate of pure time preference in assessing the impacts of climate change is the possibility that the human race may be extinguished. As the possibility of this happening is low, we assume a low rate of pure time preference, 0.1%, which corresponds with a 90% probability of humanity surviving a 100-year period. Higher probabilities of survival would imply a still lower rate. There are other approaches to pure time discounting and references are given in the Review (Chapter 2 and the appendix) and in the “Modelling Paper” on www.sternreview.org.uk.
The average discount rate used in the modelling exercise is then the combination of these two elements: the average growth rate over the relevant time horizon for the particular path being examined (in the case where the elasticity of the marginal utility of consumption is one), plus the 0.1% pure rate of time preference.
Many previous studies have used higher rates of pure time preference, which are similar to those used for evaluating other kinds of investments. However, we argue that this disinvestment in the environment cannot be considered in, say, the same way as an economist would consider an investment in a railway. A railway can be replaced or redesigned, it can become obsolete or redundant. In other words, the probability of survival depends on the context. In this case the context is that of the whole planet.
Which was my point: Just like a railway, the costs are continuous, and not as a big balloon payment where the discount rate would matter. If you don't know enough about amortization to see that problem with the critics, then you deserve what you get for supporting them. However, I would kindly encourage you to figure out what they are actually saying and whether it makes any sense before adding them to the article. James S.21:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Quoting huge blocks of text is a bad idea. I know Stern tries to justify his choice of DR. Unlike you, I know that a lot of people have criticised him for it. My opinions on discount rates carry little weight; Nordhaus's carry a lot; e.g . Writing the section with only Stern in shows either ignorance or bias; its hard to know which William M. Connolley21:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep calling six or seven paragraphs "huge?" What does an award to Nordhaus before the Stern report was published have to do with his opinion of it? And yes, peer reviewed economic journals are taking Stern seriously: Stern, N. (2006) "Climate Change: Reply to Barrett et al."World Economics7(2): 153-7. James S.21:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Gosh you can wriggle. Most unedifying . But if you like WR, then you'll love Carter and Tol: . Don't tell me... you weren't aware of that! William M. Connolley21:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I was not. Do you have the PDFs to the actual text? Just by looking at the abstract, I am inclined to agree that those critiques would be great to include as balance to Stern. James S.22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I note that the financial effects section has been removed again because UBeR agreed with WMC that only natural science should be included. Yet the Kyoto protocol section remains untouched. Such hypocritical edits remind me of the worst kind of political manipulation. James S.21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a hypocrite for not touching the Kyoto section? (That is, not writing it.) It's a decent non sequitur. If anyone's a hypocrite it's those opposing sections on the global warming controversy, politics of global warming, global warming in popular culture, global warming in (non-scholarly) literature, etcetera on the grounds that this article is based on natural sciences. If you want your mostly post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments included, then agree the other subjects should as well, as they are all closely related to the subject of global warming. ~ UBeR00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not see how this can be just a science article, when so much of the issue is, er, global, and thus related to negotiations between countries. On the other hand, there seem to be problems with the sources you produced. William seems to have a track on some sources of respected information. What is your objection to these?--Blue Tie22:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Uber, I'm having some trouble understanding your stance. I thought we were calling for more inclusivity, like within the mediation. Now it seems like you're objecting to individual section. could you please clarify? The whole point is that no one has the right to unilaterally veto other peoples' valid ideas. At this point, my main agreement is with Blue Tie. Enough arbitrary limits on the scope. Please clarify. Thanks. --Sm890001:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Uber, I have just reread your post, and don't totally understand it. Why should we ask James to agree to include those other sections, before you allow the financial section? I don't think he said he opposes them. isn't someone offering a finance section the kind of person who would probably support the sections which you propose? anyway, I don't see how these issues are related. thanks. --Sm890001:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that on the mediation page, Zeeboid made a clear request. He said we should have a criticism section. W Connelly then disputed this. He said such things belong in the "controversy" article, and said that this article is for the science. Well I disagree. Why shouldn't the "Global warming" article contain a criticism section? An article solely for science should be entitled "Science of Global Warming." So I absolutely stand by Zeeboid's position. This is just one example of the kind of one-sided, totally unfair editing which has crept in, where one side makes an entirely reasonable request, and the other side totally undermines it, by claiming that they and they alone can correctly define the article's scope. I absolutely demand that this mediation lead to some sort of useful compromise, in the form of incorporating some sort of "criticism" section. --Sm890021:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me state this simply. Zeeboid requested a section on "Criticisms of global warming." The pro-GW side rejected that entire idea. mediation means we should come to some sort of compromise. However, compronise means some form of the original idea. Therefore I absolutely feel we should have such a section.
Misplaced Pages is supposed to be means of collaboration. Once several good-faith editors agree on some idea, and it is valid and relevant, that is supposed to be enough reason to do it in some form. Only in the global warming article are valid ideas dismissed so quickly. So that's why I want to state that this idea should be implemented in some form. Thanks. --Sm890001:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'd be thrilled to have a section that exposes gaps in our current knowledge, and probably would contribute to it. The irony is that because Team Skeptic is so fixated on including points that aren't scientifically founded, they completely ignore the very real needs for further knowledge -- things like regional effects of global warming, vegetation-atmosphere interactions, and so on. The most constructive result would be to let your misconceptions go, familiarize yourself with the real state of knowledge on the topic, and summarize the points we need to know more about. But if you begin with a conclusion, especially one that is becoming increasingly untenable (...it has to be something besides CO2 - oh please, let it beanythingexcept CO2...), you can never get anywhere. Raymond Arritt02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
err, ok Tjsynkral. I take it then you have no problem with the way this article has been managed? Not being ironic; truly asking, for sake of information. Thanks. --Sm890002:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
my comment mainly pertains to the current mediation. If you don't feel any mediation is needed, that's totally fine; however that was the main gist of this comment. that is the issue which I was focusing on. For the rest of you, my main point is there is a wide array of concerns here; I am trying to find one coherent way to find a concrete plan, which states alternate beliefs but provides some coherence. --Sm890002:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody "manages" the article - or more correctly, everybody does. For example, this is why the POV statement "numerous scientists" and "few who oppose" was ultimately removed despite certain users crying bloody murder over taking them out and disruptively reverting them back in. Anything that's a clear improvement will stay, at least until the anti-skeptic viewpoint POV pushers get more sock puppets. Just don't do half the job and post it expecting that crowd to leave it up long enough for someone else to improve it - it seems like half-assedry is only permitted for pro-GW edits. --Tjsynkral02:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, if you feel there are no systemic problems with edit patterns to this article, no problem. If you feel that fair, well-written submissions are usually allowed here, I accept that. I'm not being ironic or sarcastic here; if you truly feel that, then that's totally valid, and maybe we should consider that. thanks. --Sm890002:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were supposed to have criticism in-line, not in a seperate section, although I don't remember where I read that. 209.11.184.103:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
To me, the most obvious example of POV in the article is the "Pre-industrial global warming" section, which covers some obscure theory linking farming and climate warming, but not the Medieval warm period/hockey stick hoax issue. The "Attributed and expected effects" section doesn't mention the possiblity of improved agricultural output due to CO2 buildup, warmer temperatures, and greater farmland area. Instead, it mentions "repercussions to agriculture," as if we knew for a fact that something bad was going to happen. Finally, the existance of scientific criticism of the IPCC "consensus", such as that made by Lindzen, Singer, Idso, et al., is never even hinted at. Kauffner04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kauffner. I agree with you. Please feel free to post your comment at the mediation page. The more voices we get there, the better. Thanks. --Sm890018:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
We may see an Armada of POV pushers here
Apparantly, my opinion is not to be tolerated on the discussion page as it becomes deleted soon after it appears. I will present my discussion again until I am given a valid reason why I should not. It seem that I may have hit a nerve.
I am not an expert on global warming, by any stretch of the imagination. But I am not so under-educated that I can not easily find numerous, reputable, long established, world-class institutions around the globe that support both sides of this debate. Futher, it does not take anyone long to quickly discover that the articles presented on Misplaced Pages regarding global warming do not represent, with true equality, what all of the world’s scientific community is stating about the issue.
It also does not take long to discover that this obvious stifling of a true balance is perpetrated by a relatively small amount of zealous persons. Dedication to ones belief is an admirable trait. However, the amount of fervent veracity that this inequity is pursued leads me to believe that there is a deeper, ulterior motive behind the disparity.
From more than two decades of study and work in my field, I can say with complete confidence and authority that this type of systematic ‘leveling’ is the trademark of a political interest that is, at the least, superficially organized. I hope that the bond that these few have does not lead to an exclusive ‘cornering’ of a niche on Misplaced Pages. If they succeed, their tactic will become a model for other special interest groups to use. --Uwops13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you calrify a few points in your statement please. Are you talking about "numerous, reputable, long established, world-class scientific(?) institutions around the globe"? The only one I know about is the "American Association of Petroleum Geologists". Apart from that, there are definitely a few Think Tank ... and some individual scientists who oppose the AGW conclusions, but I don't personnaly know about a list of numerous reputable world-class scientific institutions. If you can produce such a list, I'd be glad to see it. However, it also depends on what you mean by "supporting both sides of this debate". There is actually funding available for research also on non anthropogenic origin of the GW in most of the scientific institutions (especially for studying the solar influence), contrary to what some skeptics would like to believe and would like others to believe. So if this is what you meant by supporting both sides of the debate, you are right, and that's very good news for everybody. However, despite this "support" of both sides in terms of funding for research, the statement by the national academies of science of many countries, the American Geophysical Union, etc ... are unambiguous concerning the interpretation of the current knowledge available, and it does not support your 'feeling' of a divided and hesitant scientific community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galahaad (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
First of all, those notices were posted a week ago. So I don't think an armada is coming. They're probably bottled up in the English Channel. For an explanation of what I mean, see here. If that makes you Sir Francis Drake, so be it. Hope you're good at bowling. Now, as far as why I posted it, you'll notice that I was extremely open with the reasons I was requesting help. Here is my request: "Please help us with the Global warming article. there is currently a small number of editors who are continually refusing to allow any dissenting views. thanks." I did not try to recruit an army of marauders. I stated exactly what I felt to be the case. besides even if I did try to recruit a band of banshees, there's no reason to think they would come. I'm not close to most of those guys. However, I reiterate my main point; my message was quite clear as to what I considered the main issue. Thanks. --Sm890001:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sme8900 could you also explain exactly what the reasons where for asking at those specific pages? I mean seen from my viewpoint your request seems to indicate that you want a specific "type" of help. If you really think that the page needs help - then better places would have been somewhere scientific, neutral politically, somewhat corresponding in type of content and so on. Correct? Could you also try to explain how this helps with regards to the current mediation? --Kim D. Petersen01:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kim. thanks for your message. The reason I asked at those pages is that they seemed like good pages to ask at. They seemed like a good place to get some alternate views. I don't have much more to add than that. I think they speak for themselves. Thanks for your message. See you. --Sm890001:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sm89000, sorry? I'm really trying to assume good faith here - what exactly is your thinking behind "I asked at those pages is that they seemed like good pages to ask at" - why did they "seem" to be good pages to ask at? --Kim D. Petersen02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess our main difference is that I don't view this only as a science article, but as a societal/political topic as well. Anyway, if it's any reassurance, that canvass was the last that I planned to do. I did it a week before this became an issue, and have not done any since then. So it was simply a way to get some diverse views. Most articles do not suffer when alternate views come in. And I did not expect an onrushing horde; at most i figured we might get two or three fresh viewpoints. And, in the end, we got none here, and, possibly, just one at the mediation. So that was my main thinking. Thanks. --Sm890013:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
No such thing
What kind of crap is. there aint no such thing as global warming. its just a democrat scandal to get money
While this article is well written, I find that it is very superficial and biased in that it omits important information about those scientists and intellectuals who are skeptical of global warming. I expected to find even a small section discussing this issue; however, only a few sentences are attributed. There is a wealth of information that would cast doubt on the issue of global warming, and I think that whether the writers of this article agrees with these skeptics or not, we still need to report on them. Orane (talk • cont.) 05:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a whole article on Global warming controversy that is linked from here. I'd be curious to see the "wealth of information that would cast doubt on the issue of global warming"; how much is published in the scientific literature rather than the popular media? Raymond Arritt05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's the popular media that exaggerates the issue. I'm aware of the article on the "Global warming controversy," and I suggest working some of that info into this one— simply linking it gives the impression that it's not very important. The way this article currently stands implies, "Global warming is happening, we are all gonna die. Oh, by the way, it's not really important, but some people are uncertain." The article has made some attempt to incorporate skeptics, but it needs to be clearer; the information is usually slapped unto the end of larger paragraphs as if it were an afterthought. Orane (talk • cont.) 06:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with this article is that a number of editors, and even worse administrators, have major WP:OWN problems and cannot see past their strongly held POVs. There is little hope for this article to follow the NPOV policy, sadly enough. Kyaa the Catlord06:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Its one of those irregular verbs: "I protect from POV vandalism, you have WP:OWN issues, he, she or it is a POV pusher". Perhaps you should just consider that the problem might be your strongly held POV? Have a good Easter. --BozMotalk06:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't as much a POV problem as it is a problem of not following Summary style properly. Sure, there's Global warming controversy, but that article needs to be summarized and woven into this article, not just left with a short blurb in the lede. There's other layout issues, but that is the primary one I see. Titoxd06:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this, and have made my case in the past which was ignored by the clique. Good to see others finally taking a stand. Lets move on with it and discuss more specifically what this subsection should contain. The machine51206:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
There are so few scientists that do not recognize anthropogenic global warming; it would give the skeptics undue weight to include more than a passing mention with a link to the main article. There is mention in the attributed effects section, and I do not believe that it needs its own section with a main article header. -- Cielomobile07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
And having William Ruddiman's blurb on Pre-industrial global warming isn't giving undue weight to to the research of one man? The machine51207:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yet again we bring up the undue weight issue and I ask you to read the qualifiers:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Indeed not. Significant minority would be at least 20%. Right now, it's hard to find 1% who are sceptics. --Skyemoor11:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Where does it say 20% is required, or 1% for that matter? This is just an excuse I've seen again and again. Its either undue weight or this article is about science or undue weight or this article is about science. Back and forth with those 2 excuses. The machine51212:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Who is even talking about the dissenting scientists? You don't mention political issues, such as policies taken by governments, you don't mention the type of contentions held by political parties... you barely even touch the fact that it is controversial. I am not encouraging bringing over the entirety of Global warming controversy here, but a larger summary (and yes, included a level-2 header!) is in order to maintain comprehensiveness, as required by the Featured article criteria. At the bare minimum, you would need to enhance navigation between articles, but that suggestion I made above was largely ignored. Titoxd07:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is about science. It already discusses the important "alternatives" - well there is only one, really, the solar stuff. Which has its own section. What other bits of science would you want to import from the GWC page? BTW, its really boring to have people keep saying that the page sez: "Global warming is happening, we are all gonna die". It sez nothing of the kind. William M. Connolley09:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Is Kyoto Protocol science? The article is lacking so much because of this wildy strange idea that it all needs be science. I have never seen that excuse on any other page and I would certainly think it would conflict with wikipedia good editing policy. The machine51213:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, primarily science. But mentioning Kyoto is inescapable. Happily its done briefly. So, back to the question you've avoided: which bits of science from GWC do you want to see imported here? If the answer is "none" - you just want to see more controversy - don't hesitate to say so William M. Connolley13:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I would like to see more science on the Little Ice Age (as there was in the past). But its funny that you say "you just want to see more controversy" when there is practically nothing about controversy on this page. It is denying the fact that there are huge articles about global warming controversy, politics of global warming. I also find it odd that this talk page has a tag stating "This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach..." yet the article, and you, completely deny this. The machine51213:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
How was it decided that skeptics are the minority? AFAIK, no one has polled qualified scientists and asked them:
Over the next 20 years, do you expect global temperature to:
a) Rise significantly with major negative consequences
b) Rise with positive or undetermined consequences
c) Fall significantly
d) Stay about the same
e) No opinion or don't know
f) The question cannot be answered with a scientifically significant degree of certainty.
I suspect that a high percentage will respond "e" or "f". Until there is a reason to believe that the overwhelming majority will respond "a", there is no basis for the talk of consensus. Kauffner10:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, that second poll is from a scientist whos polls where published with UNEP in the past. See this]. Strange it was taken down from the UNEP website. The machine51213:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You're making the mistake of thinking this page is about opinion. It isn't. Its about reporting peer reviewed reseach. So you only have to look at the papers to see that no-one at all says (c) or (d). You missed out "rise" with no mention of consequences which is what the article is mostly about. William M. Connolley10:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Nobody cares about anybody's opinion here. We care about references. If the opinion of even the most reputable scientist is not supported by the litterature, one is free to "believe" him, but it's all but science. If a scientist has a serious point against the AGW, he will publish it in the scientific litterature (and no, an interview published in "New Scientists" is not scientific litterature...). For now, there is an overwhelming scientific litterature acknowledging GW, and its anthropogenic nature. The most prestigious science academies of the world and the most prestigious scientific instituions have endorsed the AGW. 1, 2 or more dozen of scientist's opinion, relying or extremely rare, if any, publications will not change anything to the matter. --Galahaad00:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The poll only covers 20 years, so would be misleading anyway. File:Risks and Impacts of Global Warming.png The net impact of global warming so far has been modest, but near-future effects are likely to become significantly negative, with large-scale extreme impacts possible by the end of the century. --Skyemoor11:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
william, I would appreciate it if we could all please stop telling others what it is a mistake for them to think this page about. This page can be a combination of several topics which good-faith users want.
There is no reason this article neeeds to only be about science. It can also be political and societal aspects of the issue,. This constant repetition of the idea that only a few users know what this article should be "about" is what is creating this negative atmosphere. So I feel this should be an open topic of discussion. --Sm890013:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Global warming is a scientific concept. It certainly has political, economical, societal, etc ... implications, but the process itself deals with science. For all these other topics connected to GW, there is a series of other article linked in "Subtopics" and "Related articles". --Galahaad00:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a properly sourced report. I see no reason to not include it. Anyone who dislikes is always free to post opposing information, whether on the topic itself or on the source of the report. --Sm890013:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I vote no until other non-scientific topics are allowed to be discussed in this article. ~ UBeR17:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Uber, I don't understand your position.If you do favor admitting other topics, why are you not more vocal about that? and why are you using all your efforts to oppose someone who does want to bring in another subject? I don't understand. If you could please explain, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --Sm890017:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sm8900, you are misunderstanding me. Apart from the obvious flaws and misinformation in the section, I don't have a problem with a financial or economic section so long as other non-natural science topics are also allowed. ~ UBeR18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Ok. I appreciate your reply. However, why is it only "so long as other non-natural science topics are also allowed"? Why not simply argue for its inclusion? The pro-GW people will probably block it anyway, no matter what you and I do. So why not make it our point of attack, and give others something to rally around? Thanks. --Sm890019:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is this one being included again - there is ample critique of the one-sided focus here on the Stern report - see above. As far as i can see none of the critique has been included. As this section stands - i'm in agreement with WMC and UBeR - it has too many faults to be included as is. Recommendation: create a subarticle - explore a consensus article on this subject - and when done - include as a summary on this page. --Kim D. Petersen18:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Erm - sorry - but while you have included a graph - it still endorses Stern. Where is the Nordhaus study, where is the comparable study from IPCC WG3, where is Toll, where is Lomborg etc. - Yes Stern is the newest - but that is no excuse for not discussing anything else - in fact since Stern is the newest it should actually be touched with care - since you haven't got all of the critiques yet. It should really tell you something when WMC and UBeR agree on something - they usually have quite opposing views. Your section is as it stands POV - and quite blatantly.
I'm surprised that the normally sceptic voices haven't chimed in here - Stern is if anything alarmist (and thats not from my opinion - but the collected opinion of almost all environmental economists). --Kim D. Petersen19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please provide URLs and/or citations to the work of Nordhaus, IPCC, Tol, and Lomborg you cite. Tol is one of the authors of the critique I have included. James S.20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You can find all of Nordhaus works here, Tol's here as for Lomborg i suggest that you read the Copenhagen consensus - and his critique of Stern. --Kim D. Petersen 21:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (as for the IPCC report - you should be able to find that one i suspect....) --Kim D. Petersen21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
(black) Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf (2004) "Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
From Mauna Loa Observatory "The primary observing site is located at the 11,000ft level on Mauna Loa north slope". Is this some sort of joke? A measurement from the apex of a volcano is providing data for an image which caption says "The Industrial Revolution has caused a dramatic rise in CO2".The machine51218:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to hear the reason for this. But, this just proves my point of POV (worse than POV, outright lies) by the editors and maintainers of this article. I highly recommend deleting the black line, or image altogether if it can't be fixed, as it is pure misinformation. The machine51219:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that this observatory was built over 50 years ago, by what was then called "The Weather Bureau" - people who presumably had an interest in accurate observation. At some point it came under NOAA (or did the Weather Bureau become NOAA). In any case, as their FAQ states,
MLO also protrudes through the strong marine temperature inversion layer present in the region. This inversion layer acts like a lid and keeps the lower local pollutants below the observatory.
Q: Does Kilauea volcano affect the measurements?
A: As mentioned above, the inversion layer keeps the vog below the observatory. During conditons when the inversion layer is weak or nonexistant, the sulfur dioxide affects some of the instruments sensors. Dust particles(aerosols) affect the solar radiation measurements.
I don't know if that resolves your concern, but it doesn't seem likely to me that this site was selected as part of some grand conspiracy among weather wonks all the way back 50 years ago. It sounds like there are times when their readings will be inaccurate because of the volcano (so your instinct is good in that sense), but also that those times are limited so that they will know when the data needs to be discarded. Maybe someone who is more of an expert on how this is handled can weigh in, though. --MoxRox19:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This is just such a piece of gross arrogance. You really think the people taking the measurements don't know they are on a volcano? Secondly, even if they were wrong (which they aren't, since they are backed up by sampling across the world), they are what are used. Your opinion of their validity is worth nothing (as well as being hopelessly wrong, of course). And anyway, if you want to waste words on this, you should do it on the image talk, not waste valuable space here William M. Connolley19:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIV is lost on you. Anyway my opinion is that if better source material can be used, it should be used. If there is any doubt of the correctness of any material, even if one's opinion is that it's an invalid doubt, it would be best to use data that is not contested and improve the article. Having said that, does anyone have a suggestion of a different data source to replace this image with? --Tjsynkral01:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Trying to understand the nature of your objection. Are you objecting to the use of the Mauna Loa data? That data set is so widely cited, and has been so widely studied, that its applicability as a measure of atmospheric CO2 simply isn't open to question. If you're concerned about something else, let me know. Raymond Arritt01:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it is widely cited does not make it a valid data source. If anything, doubts about the accuracy of the data cast suspicion of factual errors onto all of the research papers that cite that data. I believe that if a second data source, preferably one in a different jurisdiction from the first (e.g. not another sensor on Mauna Loa), could be provided to corroborate the Mauna Loa data, then both could remain and the data would be that much more reliable. Nobody's saying that anyone CAN use it or CAN NOT use it, remember, this is WP. --Tjsynkral01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I took a quick look at the diffs you gave and his/her facts on temperature change, sea level rise, and so on look OK. (The mixture of U.S. and metric units ought to be sorted out but that's another issue.) What do you think is "misinformation"? Raymond Arritt19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
First, it would be a good idea to browse the sorry history contained in Talk:Global warming/extreme weather extrapolation graph - from which you'll see N's dtermination to push his stuff no matter how often it gets rebutted. Also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium is relevant, in particular James S. is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing which I think he has just about got to now.
The entire financial section is unbalanced. It leans far too heavily on one thing - the Stern report - and fails to discuss any of the many other studies *at all*. The criticism of Stern - which has been heavy - is relegated to "The Stern Review has been criticized by economists" with no detail at all.
And... this is a see-main section. It is supposed to be summarising what in the sub-article. But of course James can't be bothered to get it right in there first and insists on disrupting an already heavily fought-over article William M. Connolley20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
How do you think critiques of the Stern Review should be presented? I have been editing the sub-article. Why do you think I am being tendentious? What detail about the critiques do you think would be best to include? James S.20:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
For crit: How about ? (and is deeply tendentious: you know full well that the crit of Stern is that he wildly overestimates due to tiny discount rates, so stop adding irrelevance). You are repeatedly re-introducing material that is badly biased. You've sneakily removed a nice ref for the "primarily pop" stuff . You've restored "are partly due to increasing severe weather" despite having no evidence for this at all. Et c etc. You ask for refs to Nordhaus that I've already given. Etc etc William M. Connolley20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You are saying that including the first sentence of the conclusion from the critique you asked for more detail of is tendentious? I would like third opinions on that. I do not believe that the concerns about the discount rate are valid, for the reasons that I have posted from Stern's FAQ above. Removing from a bare inline reference was not "sneaky" -- it was used to support a statement that is even weaker than tautology.
Please think about that for a moment. You have been trying to defend the statement that increasing catastrophes from extreme weather "may be" due to increasing severity of storms. How can you possibly defend that when by definition the number of weather catastrophes increases with increasing storm strength?
There is some history here that I am not aware of, but FYI, the first example William gave was not an edit by James but rather an edit by William from what I could tell. I think that the whole area that James is trying to develop may deserve its own page... not as a POV fork -- both sides could be presented, but because it might be overwhelming for this page. I would suggest though that the graph you have put into the article looks suspiciously bad. --Blue Tie20:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The graph is adapted from the Tol and Yohe critique. Maybe people would like my graphs better if I started discriminating against the colorblind, like many of the existing graphs do. James S.21:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course the first diff is from me - its not an example; its the proposed text that would more honestly represent Tol and Nordhaus's opinions rather than the pathetic text N has included. 'm glad you agree it deserves its own page.
How can you possibly defend that when by definition the number of weather catastrophes increases with increasing storm strength? - yet more tendentious stuff. No - its not at all true. Weather catastophes - the most obvious is Katrina - depend heavily on where things happen; not necessarily how big they are. Damage is a very messy statistic, which is why finding a signal in the damage related to climate is so hard.
I do not believe that the concerns about the discount rate are valid - yet more tendendtious stuff. *Your* opinions on this aren't of interest. Tols and Nordhaus's are. Nordhaus sez: "the Review proposes using a social discount rate that is essentially zero. Combined with other assumptions, this magnifies enormously impacts in the distant future and rationalizes deep cuts in emissions, and indeed in all consumption, today. If we were to substitute more conventional discount rates used in other global-warming analyses, by governments, by consumers, or by businesses, the Review’s dramatic results would disappear" . William M. Connolley21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
All other things being equal, an increase in storm strength by definition would lead to an increase to the number of extreme weather catastrophes. Are there any authorities which agree with your rejection of that premise?
I was not referring to my opinions, I was referring to the section of Stern's FAQ posted above.
If what you say is correct, you should be able to support it easily enough. For the lack of a relation, I've already referred you to . I don't see the word "storm" in the Stern FAQ. Do be so good as to quote the text that supports your view William M. Connolley21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I request third opinions on your accusations of tendendtiousness. I am sure you believe Stern's critics on the question of the use of a discount rate, but I find it sad that you would resort to such accusations and threats of banning instead of trying to present both sides of the dispute. James S.21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Experience shows that you will talk endlessly and repeatedly bring up irrelevance references. Which is why the arbcomm case produced the result it did William M. Connolley21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I left this article completely alone for almost an entire year. If you persist in making such personal accusations (i.e., "endlessly," "irrelevance references") then I will escalate my request for third opinions. James S.22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposal re Stern Review critiques
I have solicited opinions from economist editors on Misplaced Pages to evaluate whether the discount rate critique is valid against Stern's analysis of recurring costs. James S.20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I've protected the page until issues can be sorted out here. 3RR violations abound, but rather than starting to block people, I think that it would be more productive to allow them to participate in the discussion. I should say that I was careful no to look at the nature of the last couple of edits, as I didn't want to know which version of the page I was protecting. Please settle things as quickly and as amicably as possible, so that I can unprotect the page. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It would actually be a good idea to keep the page protected for a long time, say 6 months. The people who want to write more about dissenting views, should write a complete article in that period and upload that to a subdirectory of the page. Then we can vote on whether to work from the present version or the new version. Count Iblis23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has two founding principles that would make that plan incompatible; first, pages should be unprotected ASAP, second, WP:NOT a democracy. --Tjsynkral01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Tjsynkral on this issue, at least in the first part. Pages should not be protected for 6 months at a time simply to prevent editing. --TeaDrinker01:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The idea is not to prevent editing but to make editing easier on the long run. Perhaps 6 months is too long, but I think that we have to say to the critics that they should put up or shut up. Let them produce a complete article and let's vote if we want to start editing from that version or this version. Count Iblis01:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I sense and share your frustration, but I think static articles, even with occasional opportunities for review and revision, is not really consistant with Misplaced Pages's underlying principles. --TeaDrinker02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Second TeaDrinker. The relentless attempts of some editors to change the article to suit their views are endlessly frustrating, but long-term protection is not the solution. I am not sure what is, but it is certainly not that. -- Cielomobile02:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of any merits to holding the article static (and there are some), the idea is a non-starter because it goes against what Misplaced Pages stands for. I think the whole skeptic mindset is simply one example of the tendency for people to pull the wool over their own eyes and cling to scientifically untenable beliefs that make them comfortable, whether it be demagnetized water, pyramid power, or whatever. They will always be with us. I don't know what the long-term answer is. I'm not convinced there is one. Raymond Arritt03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages isn't suited to this sort of article, because in most cases the views of those who insist on peculiar, non-standard, and groundless or poorly-grounded positions have exacttly the same authority as those who know what they're talking about (with certain exceptions: Holocaust-deniers, for example, aren't tolerated in the way that climate-change deniers are. The difference between the two is moral rather than epistemological, of course). Many edit wars are based on the inevitable fact that those who do know what they're talking about treat the article and other editors as if truth were what mattered, even though that goes against Misplaced Pages policy. That, I think, is in part what's going on here. Both sides are behaving badly, and from the Misplaced Pages point of view there's no excuse for either (even though from a non-Misplaced Pages – e.g., an academic or scientific – perspective, one side is clearly right and the other's clearly wrong).
The article should remain protected until it looks as though edit-warring won't immediately restart; that means that both sides have to try to come to an agreement here. If either side feels that there's no point — well, there's always Citizendium for one side and Conservapedia for the other... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Your views here are naive: there is no chance of "both sides" coming to agreement - insofar as the idea of sides makes sense. Read the endless discussions above. At the moment we are having two stupid wars: one about tagging, because the septics want to expand an already over-long article to include even more controversial stuff (what a great idea! they have no science to muddy the waters with so need to drag in the politics). And a rather more minor one because James S wants his over-the-top "financial effects" stuff inserted. We have endless talk already; we've had a mediation going nowhere; in the good old days we had an RFA on this William M. Connolley21:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
As long as Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, there will be edit warring on Global Warming. You know why? Because the science really isn't there yet. The science and the consequences of ozone depletion are abundantly clear, and as a result there aren't edit wars about that. William M. Connolley's "Assume Bad Faith" philosophy dictates that the same people who are allegedly edit warring to push conspiracy theories would obviously be doing the same on the ozone depletion page. But the thing is, that just isn't happening, because there is no uncertainty about the validity of the science behind O3 depletion. Although William M. Connolley and a few other users are foolishly convinced that we have enough scientific research to prove AGW beyond a "theory" (which is silly, because most of our scientific findings beyond things like gravity and inertia are still in "theory" status), the facts do not support that. Since they don't have facts to back their argument up, they revert and edit war to include statements with non-WP:RS and/or WP:SYN. They also dictate that certain things may not be included in "their" articles, even if they are well written and cited. If this is happening, wouldn't it be better that we just have edit warring, and then the users who exceed 3RR are dealt with and the ones who obey the rules are assumed good faith? Protection isn't ideal. Really the only way to remove the problem is to start blocking users who violate attribution guidelines and revert their non-WP:A statements back in, and also the users who delete content from the article repeatedly, and then the article will see less of the problem. And it's important that we ensure that any user who is blocked doesn't have the tools to un-set the block. --Tjsynkral22:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I have requested unprotection, as I do not believe there is a problem with "edit warring" that justifies protection. If certain users are engaging the page in an edit war they should be dealt with individually, but the page should remain editable so that it can be continuously improved. --Tjsynkral22:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
While it's obvious that Connolley's position is correct, I can only repeat that – as Misplaced Pages's policies stand – that's virtually irrelevant. And if I had decided to block for edit-warring, I'd have had to block people on both sides (actual violation of 3RR isn't the sole criterion); I preferred not to. More importantly, I haven't seen any attempt here to reach consensus — not even to prove how naive I am. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, you're referring to his position on the futility of protection, correct? Also, your personal preference, while it may be something to be respected, is not the best answer for the project. Page protection is contrary to the pillars of Misplaced Pages and should be undone as soon as possible. It is better to block a few than to block everybody from editing the article and therefore halt productivity on improving the article for everyone just because of a few who are creating problems. --Tjsynkral23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I mean his position with regard to the subject of the article — science vs politics. And this page shows that, even when editing is impossible, few editors here seem very interested in co-operation — it's a mess. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The irony of one of the most aggressive edit warriors requesting unprotection despite "a few who are creating problems" is duly noted. Raymond Arritt23:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I would support unprotection to include yesterday's Summary for Policymakers, if and only if we can gain a Misplaced Pages consensus in the text to be included about it first. I think this is a great opportunity to see how well the sides are willing to work together. James S.23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I speak for most of us when I say, we need to see the text first to make a decision about it. Can we talk about this document? Most likely yes - provided it does not try to add or omit anything from the source document or pervert its meaning to support another position. --Tjsynkral00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
As it is a 23 page document it seems that an independant article summarizing it would be the way to do it (maybe it's already done) and then link from the global warming article. Also as the report focuses on the effects of global warming, that would be the place for a summary - and it isn't protected, so just do it (as above, maybe already done - haven't checked). Either way there is no need to write a major section for this already long article or to rush to unprotect. We also don't need someone speaking for us and acting combative about imagined perversion of meaning before anything is done. Did anyone mention assume good faith? Sounds like someone is ready to wage an edit war before anything is written. Vsmith01:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Vsmith, you are another user who seems content to accuse me of something I haven't done yet. For your information, the message I responded to spoke of discussion on talk - not edits. As far as WP:AGF, kindly remove the plank from your eye. --Tjsynkral02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report would be the obvious place to summarize the new report. That article includes a listy summary of the WG I report that was released in February, but so far nothing more than a placeholder for the new WG II report. Raymond Arritt01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mel. sm8900 here. as you may have read, I favor pursuing the mediation to resolve differences. my personal belief is there is an imbalance in htis article, with a small group refusing to allow other users to add new sub-topics. I understand that William Connlley meant well in creating the straw poll below, and I don't question his motives. However, I do feel a straw poll is unneeded. This article should be free to eveolve like others; that is, good-faith editors add new section when needed, and those sections are resolved individually.
Re your edit, I understand your reasoning. However, how do you expect this to be resolved? Are you able to help with the mediation. Or perhaps, are you able to stop the small group from opposing so many new edits? I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts. When you say it is "a mess", what do you mean, and what needs to be resolved to improve things? I appreciate your input. Sorry, but I'll have to be offline for a few days, until Wednesday. Hope to resume at that point. Please feel free to post any answers or thoughts if you wish, obviously. Thanks. --Sm890021:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that this is a special case, in that it's a well-documented fact that the scientific consensus is constantly under attack and undermined by political and business interests — and this article suffesr from the same problem. To that extent, it's rather like many articles in the areas of religion and politics. Control of the structure and content of the article has to be tighter, otherwise it will become skewed in the direction of the small number of people (who are overrepresented here) who have an almost religious fervour in their attempts to attack the facts; I'm afraid that, so far as I can see though, the attempt to control what's happening has too often degenerated into poor behaviour, including incivility and even personal attacks. (It's not unlike a situation in which a mugger is assulted by the policeman arresting him; whatever the guilt of the mnugger, the assault is still wrong.)
Somehow, the article's integrity and balance (and balance here doesn't mean 50/50 — the space given to the deniers should be proportionate to their significance in reality) has to be protected against the muggers, but the policemen have to be reigned in. As with the police analogy, of course, the behaviour of those protecting the article has started to work against their proper aim; if they can be brought to see that, then we'll be a good deal closer to a solution; at the moment they seem to be in aggressive denial, unfortunately. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Count_Iblis is back to his old crap. This time he inserted "Only a few dissenting scientists specialize in climate science" without any kind of source material to back this blanket statement up. I've removed it but I fully expect him to revert 8 times to keep it in, so be aware and keep the article to high standards. For much of the time that this sentence was in the intro, a whole section on Noah's Flood was present in the article, too. Is it any wonder this article is up for FAR? We must all hold ourselves to WP:A and avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN. --Tjsynkral05:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Are you for or against mediating this article? Posting a message to watch a habitual user for mailicious edits points to a sign of dysfucntion within the article. That does not always mean mediation, but it is a point in favor of mediation. But when i mentioned the need for mediation, you simply said any valid edits will always be accepted. I don';t have a problem with any of your statements, but if you do feel there is a situation requiring these extreme actions, I assume you feel the mediation is somewhat valid, for whatever reason? thanks. --Sm890013:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Reverting this talk section back in. Please see WP:TALK and do not delete talk page comments. The user who did this should have known better. --Tjsynkral00:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is an official policy on the English Misplaced Pages. The concept expressed below is fundamental to the encyclopedia's operation. It has a long tradition and a deep and subtle meaning. Please consider this before editing the page. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore them.
In case of this article, this means e.g. that you cannot use the rules to keep relevant undisputed information out of the article just because you can argue that WP:OR, WP:SYN or whatever other rules are somehow violated. You have to argue on the facts themselves first. In that discussion the issue of WP:OR, WP:SYN etc. may well come up, but that's in the context of discussing the facts.
E.g., if you disagree that there are only a few number of dissenting scientists who specialize in climate science, then let's discuss this. Maybe we should quantify this number. If the issue is that you agree with the statement but that it should be cited, then you should use the "citation needed" tag. But if you just delete the statement because it is OR, then that deletion makes the article worse. The issue of OR could come up e.g. if I do a pesonal investigation in this matter and come up with 9 climate scientists who disagree. Then that precise number of 9 is OR. The word "few" is not OR because that's pretty obvious. Count Iblis13:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe your edits reflect consensus, so they don't qualify for a WP:IAR exception. Basically, you are free to insert your personal opinion into the article and thus taint its factual accuracy - but the rest of us are free to revert it back out because it obviously reflects improper synthesis. --Tjsynkral23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you find a news article that makes the claim that only a few climate scientists have doubts about global warming, or it's cause? If a reliable source does a nose count then the numbers can be used in the article, but if a wikieditor synthesizes data to do his own nose count then it is WP:OR, WP:SYN and should be tagged or deleted. Mytwocents15:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's review. The disputed statement is, "Only a few dissenting scientists specialize in climate science." This statement suggests that the dissenting scientists specialize in fields other than climate scientist (which is rather irrelevant, but we'll not get into that just yet).
Oreskes looked at 928 abstracts (NOT full texts) of articles and concluded based on the abstracts, which often do not summarize the conclusion of the full text, or leave important details out, that there was a consensus among scientists regarding AGW. I am also strongly concerned that this research may have been tainted from the beginning by the author's confirmation bias. But none of that is relevant because this study measures the position of scientific literature, not of scientists themselves. Oreskes does not at all research what field of science the dissenting scientists specialize in. So sorry, Oreskes is out.
As for the Bray and von Storch survey, that one works against you. To say that a "few" scientists dissent is a distortion since the numbers don't lie: for the AGW question, there were 296 agreement responses (1-3), and 234 responses that were either neutral or in disagreement with that theory (and that's disregarding the 20 who marked "don't know" - which they might have meant to say that we as a people don't know the answer). To say that 296 vs 234 reflects even a majority is misleading, as the 62 scientists represent 11% of the sample, which for a relatively small sample like this reflects poor statistical significance. And it's not "a few" who disagree - it's almost half, according to this study. But that doesn't matter either - once again this survey does not detail who gave what responses or what specialty each scientist had. So this doesn't back the disputed sentence up the least bit either. Using these in defense of "consensus" is one thing - but using them to make a statement about the specialties of the scientists who dissent is flat out wrong. --Tjsynkral23:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with you as concerns 2003 Bray and von Storch, due to the unreliability of a web-based survey. However, the statement that the Oreskes study measures the position of scientific literature rather than scientists is disingenuous. The scientific literature is an indication of the present state of the science and therefore of the scientists. If one's position is not informed by the science, one is not a scientist. Hal peridol01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
And another thing is that Tjsynkral analysis on the research is itself OR unless that can be cited from the literature. I know that the study by Oreskes was published in Science. A comment by Peiser was rejected by Science. I don't know about the status of the other study.... Count Iblis01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that my comments be included in the article in support of the skeptic argument... I'm stating the reason why they are unacceptable as sources to support the statement you are trying to push into the article. --Tjsynkral02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I just read that the "the Bray and von Storch survey" was not accepted for publication. So, from the most reliable sources (peer reviewed journals) we can conclude that there is almost no dissent among climate scientists. The disputed sentence is thus backed up adequately. You have to consider unreliable sources (research that that was not accepted for publication) to cast doubt on this. For any given fact you can always find information on the internet that disputes that. From the latest news about the Face on Mars to Crancks who put their articles rejected by Nature about zero point energy. That's why we have to limit ourselves to reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count_Iblis (talk • contribs)
You're an odd one to talk about reliable sources, since your philosophy appears to be no sources. Anyway saying that Bray and von Storch was rejected is not proof that the findings are false, so do not imply that it is. Also, Appeal to ignorance much? The burden of proof is on you. --Tjsynkral02:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If an article is rejected for publication through the peer review process, then its reliability and veracity is much in doubt, much more even than a self-published article. One would have to demonstrate why the Bray and Von Storch survey should be considered evidence at all. --Skyemoor13:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. We know what the reliable peer reviewed sources are saying. But sometimes we want to make generalized statements about the research itself, in this case the number of dissenting climate scientists. Now, the fact that one article was not accepted doesn't prove that it is flawed. What it does mean is that you cannot use the findings of that research to cast doubt on other research that is peer reveiewed and thus an undisputed reliable source. It's undisputed because none of the comments criticizing it were published in peer reviewed journals.
My philosphy is not: No sources, but rather that we should be making reasonable edits given all the peer reviewed sources we have. The absence of meta research, i.e. research about research and perhaps also research about research about research must not be used as a pretext to cast doubt about obvious facts. Count Iblis02:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tjsynkral that the original edit made by Count Iblis isn't supported by the Oreskes article, since Oreskes doesn't look at the specialties of the submitters (and since her sample size of dissenting scientists would be zero, it's irrelevant). However, I believe the conclusion of the Oreskes article is quite significant and should be included somewhere. I would like to propose that such edit be made when the article is unprotected. Perhaps the Peiser rebuttal should be noted, even though it was rejected by Science,and he apparently retracted his criticism later (apologies if this ground has been covered); this interchange actually strengthens the weight of the Oreskes study, I think. Fwiw, there is some support of Count Iblis's edit here, although it is not concise and seems to only speak of one major group of dissenters, and I don't know the reliability of this source. --MoxRox14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
That appears to be an opinion article. We're not going to use an opinion article to make a factual statement about all dissenting scientists, are we? --Tjsynkral15:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you clarify, which of the articles that I referred to do you consider to be an opinion article? (You may be right, I just want to be sure we are discussing the same thing.) --MoxRox16:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This. It is an unsigned opinion page. It only discusses the Lavoisier Group, but there are many dissenters outside of the Lavoisier Group, so it cannot support CI's statement. --Tjsynkral16:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm glad I asked. First, I agree that this item is not sufficient to source Count Iblis's edit as currently written. However, I disagree that it is an "unsigned opinion page" - it is a feature in the Science section of the publication, and the summary at the top identifies the author as Melissa Fyfe. That's irrelevant though, because as a source it falls down on the other points you noted. And anyway....
In short, I would suggest that the point about scientific agreement or disagreement be taken out completely, or at least moved below the TOC, under the Causes section. (I don't know why there is so much detail above the TOC in this article anyway, but that's a bigger discussion, that's probably already been beaten to death before I showed up.) The part about which scientists support which position ought to be relegated to the article devoted to that - Scientific opinion on climate change - with an appropriate pointer from the main article. Something like, "While there is broad consensus in the mainstream scientific community that most recent global warming effects are due to anthropogenic causes, some scientists disagree. See Scientific opinion on climate change for details of this debate." (add a few cites of course)
I realize I'm walking into the middle of a raging debate here, but if a fresh perspective helps, there's mine. --MoxRox19:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
"Broad consensus" is far from proven... note the survey that showed nearly half of the sample disagreed about a major component of GW as I summarized above. I think it would be best to keep both words out of the intro. --Tjsynkral21:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Leaving aside the question of "broad consensus" for the moment, would you agree in principle with my proposal (i.e replace all details of opinions with a pointer to the article Scientific opinion on climate change), if acceptable wording could be arrived at? --MoxRox21:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
We would also have to link to Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming - although I think the two pages ought to be merged, personally, as the dissenting scientists have as much of a scientific opinion as the others, and forking it off represents POV forking and belittles these scientists for daring to follow the scientific method (considering evidence of the opposing opinion). --Tjsynkral22:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! (I think.) I agree in principle that those articles should be merged. (So we seem to agree on two things - merging those articles, and using a pointer in the main article instead of going into detail.) But I think it could take quite a while to successfully merge the "scientific opinion" articles, and I wouldn't want to delay improving the GW article indefinitely for that. If we could achieve consensus on a pointer text to both articles, then we could move on to the next issue. Although, no one else has weighed in on this thread lately, so it's hard to know if the approach would be broadly accepted. If we optimistically assume that it would be, what text would you propose? --MoxRox00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you make the nature and intent of your mathematical expression a little vaguer, please? Its ruthless well-posedness leaves me uncomfortable. Raymond Arritt04:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see now. I don't know of anyone who has done the exact calculation you describe (it would be more trouble than it's worth), but many commentators have pointed out that the denominator in your fraction is much larger than the numerator. Raymond Arritt15:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The real question is what is even the relevancy of a statement such as "scientists specializing in climatology"? Climatology is a very broad field, it encompasses many disciplines if of physics, chemistry and geosciences. No one person could hardly claim priority of knowledge in such a broad area of research. In any case, science in itself is democratic. This means that if a statement is true, it is true regardless of who uttered it. Invoking the voice of authority argument in such a case is to simply illustrate you don't understand how the scientific process works: If somebody presents arguments critical of the "generally held view" on global warming, you must view their criticism on the merits, not on who that person is. Put another way, this entire argument just an enormous red herring, since the disputed statement has no relevancy to the question of the validity of global warming from a scientific perspective.--Clt51006:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The relevancy of the statement is that the people who don't agree are mostly non-experts. The merits of their argments has to be judged by the scientific community itself, e.g. when they submit their articles for peer review. The critical scientists who don't work in the climate science field usually write their critical comments in newspapers (e.g. the Wall Street Journal) instead of submitting articles to Science, Nature or other peer reviewed journals. When they write such newspapers articles, they are the ones who are appealing to authority (e.g. Lindzen signing his comment in the Wall Street Journal by saying that he is a Prof. at MIT). Count Iblis13:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Count Ibis, I'm really not following your logic here. We were discussing the relevancy of statements such as "scientists specializing in climatology". Your discussion of popular literature and who writes which articles is in this respect a non sequitur. If you are claiming there aren't examples of peer-reviewed articles challenging the "generally held view" (GHV) and the only place comments critical of this view get published are in the public literature, that's certainly false. There are plenty of examples of articles (correct or not) that challenge either implicitly or explicitly aspects of the GHV. Whether the person publishing the research is classified as a "climatologist" is in that case irrelevant. --Clt51016:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Clt510, you're right. When a scientist review a paper or an argument, he should pay no attention to the author of the study (ideally ;-) ). The study should be judged on its scientific content only, and no credit should be granted to the results just because of who the author is. And scientists should be able to perform this objective review because they've been trained to this exercice for years, because they've been selected as being good at this exercice and because they've spent years at studying day after day all the aspects of a particular scientific problem (and they usually know the whole history of the problem, all the mistakes that were made, the limitations of the technics involved...). However, we are not working on a scientific review here, but we are involved in a 'popular media' review. Let's be honest, the large majority of the entire population, of the fraction of the population that is deeply interested in the subject, of the journalists and of course of the 'Wikipedians' reviewing this page lack most of the competences, knowledge and experience to interpret and review the scientific arguments thrown by 'both' sides in the debat (actually there are more than both sides but let's keep it simple ;-) ). Those who believe the contrary (because they took chemistry class at university 20 years ago, because they are a IT engineer 'so they are good at science' or because they 'googled' dozen of articles on the matter in the past 2 weeks) just deceive themselfs. This is where the voice of authority enter the game; they are almost the only criteria that most people can rely on to make their own opinion. And it's working for both sides. I've often heard the argument from people with absolutely no background in the subject say things like "I beleive that there is GW, but I don't think that human activity is responsible for it". My first reaction is often "what the h*** make you think that hundreds (at least) of scientists are wrong or worse (i.e. lying)". It does take long to realize that their 'conclusions' are often based on a 2 minutes interview of a 'skeptic' scientist, whose they already forgot the name, affiliation, etc ... but who was presented as a 'voice of authority'. So the problem is not using 'voice of authority' or not, the problem is in what context they are used, or how you define a voice of authority. To come back to Count Iblis argument, citing a 'voice of authority' who express his opinion (whatever his side is) mostly ,if not only, in popular media without backing up his arguments with scientific publication is a bad idea. Using a 'voice of authority' who express an opinion that he has derived from detailed analysis of the matter spread over dozens of his own scientific publications over many years is something very different. My guess is that an organization like the AGU (one exemple) can be considered as a relevant voice of authority. --Galahaad15:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Galahad, thanks for the comments. I would add to this that we must be careful to not take the "generally held view" as carved in stone. In terms of the particulars, there is no doubt a wide range of opinion even among those favoring "consensus," even if they all agree on policy (namely, act to reduce human-generated CO2). There is no single "it" to even have a consensus view on, unless you are making very general blanket statements (e.g. the Earth is warming and humans are playing a role), and even then, some of the "skeptics" may agree with every word of such a thinly watered-out consensus. --Clt51016:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The article by Oreskes is a perfect example of the problems with accepting something as the "voice of authority". There were methodological issues with the way Oreskes carried out her study, as pointed out by Peiser. Eventually, Peiser's letter was not published (according to the letter from the editor ) because he had previously disseminated his letter throughout the web. That is a far cry from refusal to publish due to a lack of scientific validity. While the peer review system helps, we are still required to use our brains. Just because a criticism of a particular journal article isn't published in a peer reviewed journal, doesn't make it less correct. It might be the case that the argument may be technical enough to require a specialist to interpret. In that case, having a specialist to review the critique is a must.
But in this case we have Oreskes, a historian, dueling Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. Are people really trying to argue that you have to be a historian or an anthropologist to have an opinion whether an given article may be considered pro- or anti-consensus view, and only then after the research gets published in a peer-reviewed journal? --Clt51016:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
US conspires with China against climate scientists
U.S. negotiators managed to eliminate language in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers Friday that called for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions according to Patricia Romero Lankao, a lead author from NCAR. The original draft read: "However, adaptation alone is not expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change, and especially not over the long run as most impacts increase in magnitude. Mitigation measures will therefore also be required." But the second sentence does not appear in the final version of the report.
China objected to wording that said "based on observed evidence, there is very high confidence that many natural systems, on all continents and in most oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases." The term "very high confidence" means researchers are at least 90 percent sure of their findings. When China asked that the word "very" be stricken, three scientific authors balked, and the deadlock was broken only by a compromise to delete any reference to confidence levels.
"The scientific work reviewed by IPCC scientists includes more than 29,000 pieces of data on observed changes in physical and biological aspects of the natural world. Eighty-nine percent of these, it believes, are consistent with a warming world."
Someone should cite the percentages at the beginning of the 'Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.49.228 (talk)
Another straw poll: article subject
Apart from the nutters, it seems that most people accept that the *science* here is essentially correct: the recent tag wars seem to be more about attempts to expand the subject of the article. So, I think its time for another straw poll: what should the article content be? I see two sides: (1) article content roughly as now: essentially the science; minimal politics or finance. (2) expand article to include policitcs, finance, whatever. Comments? William M. Connolley19:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
'Apart from the nutters' - How on earth did you get admin rights? You're obviously pushing a POV and I'm sick of it. Is there anyway to have a vote and strip this arse of his admin rights? Grimerking15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem, of course, is that it becomes ever-more-frustrating dealing with skeptics-for-hire. There's simply no debate anymore in scientific community about the fact of global climate change; the only debate remaining is how bad it will be and what we (humanity) ought to do about it. The only place you still find skeptics is in the community of folks who are bought-and-paid-for by the fossil fuel industry, the United States Republican Party (which is financed in large part by...), its friends in the apocalyptic movement, or a few other conservative political parties around the world. Ultimately, humanity has to decide whether it lives in a universe based on facts or politically-expedient (or religiously-expedient) fairy-tales.
(BTW, I notice you only seem to be here at Misplaced Pages to push your viewpoint on climate change.)
I vote for (1). But even in the present version there is too much about finance. So, I suggest getting rid of that and moving some of the real science that was moved to the more specialized articles back into this article. Count Iblis21:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Support I also prefer (1) but think the connections to the other articles should be made more explicit. Maybe we could include a brief outline at the end where people can go for material on economics, polar bears, and so on. Presently the other articles are in the form of inline links, which is great for readability but maybe not clear enough for someone who is interested in a particular subtopic. I hope we can reach a consensus on the present disputes but have no illusions that any such consensus will last -- see #5 at Raul's LawsRaymond Arritt21:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - with clarifications. I agree with Raymond Arritt that pointers to other articles should be more explicit. Here is what I would consider a well organized set of articles: the central article (Global Warming in this case), includes references to all relevant subtopics. In the case where a detailed article exists about that subtopic, the information in the central article would be only a concise summary - in general, 1 - 3 sentences per subtopic that is covered in another article. The pointers to the subtopics' article pages would be VERY clear, and entice any reader with the slightest interest in those details to click on the link to read about them.
There is an important reason for this approach from an information management standpoint. If a subtopic has its own page, but a lot of information is duplicated in the central article or other related articles, then it becomes a maintenance headache to keep the articles in sync. I could see where consensus might be reached in one article, but the same information might be disputed in another article and a different consensus reached. I would think that would be undesirable.
Also, I think the readability of the article could be improved by breaking some of the current sections into subsections, for example the causes section. --MoxRox22:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Keep the focus on the science. The article is already quite lengthy - agree with the clarifications suggested above. Vsmith00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Agree the focus should be science, with as little spin noise as possible. Support the clarifications suggested above by Raymond as well. --Skyemoor01:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Support with suggestion that first paragraph 'Terminology' be changed to 'Scope and Terminology'. This article mainly deals with the science of global warming. Perhaps some other links: For politics see . For mitigation and adaptation see . etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by C-randles (talk • contribs)
Support - Keep the focus on the science, link to the others (as it currently does). No need to incorporated everything into one article. Guettarda17:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - The science is the basis for all of the other articles, without this background none of them would make sense,so the focus on science first, then outline/guide to the other articles as per Raymond Arritt is the way to go. --Kim D. Petersen17:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Support for focusing on science. I am strongly opposed to the sentiment of option 2. Editors do not have a right to add new sections in any article as they see fit, as Sm8900 indicates below, at least in the sense that it won't be removed if out of place. Good editing means not only adding good material but also removing the bad, off topic, irrelevant, etc.. It is simply bad editing to suggest that additional sections should be added by whomever would like to add one. Other pages have had their FA status removed for precisely that reason. --TeaDrinker15:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Support This article should be restricted to the science. While they are interesting topics, the projected economic and societal impacts, public policy initiatives, associated political controversy, sensationalism, etc., are tangential and should be relegated to other articles. N.B. the main science article should nevertheless provide links to these topics because, unfortunately, they have become convoluted with the term "global warming." LotR19:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - I agree with several others that a more explicit set of pointers to related articles might not go astray. Given the breadth and number of articles associated I think a redesign of to GW infobox so that it can go at the top right of the article (it is currently at the bottom) might not go astray. -- Leland McInnes21:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Brief mention of the controversy with a wikilink to the controversy article is all that is needed, and I believe the article meets that requirement as it stands. The subject is scientific in nature, not political. -- Cielomobile02:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I would support a very brief summary-style section with a link to the controversy article, though. By very brief, I mean a short paragraph, just a few sentences. No junk science or anything of the like, just mention that there is some controversy, which is largely limited to the lay, about the causes and effects of global warming. -- Cielomobile02:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Support While I'm sympathetic to the suggestion of a very brief summary-style section with a link to the controversy article, I suspect that it would grow and engender conflict. Walter Siegmund(talk)21:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, for the reasons above. I would in theory see the merit in a very short section about the political and economic issues, in practice I think this article might be better off without, confining the politics and economics to the "see also" links. --Ashenai12:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. The topic is very complex. This article should concentrate on the physical phenomenon known as global warming, i.e. it should describe what global warming (in the narrow sense) is. The other topics are certainly worthy of discussion, but including them all into a single article would make that article unmanagable. It's hard enough to keep some focus without introducing all the major other aspects (politics, the scientific process (as opposed to the results), real and potential economic effects, adaption and mitigation...). The current article already includes to much of them. I would suggest an even stricter application of WP:SS. If the other articles eventually reach comparable quality to this one, it might be possible to create a new umbrella article and have this one as a sub-article. But I'd rather not dissect an excellent article now - let's first bring the other articles up to a comparable standard to this one. --Stephan Schulz13:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Option 2:
Strong support. I favor restoring the ability of good-faith editors to add new subtopics as they see fit, and for other editors to make changes to those sections if they feel they need work or improvement. I don't feel this straw poll is binding, as I feel this ought to be an unconditional right, at this article, or any other Misplaced Pages article. However, I am voting in this poll because I believe it to be a good-faith effort by WMC to create some better communication. Thanks. --Sm890021:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Support assuming the content genuinely adds to the article. I do not support the idea of blindly deleting any contributions because they do not fit within certain users' decision for the direction of the article which is exactly what Option 1 entails. (See WP:OWN.)
Note that this poll was started while several of the skeptic editors are known to be away, so this reflects "Asking the other parent" as the consensus that is reached will reflect the large number of WMC's editing buddies who are present and omit the opinions of the skeptics who are currently away. --Tjsynkral21:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
"Known to be away" as in "blocked from editing for WP:SOCK and WP:POINT" . I know of no provision on Misplaced Pages that demands action be delayed until users blocked for misbehavior are able to return. Raymond Arritt01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Support as I've stated before, a main article should encompass all subtopics and break-off pages surrounding the issue at hand, as best as possible, and makes for a good read. The machine51223:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support Global Warming is more than simply the science. Narrowing the focus of this article so drastically causes it to fail FA requirement 1(b) (the comprehensive clause). Kyaa the Catlord23:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Support an encyclopedia is supposed to be comprehensive, and not just limited to a particular specialty. There are many aspects of global warming, much or most of them climatological. I am disturbed about WP:OWNership issues here. James S.01:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. As I've stated before, the scientific content of the article is not the basis of my objections; it is sound, and solid. However, removing all mention of controversies means the article neglects areas that the non-scientific reader (who is the most likely to be reading the article) is not given a complete picture, nor details that he or she may be genuinely interested. Yes, there are other supporting articles, but leaving them in the See also section is not an adequate way to link them, or weave interrelated articles together. Titoxd08:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong opposition with no equivocation. Editors do not have a right to add new sections in any article as they see fit. Good editing means not only adding good material but also removing the bad, off topic, irrelevant, etc.. It is simply bad editing to suggest that additional sections should be added by whomever would like to add one. Other pages have had their FA status removed for precisely that reason. --TeaDrinker15:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - at the mment, the article reads POV because it barely recognizes that there is a widespread public debate on all aspects of the situation, both on the science, political, and policy sides. --badlydrawnjefftalk12:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, this poll has had somewhat more than the 24h that the previous poll had (Talk:Global_warming/Archive_20#Straw_Poll), so its now closed. Result: 2:1 in favour of being mostly natural science, as it is now. I'll ask the protecting admin to withdraw the protection and hope that those who were continually adding the not-complete tags (not to mention the finance stuff) will now stop doing that William M. Connolley20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that 13:8 should be calculated as 2:1 (that's closer to 3:2), that bare numbers should be used, that it's closed by one of the main participants, and also that a poll should be left open for such a short time (whatever has happened here before, polls are normally kept open for at least five days).
This impatience (and the spin placed on the results) doesn't really fill me with confidence that edit warring won't immediately restart; nor does the unilateral nature of this closure and request.
My intellectual sympathies are almost entirely with WMC's side in this, but that's not the issue here; I'd like to see the suggestion below (at #Neutral outside comment) addressed and discussed a little more, and the poll left open for a little longer than 48 hours. Given that no-one who's serious about these issues, on either side, and committed to seeing a decent article, wants to see edit warring, I'm sure that a little more delay in lifting protection won't be too great a burden. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, TeaDrinker confused the issue by trying to have two votes — one for Option 1 and one against Option 2; 13:7 was still not 2:1 though, but I accept that it was much closer than I'd thought. As I said, though, even if another poll here was closed far too quickly, that's no reason for this one to be; as keeping it open has brought the count genuinely to 2:1 for your position, I'd think that you'd be happy that it's been extended. I'll mention this at RfC too, to try to get more eyes on the article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've warned you about personal attacks and incivility (you couldn't even resist it in your introduction to your poll). I sincerely suggest that you keep a lid on it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
At first glance, it might look like the poll is 15:8 at the moment. However, this is not considering the many added opinions outside of the poll and general agreement between those. It is also not taking into additional suggestions made within each support of either "option." It is also not considering why this poll still sucks, per my added subtopic. It is also not considering polls are non-binding and should not be used to stifle discussion. My regards, ~ 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
My view
Honestly, I think my ideal world is a lot closer to Option 2 than Option 1. Ideally when someone comes to "Global warming", I think they should get an overview of the whole issue, which includes: science, economics, future impacts, policital controversy, and proposed ways to address the issue. However creating such an article is hard for many reasons. One of which is that many of the core contributors here are scientists, and while they can write about the science well, would find it much harder to write about the politics, etc. Another problem is that a true summary article has to be throughly predicated on a foundation of the widely accepted science. A discussion of impacts and mitigation doesn't even make sense if one doesn't presume anthropogenic responsibility. So writing such an article could well stir even greater resentments over consensus science and the marginalization of alternative views. To say nothing of the fact that delving into politics, economics, etc. touches on a range of issues that are in themselves even more controversial than the core science.
My ideal world would move much of what this article covers to a new Scientific understanding of global warming and develop "global warming" as a true summary with political and economic sections, but without topics such as pre-human global warming, solar variation, or even most of the current discussion of causes. As I said, writing such an article is hard, perhaps impractically so. Though if someone wants to try creating such an article in a space like Global warming/Rewrite, I would be interested to see what you can come up with. However, I don't think incremental additions of new topics, in the absense of substantial restructering and farming out of more material to other pages, would be a viable way to improve the current article. So I don't agree with an Option 2 that consists primarily of just dropping in new non-science oriented sections into this (currently science orientated) article. Dragons flight01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Having just read this entire talk page, I can say that this is the most rational comment herein. It is also clear to me that this is exactly what the non-skeptics do not want. When someone searches "global warming" @ Misplaced Pages, they will most likely be taken to this article, and the non-skeptics want their viewpoints to be what the reader is presented with. They have fought hard to have the skeptic viewpoints branched off to sub-articles, but I suspect they will fight equally hard to prevent their own views from being similarly split off. Since both sides want the main article to contain their views but not those of their respective "opponents," the only logical answer is to make the main article a summary in itself, with all the various sub-topics and opposing viewpoints branched off to their own pages. To summarize: let the viewer decide which path of further reading he/she will pursue. Oh and, I really should make an account.... And I just have to add that I find William M. Connolley to be incredibly abrasive and rude, which is not only unnecessary, but offensive. A perusal of his comments on various other articles show this to be a pattern (e.g., Global Cooling discussion). I'd recommend a ban, but I'm afraid he probably has too many Wiki connections (indeed, he seems comfortable enough recommending the banning of others that I have to assume he feels safe from banning himself). --70.105.253.14717:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely support Dragons flight's suggestion and also agree with 70.105.253.147's supporting comments. I believe that this idea is not only the best solution for the viewer (allowing him/her to choose what to read), but is also the solution that is least-likely to result in edit wars. Super_C00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
My added view to Dragon's flight
One thing I like about William's poll is that it is seemingly tautological. However, I still sort of find myself somewhat outside of either side of the issue. I believe that an article, strictly about the science might well have some merit, but I have questions about how it overlaps other articles. I can see it covering areas such as:
How global warming is studied -- but this may overlap with temperature articles
What causes global warming -- but there is overlap with greenhouse effect. (Are other factors not covered under other articles?)
How global warming is modeled -- but isn't there an article on climate modeling?
Statements by scientific entities -- but aren't there already articles about that?
Debates in the scientific community -- not sure there are any articles in that area.
If it reviews areas that are already covered under other articles, doesn't that make this a summary article by default? But not a summary of "Global Warming" but rather an overview of "Global Warming Science"?
Or perhaps "Climate Change Science". I have wondered for a while if we do not already have a summary article for "Global Warming" in general -- called "Climate Change". It seems so.
So I suggest that "Global Warming" be redirected to "Climate Change". I suggest that most of this article be put under a new article that summarizes the scientific articles already involved (new title), while retaining the useful content that is unique to this page, but focused on science only, not on the politics, nor on Kyoto, nor on the potential remediation efforts except where the science makes some sort of prediction about what would work or how it would work. Move those aspects to other pages where they are discussed either in summary or in detail. Make sure that the climate change article is comprehensive and leads to other key pages discussed here.--Blue Tie12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"Global warming" and "climate change" are not synonymous, so the redirect is inappropriate. Besides the climate change article already exists, so what do we do with that one? Raymond Arritt13:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, when I wanted to put "leading to climate change" in the first sentence of this article, William said that "climate change" was redundant with temperature change in Global Warming. Yet you say that they are not the same thing. I happen to agree that they are not exactly the same thing, but they are close. The way I see it, Climate Change is generally a larger issue comprising both Global Warming, Global Cooling and perhaps some other matters. I am starting to think that this page, with its current title is redundant with Climate Change but a page with a name focused on just the Science of Global Warming would not be. So we would keep Climate Change, redirect Global Warming to Climate Change and this page would have some different name. I think that there is another page related to the politics of Global Warming, right? --Blue Tie01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Climate change is not the same thing as global warming. Climate change is a broader topic which would include global warming and other topics that aren't necessarily relevant to current climate change or global warming.
Why going for Option 2 is a bad idea
Although, in principle Option 2 doesn't sound bad, as Dragon's flight argued above, there are some serious problems here. The reason is that in the political debate the science itself is questioned. And this doesn't happen in a very scientific way.
If this article has to address the political side of the debate, then we have to treat comments made by, say, Inhofe in a respectful way. If he makes ridiculous statements and someone wants to include that in this article, we can't just delete that. We can't also rebut such statements unless it has been debunked in some reliable source. But that source won't be a peer reviewed journal, so the article will stay pretty much neutral on that issue.
If we bring in arguments based on hard science then Blue Tie & co. will raise OR and related wiki rules that preclude you from writing that 2 + 2 = 5 is a false statement if all you can find in the literature is the definition of integers and rules of addition.
Bringing in the politcs is thus a backdoor to bring in bad science which will be protected by the wiki rules. Count Iblis13:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
But even if the paranoia were justified, the argument is still bad.
First, I would like to clarify something: I do not raise the issue of OR if things are a matter of hard science or "obvious". Instead I raise the issue of OR if things are not attributed well or "unobvious". It is amazing to me that this distinction is still being ignored. Where on earth have I objected to any edits based upon the science? When have I said anything contrary to the science behind the notion of global warming? It is really time for people to stop smearing me without cause.
And while it may be true (I do not know that it is true) that the arguments against this article are "bad science", that alone is not sufficient reason to exclude them. Misplaced Pages policies do not require "Truth". They do not require that the "science must be proven to be good". They must be verifiable and attributable. That is the standard. Undue weight does not need to be given (should not be given) but at that point it becomes a matter of consensus... something that is not well defined. So, the "unscientific" arguments must be included per NPOV. Trying to make an article with a generic title that is only focused on the Science is simply an argument to create a POV Fork. Even if you do not like it, wikipedia policies apply and POV Forks are not permitted.
On the other hand an argument that there be a summary article with ties to more detailed articles does not rely upon a POV perspective but simply upon a desire to keep individual pages to reasonable sizes. Under that aegis, you could have a science focused article. But even then, you must keep it open to other points of view. There is no way to get around that NPOV issue. --Blue Tie14:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing support for the issues Count Iblis described. Your fourth paragraph is entirely consonant with his argument that "bringing in the politics is thus a backdoor to bring in bad science which will be protected by the wiki rules." Raymond Arritt14:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea how you read that into what I said. I did not give credence to either the idea that they were or that they were not bad science. I have not considered all the arguments from that perspective. So your statement that what I said was in consonance with what he said is not correct. Let me be very clear: I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER IT BRINGS IN GOOD OR BAD SCIENCE. It is a matter of wikipedia policy being followed -- that is all. It is you and Iblis who have said that following wikipedia policy will inexorably lead to bringing in bad science. I have not said that. I do not believe that. I believe that if wikipedia policies are followed the best article will ultimately emerge. THAT is my view and I specifically REJECT the view that allowing alternative views is equal to allowing in bad science. --Blue Tie14:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read Iblis's analysis more carefully. Once we add politics, we must allow "bad science" statements by politicians. They will often be impossible to refute: the only way to refute them is if a reliable source covers the specific statement made by that specific person. Let's take a hypothetical example. Senator Petrochem says that global warming is good, because otherwise all the oceans will freeze. There is plenty of evidence that the oceans will not freeze in the absence of global warming, but we can't say that -- synthesis, you see. We can only include it if a reliable source states that Senator Petrochem's statment on the oceans freezing is incorrect. If nobody bothers to refute the specific statement by Sen. Petrochem (for whatever reason, e.g., he's too obscure a figure) then his statement must stand unchallenged. That's precisely what's meant by "a backdoor to bringing in bad science which will be protected by the wiki rules." While any intelligent reader can see that the Sen. Petrochem statement is absurd (at least I hope so), one can easily imagine more subtle examples that would be believable to the non-expert reader but are patent nonsense to anyone familiar with the science. And we'd have no choice but to mislead the reader by letting them stand. Raymond Arritt16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your concern. I frequently have that same sort of concern: Debate by Proxy I call it. And I do not believe it should be permitted on wikipedia, but presently the policies allow it. You cannot arbitrarily take an article, put a wall around it and say "wikipedia rules do not apply here". I do believe that there should be a policy on wikipedia that says: "Quoting an opinion is a questionable practice and discouraged, even if well referenced and cited". I am not sure how far to go with that, because even with regard to science, there is a huge amount of opinion involved. But, to me, this would remove a great deal of the problems not just with this article but with many places on wikipedia where there is POV posturing and debate by proxy in articles. Presently there is no solution, and so, I do not see how you can succeed in declaring this article off limits for such things, unless you make the article NOT about Global Warming generally but about some specific aspect of Global Warming, like "The science of global warming" and then it would have to be subsumed underneath a master article that reflected other matters such as the politics of global warming and so on. Even the Science article would be open to alternative scientific views. Its wikipedia. --Blue Tie01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
BT, I don't see your rationale in agreeing that "debate by proxy" is WP policy. And even if there were an subarticle strictly on the science, "undue weight" would still apply. --Skyemoor17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV where there are controversies, both sides get aired. This can easily become debate by proxy -- one side says X, next side says Y, which then follows with x and then y and so on. Undue weight does apply but that is certainly a matter of "how much is too much?" -- its is a judgment call in the eye of the beholder. --Blue Tie02:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I must agree with Raymond, and add that the last paragraph also lends such support. Note that saying such is not a 'smear' against you. For example, I didn't refer to your explanation as 'nonsense'. --Skyemoor14:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for not referring to my explanation as nonsense. I apologize for being offensive. I feel badly about it. I hope you will forgive me. However, I also add that though allowing politics in might possibly provide for allowing bad science, it does not have to. But either way, wikipedia has appropriate policies on this matter. Those policies are the path to an NPOV article. Anything else will continue to be an article that is fought over. --Blue Tie19:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, as usual, is absolutely right. I can't believe some of you are discussing excluding politics because it will be detrimental to the science. If someone adds properly sourced, relevant information, which presents too much of one side, then you can add relevant information for the other side. or you can tone down the offending material, or discuss removing it. But none of this is a reason for excluding entire topics which others seek to include, or reverting, deleting, and blocking those who seek to do so. This is another example of why Misplaced Pages policies should be followed here, and good-faith additions, of many different topics should be allowed.
Again there really is not even that much to discuss. If enough good-faith editors want to do something, that is supposed to be enough reason to do it. That is how Misplaced Pages is supposed to function. Only in this article do a small group of editors feel entitled to exclude entire topics based on the hypothetical idea of what "might" happen. --Sm890013:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The IPCC and Option 2
I'd like an article that broadly followed the structure adopted by the IPCC, with three parts - climate science, impacts and mitigation/adaptation. All of these are relevant to anyone wanting to follow the issue. This would be a longish article. There's no need, in this context, to give any space, apart from links to fringe science, attacks on science and so forth. As an aside, "financial impacts" should be "economic impacts".JQ22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I like this approach, which matches up with sections 3, 4, and 5. Climate models could go under section 3 potentially. --Skyemoor23:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually do not like that approach for several reasons. First of all, it immediately brings howls from people who are suspicious of the UN. Second, it expands the topic beyond science (but then artificially limits the expansion by a non-wikipedia standard). And finally, if it is just a reiteration of the IPCC document (as suggested by no need to give any space apart from links to other views) then it becomes a POV Fork and is not going to in accordance with wikipedia guidelines and it will not remain stable. --Blue Tie01:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Why This Poll Sucks
This yet again another poll with only two bad options. We saw something very similar with BozMo's poll. The problem with the article, it appears, is with the inclusion of material that is not related to the natural sciences involved in global warming. What was nominated to FA was an article on the natural sciences and one tiny political part (Kyoto). Having sections that relate to global warming but are not natural science, such as finance, means that this article isn't about the natural science, but rather a broader topic on which all aspects of global warming are considered. That is, societal topics, politics, etc. Denying that there are other topics outside of natural sciences relating to global warming would be a mistake. The question, however, is whether they should be included in article on the topic of global warming. A purely natural science article on global warming would not included the blurb on Kyoto and would be named Global warming science (or the likes), but that's neither here nor there. If you're willing to include topics that are not natural sciences, that's fine, but be prepared to allow other similar topics. And as always, straw polls are evil. ~ UBeR19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the Kyoto stuff (indeed the whole Mitigation section, imo) should chopped out and replaced with a pointer to the main KP article and/or GW controversy article. The current situation with mitigation-related articles is strange. There's an oddly-named Individual and political action on climate change as well as a Business action on climate change. These could be merged and cleaned up into a comprehensive article on climate change mitigation, with a prominent pointer added in the main GW article. Raymond Arritt19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Arritts comments. Mentioning the Kyoto Protocol, in the manner we do the controversy and politicos, would suffice to mention an arguably notable subject, while keeping the article on natural science. I also agree with cleaning up all these mitigation/action articles and also mentioning them in this article in a similar fashion. I do not believe the current "poll" convey this. We need to consider as many options that logically make sense, not just two haphazard ones. ~ UBeR21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget, UBeR, that when you claim that this is yet another 'bad' poll, that you had the choice of 1 of the 2 options in the last one. Self criticism is admirable when it is stated as such. --Skyemoor22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't already forgotten that I made one of the options. That doesn't change anything from the fact it was a bad and unfair poll. But I'm not here to delve on the past. Lets focus on this article. ~ UBeR00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with removing most of the Kyoto stuff as well. Much of what is in this article now about KP seems definitely out of place. A brief mention pointing to the KP article and possibly other relevant articles, should suffice. Also, there are other mitigation efforts which should maybe also get a brief mention and pointer, such as past and pending legislation. --MoxRox01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree to remove Kyoto and everything which is not natural science from this article. There is largely enough interesting material with the science not to clutter the article with other aspects that can very well fit in connected article like Kyoto Protocol, etc ... (with appriopriate linking of course) --Galahaad22:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral outside comment
A frequent solution among FAs is to use summary style with a paragraph and link to daughter articles on relevant subtopics. Durova21:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I like that general solution, as long as the sub-articles are not obvious POV forks, likely to get lots of editing attention. --Blue Tie01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the sound of this too, but can you point to a couple good example articles, preferably similar to this situation? --MoxRox01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a good example of what I was thinking about upthread, in my comments on Option 1. There are about 5 sentences in AIDS#Alternative_hypotheses, but giving it it's own section heading makes it easy to find, and thus easy to find the daughter article AIDS reappraisal. Having a completely separate article for AIDS reappraisal allows that topic to also have well-organized and comprehensive coverage. In short, I think it is a good example of how to handle the Global Warming article. --MoxRox02:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It's the standard solution at FA level. I looked for another one where science and politics intersected (and that wasn't a holdover from the brilliant prose days on its way to delisting). That seemed to be the nearest parallel to the dilemmas editors face here. Best wishes, Durova04:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Another not-quite-categorizable opinion
The science is quite well settled, and a lot of the discussion about GW in the real world is about mitigation, costs, impacts, and political issues around all of this. Thus, I think Option 1 is too limited for a comprehensive discussion of the topic. But adding new sections to an already massive article is not the right approach.
My preference would be to write an entirely new article (called Global warming) which would be a brief, extremely comprehensible overview, nearly in Simple Misplaced Pages style, and almost functioning as a large disambig page to all the detailed articles. This could have enough info to give the naive reader a nice (and complete) overview of the topic and would link all of the major subtopics. Start, for example, with a paragraph defining the topic, and discuss in the simplest terms the greenhouse gases, with a link to a Scientific basis of global warming page; then a paragraph about likely impacts, then about mitigation, then about politics. A nice overview could be written in 20k which would cover all the ground and allow for much more detailed discussion on topic-specific pages.
I see this as something like the intro paragraphs at the beginning of a Britannica Macropedia article. This is unusual, I admit, but the incredible complexity of the topic should push us to a a novel solution. Global warming is not simply a scientific issue, and to treat it as such is asking for trouble. We should be able to cover all the ground in a simple way before shunting people off into the technical details of the historical temperature record, or financial estimates, or public health impacts, or whatever interest they choose to follow up on. bikeable(talk)05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. Actually, you are right; the current content would not really fit in a general overview, but some of it would, and it all should be somewhere. but this entry could be rewritten beneficially as a true general overview. --Sm890013:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
from the current article:
"Two British scientists supporting the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming criticize what they call the "catastrophism and the 'Hollywoodisation'" of some of the expected effects. They argue that sensationalized claims cannot be justified by science"
Why aren't these scientists named in the article like the others? Surely not because they're not American? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.200.70 (talk • contribs).
No reason. Feel free to write their names, if you wish, when the article becomes unlocked. ~ UBeR23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Coldest April in 113 Years?
Weather trends international just released this.
Last year was record warm, this year record cold! April is currently tracking as the coldest April in 113 years - a dramatic change from last years #1 warmest ever. Even after some late month moderation, April 2007 will likely keep the month in the top 7 coldest in history. The Southwest is the one exception, but even here temperatures will cool dramatically late in the week.
The article is about global warming not US warming. but the answer appears likely to be no not coldest in 130 years or 113 years but coldest in US for 10 years. crandles20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
And? Is there any demonstration of anything with this statement, that should be included in the GW article? Are yo suggesting that for now on we track (and post) the weather week by week in the discussion page? Else? --Galahaad20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a section regarding the possible financial effects; how about the possible financial motives? I'm merely brainstorming at this point, but the argument has been made that the global warming movement has become a jealously guarded money machine in much the same way as the prohibition of marijuana. Indeed, some have argued that this is the primary impetus of the movement. Again, I have no sources handy, but might be willing to seek them out and write up a short piece, if others think it would be a welcome addition to the article. As you might understand, I'm a bit leery about potentially wasting my time/effort on this article. If someone else wants to take this angle and run with it, feel free. I feel this is entirely germane to the issue, but perhaps I'm alone (here). --70.105.253.14722:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If as some prefer the article is modified so that it is no longer restricted to science, you would be free to repeat such allegations as long as they are properly sourced. The fact that such allegations are baseless would be irrelevant; you'd only have to verify that someone made them. Raymond Arritt22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think "baseless" is a poor choice of words. "Unprovable" would have been fair. Clearly such a case cannot be proven, because those behind the movement could never admit to such motives even if they knew them to be true. The best one could hope for would be to illustrate how/why one might reasonably come to such a conclusion. Anyway, I appreciate your apparent willingness to allow all sides. Thank you. --70.105.253.14722:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No, "baseless" is correct, and consequently "unprovable" also is correct. Your note that "those behind the movement would never admit to such allegations even if they knew them to be true" is one of the common traits of conspiracy theories; that is, denial that the conspiracy exists is itself taken to be part of the conspiracy. (Let me be quick to note that I'm not calling you a conspiracy theorist but merely pointing out an aspect of the problem.) I fear it's a complicated subject that would generate much heat and little light. Raymond Arritt22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Baseless - As I see it, if a believer in this theory managed to "illustrate how/why one might reasonably come to such a conclusion," as I suggested above, that would be at least a tentative basis for making such a claim -- something they could point to. Unprovable? Certainly. Baseless? Meh. At any rate, my question was answered, so I'll leave it at that. --70.105.253.14722:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"The best one could hope for would be to illustrate how/why one might reasonably come to such a conclusion." Sounds like a recipe to introduce any conspiracy theory one might want into Misplaced Pages. This one is something we hear from time to time. Does it come about because the corporations that finance the skeptics cannot believe their opponents don't have the same motivation - money? --Michael Johnson23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"Sounds like a recipe to introduce any conspiracy theory one might want into Misplaced Pages." Such as anthropogenic global warming? It is, after all, only a well-illustrated and reasonable conclusion -- a consensus, not science. Sorry, couldn't resist. I had to respond when you dismissed the possibility of the global warming movement being motivated by money, while making the same claim against their opponents. Let's nip this possible disagreement in the bud, and agree that money is the primary motivator of the human race as a whole, shall we? --70.105.253.14723:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No, not at all. The pyramids where not build for monetary gain, nor the gothic cathedrals. I'm only weakly motivated by money, and Richard Stallman is not motivated by it at all. Don't generalize from your personal experience to others. --Stephan Schulz00:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how this idle speculation applies to the article at all. I've seen nary a reference, much less a solid reference. Let's keep the discussion on how to improve the article. --Skyemoor00:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, "I have no sources handy, but might be willing to seek them out and write up a short piece, if others think it would be a welcome addition to the article." Raymond Arritt responded, "If as some prefer the article is modified so that it is no longer restricted to science, you would be free to repeat such allegations as long as they are properly sourced." If you disagree, that's fine, but improving the article is indeed my motivation (as I understand it, my good faith is assumed). --70.105.253.14700:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Just my two cents, but interestingly enough, financial motives of skeptics are brought up many times throughout wikipedia and even on their individual pages, and not on per se on would be OR pages such as global warming skeptic conspiracy theory see:
The drafting of reports by the world's pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel's reports are conservative - even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be.
Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything that threatens their interests.
The first response to his article is by far the most sensible. George M is a fanatic who cannot take criticism, and by attempting to call those who question the official line, as deniers, shows just exactly how biased he really is in this lost cause. I have just read the IPCC doc on the physical basis of the new predictions, and find so much impenetrable jargon that I am not surprised that much of the world ignores it and carries on. How can the IPCC ignore the plentiful evidence for the Medieval warm period when the Vikings settled Greenland, and vines grew in Newfoundland? Or the earlier evidence that early Bronze age peoples settled on land that is now too cold and wet to support anything bar sheep? Mathematicians are not scientists and putting guesses for numbers in historical graphs is not science but fraud. Peterlewis16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
George Monbiot (born January 27, 1963) is a journalist, author, academic and environmental and leftwing political activist in the United Kingdom who writes a weekly column for The Guardian newspaper. Same "credentials" (environmental and leftwing) could have been given to The Guardian. Thanks. --Childhood's End17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That, I have done elsewhere. But a quick resume would be:
1- Scientists who are known to doubt AGW are not invited to participate in the process
2- A chemist cannot refute anything that is said in those reports that is about anything else than chemistry. A physicist cannot refute anything that is said in those reports that is about anything else than physics. And so on. And no scientist except modellers can appreciate the climate models used to reach the conclusions shown by the IPCC. So, reaching "consensus" in such meetings must be a weird experience. All that is needed to cover this up is to call each and every of these guys in the room a "climate scientist".
3- A scientist remains a human being subject to his personal interests. If doubting AGW means being bumped out of the UN-sponsored parties, conferences and vacations in Paris, out of the main scientific publications, out of the funding channels, and so on, a scientist is smart enough to know that challenging AGW theories is a risky business, and that allows me to doubt that they all support it in good faith.
Um...have you read that article in question? I'm talking about the various examples of government pressures to downplay or suppress science in support of the IPCC position, and to strike unwanted parts of the reports. --Stephan Schulz18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I see there is no reply to the hypothesis of vines in Newfoundland, and a series of aerial pics is irrelevant to the Viking colonisation of the country. The country is called "Greenland" because it was much warmer then than now. The Viking settlements failed because of a cooling of the climate, which the mathematicians can't model. I see no reply to the early Bronze age evidence of settlement of land now well beyond cultivation. I think these facts speak for themselves. The IPCC mathematicians do not recognise historical evidence, which shows their ignorance of the record of the Norse sagas. Perhaps some humility in the face of historical evidence would be appreciated? Peterlewis18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The country was called Greenland because Eric the Red was a good propagandist. The hypothesis of "vines" on Newfoundland has never been taken seriously. If they had grown 1000 years ago, it should be easy to show so using e.g. pollen analysis on ordinary dig sites. The "vines" from the sagas are generally supposed to be some kind of berries. The predominant hypothesis for the failure is indeed a decrease in Northern hemisphere temperature, something most people and certainly most climatologists are well aware of. The exact temporal and spatial extend of this climate change is the subject of current debate. Your claim about the early Bronze age is unsupported by detail or references (as is the rest of your claim, but then I know a bit about Viking colonization). --Stephan Schulz19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Peter, you could apply humility to yourself in the first place. When you recognize yourself that the IPCC docs are too complicated for you (this damned boring scientific studies!), you could avoid to pretend teaching the world experts of the IPCC some climatology. --Galahaad19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well if you claim to know something about the Vikings, then you must have read the sagas, and the archaeological evidence in support of the sagas (Helge Ingstad et alia). The evidence for early Bronze age settlement is itself well discussed on Wiki. I have the evidence of my own eyes on Dartmoor , Exmoor and the Pennines in England which show large settlements on land which no longer supports anything except sheep and tourists. Do fanatics try to examne the evidence objectively?? Peterlewis19:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I must be too tired because this doesn't make any sense to me ... :-( Are you pretending that the current climate in these three (very green) places (two of them being national parks) prevent any human settlement and so earlier settlement must have occured at periods with warmer climate? --Galahaad19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
To echo Arritt's deleted comments, lets stick to the article, shall we?
I have to reply to the previous respondent. The three areas are green but not cultivated because they are too cold and wet now. There is ample evidence of Bronze Age settlement and cultvation, as he wll find on the Wiki articles cited. Peterlewis20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I have a few interrogations. Is there any reference showing that it is impossible to cultivate these lands or is it your opinion? Is there any chance that the type of vegetation there is the result of long term human-action rather than a natural evolution? Related to both these questions, have you considered the possibility that what was once technically possible (cultivating these area) when it was a matter of basic survival is still technically possible but doesn't make anymore economical sense because of poor production efficiency (I know some other areas in europe where land is not cultivated anymore for many reasons other than climatological)? --Galahaad21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
CO2
How much CO2 are humans putting into the atmosphere compared to the total increase in total atmospheric CO2? This is the most logical stat. to prove that humans are causing global warming; however I can't find this anywhere. --Zginder20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
From a historical perspective this might give you an idea of what concentrations have been in over the past hundreds of millions of years. Per your question, humans contribute less than 1% to total CO2 emissions each year, if I'm counting right. ~ UBeR20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Missed the question. Humans contribute about 150% of the yearly increase (50% currently go into carbon sinks, mostly the increasing acidity in the ocean). The total carbon flux is indeed much larger. --Stephan Schulz20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If I read the question well, he is not asking how much CO2 humans put comparatively to the total emission, but instead comparatively to the total increase in total CO2, namely comparatively to the difference (sources - sinks). That should be radically different. --Galahaad20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
? 
