Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 2

"Prominent" opponents?

I am not really sure how prominent they are? Illarionov is just a shill in Russian administration. Crichton has wrote one famous essay. Perhaps, these are not the best examples... Paranoid 08:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 14:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I got rid of Crichton on the grounds of lack of credentials (if I were a skeptic, I'd be embarrassed to be so short of people that I needed to put him in). Ill... probably gets a place due to his importance (or not?) in the Russian govt.

Crichton has some credibility as a scientific literate in the tradition of Asimov and Clarke. I've no problem with hime being mentioned despite the embarassment. He is an especially prominent participant in the debate now, since his latest work of fiction has footnotes. --Silverback 05:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You're welcome to re-insert C if you think him appropriate. That last comment was a joke though, wasn't it? His work is voodoo/cargo-cult "science".

Crichton has written a whole book, State of Fear, about this subject, and as such is prominent. Batmanand 15:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crichton was prominent as an author before. On this specific issue, if anything, the book has detracted from his prominence, being not exactly testimony of quality research on the issue. He certainly is not in the tradition of Asimov or Clarke. Crichton is an M.D., as such, he is not an expert on sciences, as both Asimov and Clarke were. More, the discipline at issue isn't even remotely connected to medicine, as virology or others might be seen. Short, Crichton lacks the tools to understand even the basics of the underlying science, and he lacks the training in how to research the issue properly. OliverH 23:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The main point, I would say, is that many, many politicians have exploited Crichton's supposed "scientific" background (despite its less than comprehensive nature) and used his work as "evidence" against global warming. In fact, Crichton's frequently quasi-conservative viewpoints subtly expressed in his novels have frequently been used by pundits. I recall Limbaugh reciting Ian Malcolm's long diatribe in Jurassic Park on how life will find a way to survive and using that as evidence that humans shouldn't bother with conservation. FunnyYetTasty 10:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't doubt that C is prominent (hey, he must be, RC wrote a post ripping him to shreds). I'm just noting that he isn't a scientific opponent, even though it really does appear that some people have been fooled into "it has footnotes, it must be science". William M. Connolley 08:14:23, 2005-09-07 (UTC).

Likewise, the lack of prominent supporters is hopefully going to cause this campaign to die out. Al Gore - when he leads the charge it is definitely time to go home.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

He's going to lead a campaign against the sun? On Mars? Jupiter? They're all warming and as such, your comment is unintentionally funny. Likwidshoe 05:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a major problem with the whole global warming idea - I believe I read some time ago that Mars was warming up ( I suspect the other planets are too ). I am unaware that the "consensus" of largely government supported scientists maintain that Mars' temperature increase is caused by man ( anthr.yadayada) - though they probably do. The sun is a good guess for the Mars increase ( maybe the sun might ( not by consensus though ) warm the Earth at the same time. How much warmer does this marvelous climate model say that Mars is going to get? Is there a strong correlation with the Earth model? Consensus of scientists - what an idiot statement, why do I hear this all the time in wiki ( obvious answer ).

Crichton is a scientist. Anyone who thinks a Harvard trained MD knows nothing of science, that person knows nothing of medical school. Doctors are scientists. Crichton has published technical papers in New England Journal of Medicine and Metabolism. In addition, Crichton was a visiting professor of anthropology at Cambridge University in England. RonCram 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Style Guide: Bad Form

If you check Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Bad Form, it states:

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into a separate section.

It strikes me that this was precisely what was done in the separation of global warming controversy from global warming. I think this warrants consideration about reorganization. If the size of the global warming article needs to be regulated, then it would perhaps be more meaningful to break things off in terms of subject, rather than to separate controversy. This is what the style guide tells us. — Cortonin | Talk 23:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The style guide is often pissing into the wind. These kind of controversy separations occur as a natural result of the wiki method, if a minority wants their view in, they are more likely to get it in if they will allow it to be labeled "controversial". Forcing things into the style guide straight jacket, just makes their uphill battle harder. wikipedia will never be an "encyclopedia", the best it can hope for is to become what happens when wiki meets lofty encyclopedia goals. In some ways this is more valuable. Certainly more of the controversy is found in wikipedia while standard encyclopedias lag behind, presenting only the undisputed.--Silverback 05:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The style guide doesn't instruct us to remove controversial elements, it instructs us to integrate controversial elements throughout the other articles for the purpose of making the other articles more complete in their coverage of human knowledge. I think there is great wisdom in this approach, and we shouldn't be discouraged in attempts to make a better encyclopedia by those who would remove controversial elements. We should instead push forward and try to get closer to the ideals of the style guide. — Cortonin | Talk 06:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, I completely agree, and that is what I try to do all the time, but what I was pointing out, is that this is what we end up with. When it is hard to agree within the text, it is better to get the information in labeled as controversial rather than left out completely. You should try editing a page where you are in a distinct minority, and see if you don't end up making similar compromises. People, including me, are going to resist your integration attempts if they come at the cost of losing information. Note the term that was chosen for the analogy in "Wikipedia Form Guide" was the "guide", not the "hammer".--Silverback 07:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Missing the point

This page is linked from Global warming as: Global warming controversy — socio-political issues surrounding the theory of global warming. But this page is more about is it true or not, and who thinks so. My reading of many of the "opponents of the global warming theory" is twofold: they think there are weaknesses in the science and they think that the political response is overblown. But most of them accept that the world is warmer than 200 years ago, and that part of that may have had an anthropogenic cause; they challenge the certainty about the degree of impact, and more significantly the best response to it. But this is hardly covered in the article which reads very much as a "yes, there is a dramatic change and it is all down to human activity" v. "no, there is no change or, if there is, it certainly has nothing to do with human activity". A bad article which doesn't live up to its promises. --Audiovideo 01:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but consider again that around 1100AD was considerably warmer than it is today,

Oh no it wasn't William M. Connolley 13:56:06, 2005-08-20 (UTC).

Were you there?

Of course. Thats where the early data points on those graphs come from. If you think 1100 AD was (hemispherically) warmer than today, you need some kind of evidence for that. For "considerably" warmer you need considerable evidence William M. Connolley 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

and that we are coming out of a little ice age. 1814 was the last year of the Thames river freezing festivals, held in London, England during the winter when the river Thames used to freeze up. I think the key point to understanding this debate is that virtually no-one disagrees that climate change happens, we have evidence of it that is very hard to ignore. The question is, why does everyone think that our pitifully small contributions to the atmosphere will make any difference at all?

BEcause theory, models and observations all tell us that they will, and that describing them as "pitifully small" is just rhetoric. William M. Connolley 13:56:06, 2005-08-20 (UTC).

The science is extremely shaky,

No, just your understanding of it. William M. Connolley 13:56:06, 2005-08-20 (UTC).

The theories and models predict lots of things that don't tally with the observations eg Antartica cooling. It seems to be generally agreed that none of the models can handle all of the data thrown at them. Indeed the IPCC pages state that "If all our current understanding of the climate system were explicitly included, the model would be too complex to run on any existing computer; hence, for practical purposes, simplifications are made so that the system has reduced complexity and computing requirements." Right. So they know which bits to leave out do they? And if you read the pages on models, you find that they usually have to add flux adjustments (ie fiddle factors), and that most models are input with assumptions that anthropogenic warming has occured, which renders them biased in the first place. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/313.htm

Since most of the media stories generally are about predictions from such models, but because the models don't work, that is really an important part of the controversy. Other "data" is so unreliable, it can't be tested against the theory (actually it's a hypothesis: things don't become theories until lots of experimental data has backed the hypothesis up) eg lower atmosphere temps give a range that could be above or below surface temp, so it's impossible to say whether it fits with the theory or not; the sea temps and ocean heat capacity are based on one survey done in 1989 down to a depth of 300 metres, compared with a set of work done in 1965-69, and then that "analysis" was applied to the next 3,000 metres - not exactly scientific.

As for sea levels, a recent study has found that Artic sea levels are falling by 2mm a year, which certainly doesn't fit in with theory or models, and is among many discrepancies that remain unexplained. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5076322.stm --Tony Spencer 01:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Could it be you have problems understanding what "global" means in this context? As your own last cite demonstrates, uniformity is not an issue. Nothing you point out in any way contradicts anything. There's a difference between "The model isn't precise to every last detail" and "The trend predicted by the model is wrong". --OliverH 06:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I think I get it. But the problem with the global figures is that they are largely based on northern hemisphere readings, and there is a great scarcity of data from the southern hemisphere, the oceans and tropical regions in many datasets, which is an awfully large part of the globe (like most of it). Perhaps the prime back up of the temperature increase is the raising of sea levels, generally accounted for by melting glaciers and expansion of the sea because of the "warming". But if the sea level is lowering in some areas (and there may be other areas too), then the water has to go somewhere, and that means the "global" rising of the sea may not be that at all, or is certainly likely to be distorted, which casts further doubt on whether the observed warming is true or not.

If you want global figures, then you have to be sure it really is global, and not due to local events. For example, some of the data from the Antarctic ice core supports that of the Greenland cores, and some doesn't, meaning some events were global and some were local, provided there has not been experimental or analytical error on what is just 3 samples in total.

As for the models, you're right, there is a big difference, but the point is that the models do often get trends wrong. Have a look at the Climate Change Position Statement from the British Antarctica Survey, released on 19th July 2006 and including work done for the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report for the IPCC. They admit that from simulations using 20 climate models - yes twenty models - there are inconsistent results: "This lack of a clear and consistent model response to changed imposed forcing suggests that much of the observed change in temperatures may be due to natural variability rather than changes in natural or anthropogenic forcing." (They do believe changes in ozone and GHGs have affected the westerlies which somewhat conveniently (for them) explains the changes in the Peninsula - but that's a whole other argument! ). --Tony Spencer 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

and the early funding to the studies from certainly unexpected places, such as Enron (see Kyoto Protocol). The few people with working, lunar based climate models are wondering when they will even observe the first shred of anthropomorphic climate change. (User:mugwumpjism 17:57 Mon Aug 15 2005 (NZST))

(William M. Connolley 15:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)) The article does have its bad points, but you should have seen some of the earlier versions... at one point (see talk above) it was a dustbin for stuff that no-one could agree about on the GW page. Some of that still lingers. But, I do agree with you re the prop/opp stuff - the true situation is far more nuanced. George Bush, for example, is clearly politically "against" Kyoto - yet he accepts the std record as showing 0.6 oC warming this century. Whereas Singer doesn't.

(FunnyYetTasty 11:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)) Personally, I think that the real focus of this article, since it is ostensibly not scientifically focused, is to focus instead on the various political goings-on related to global warming. Unfortunately, with Wikipedia's "both sides must be true" philosophy, I think this won't happen. In truth, I suppose it's not an encyclopedia's job to talk about, say, the fact that many public policy thinktanks opposing laws or measures against global warming are funded by ExxonMobil and related companys based in fossil fuel industries. Nonetheless, I do think that much of the material in this article, as it stands, could be heavily compressed. then, we could simply have a link to the category page that lists global warming skeptics.

Oh boy.....I should have known....'ol William...  :) This page is as much of a joke as the GW page is. This page is totally slanted towards really being a proponent of the anthropogenic GW theory. The whole tone of this page is incredulous with the fact that it is supposed to be showing the reasons for skepticism of anthropogenic GW...yet is simply making a mockery of "skeptics". For every little sentence or theory that may contradict anthro-GW...it is pretty much shot down and dismissed. Again....read through the articles and understand what is going on. Man's CO2 affects on the "greenhouse effect" amount to less then 1% ! I bet this page is self-moderated by WC and others who have designated themselves the self-moderators of the GW...oops...anthro-GW page (there IS a difference). You all can't even allow people to present contradicting evidence, theories, statistics, ice sheet core samples indicating a much more accurate portrayal of the earth etc. without coming here and removing it all can you? If you don't want people listing this stuff on the "GW" page....then stay off of this one! When I have the time I'm going to make some modifications. oh yeah...here's my sig as if it makes any difference in the world. This is a "discussion" page where anyone who presents valid scientific evidence or studies and links to citable, verifiable non-loony sources (controversial or not) should be allowed to post and discuss stuff here without fear of having people "edit" and "remove" there topics of discussion just because a) they don't agree with "my opinion" or "the research I present" or b) I don't list my name, address, phone number and social security number when signing a post. This is the internet. I wish people would learn the definition of trolling before attacking people (go see the talk on GW if you don't know what I'm talking about)....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.147.53.180 (talk • contribs) . (user used {{unsigned}} instead of signing the post)

Interesting fact above - Artic Ocean actually dropping - how dare you say that. Now we have to pay all those scientists $$$ to explain this ( probably more water vapor - next we will be told the ocean is going to fall ).

Resolving the wording disagreement in the second bullet list

I'd like to offer some thoughts on resolving the tussle over wording in the second list of bullet points.

Some suggest "believe", or "think", or "accept the evidence" or "accept the consensus". Consider the following, which I think is being overlooked:

• There is non-negligable evidence that warming is not taking place.
• Some people believe in warming or non-warming not because of trust in the data but because some authority they trust believes in it. This is not science, but revelation. (NB: I do not mean necessarily supernatural here, people can "reveal" too.)
• One can accept evidence for and against a theory, without contradiction.

So, "believe" and "think", while accurate, are misleading and insufficient. We should also explain why they believe or think what they do. As for "accepting evidence", it is too restrictive - not everybody accpets something based on evidence, sometimes it is consensus - and the same applies to "accepting consensus."

This leads me to expand the categories somewhat:

• People accept the evidence of warming, or they do not.
• People accept the evidence of non-warming, or they do not.
• People accept the revelation of warming, or they do not.
• People accept the revelation of non-warming, or they do not.
• People can accept a combination of all of the above.

The same expansion goes for the origin of the warming or non-warming.

So, I think the tussle stems from the constraint imposed by the original bullet sentences. That people can believe something either because of evidence or because of revelation is disregarded.

My wording needs to be addressed too, but this is a group effort. And it may be necessary to add a disclaimer that the amount or strength of evidence or revelation on one side is not necessarily equal to that on the other side.

What do you think? Daniel Collins 15:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why does it have to be so convoluted with details about the state of evidence, when it's just categorization of what people think about the world? "Think" has no POV attached, it's just stating the fact. You are right in highlighting that there is evidence in both directions, but it doesn't make sense to highlight acceptance of a category of evidence. Regardless of the topic, and regardless of the strength of evidence in either direction, it's perfectly appropriate to describe the points of view as each group thinking a certain thing, because that's precisely what is the case. Using the word "think" is neutral. Using the words "evidence" or "consensus" for one set of groups expresses endorsement for one view in the process of categorization, which is not only against policy, but completely unnecessary when a neutral way of listing them exists. This is one of the fundamental errors that seems to be existing in this group of articles. The NPOV policy instructs us to not endorse a specific view, no matter how strongly we believe it, and no matter how many people believe it. So if you want to pick a different wording other than "think", then it needs to have symmetry across all of the groups, like "think", not asymmetry like the "accept/deny evidence/consensus" categorization. — Cortonin | Talk 17:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

negligable evidence that warming is not taking place. is wrong. Certainly, there is nothing in wiki to support this, or really anything outside with any credibility. What evidence were you thinking of?

I think that Some people believe in warming or non-warming not because of trust in the data but because some authority they trust believes in it. This is not science, but revelation. is an absurdly strict test. There is no-one involved in this discussion who can claim any real familiarity with the actual data (except me, and that only for a small corner of Antarctica). Science is a long cascade of relying on previous results that you trust and can in principle be checked.

I think that JonGwynne has been convicted of POV pushing by the arbcomm, so anything he adds that looks like POV - and this does - is deeply suspect. (William M. Connolley)

Science is about evidence and the controversy is ultimately about the interpretation of or refusal to acknowledge the evidence presented. As such I fail to see anything NPOV about "accept the evidence ... but..." or "reject the evidence". These fairly summarize the positions. I agree with the unsigned WMC above :-) (Sorry - signed belatedly - WMC) Vsmith 00:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only occasionally is evidence rejected in science. Usually, and I think in this instance, the evidence is accepted, it is the analysis, interpretation and conclusions that are questioned. On the satellite data for instance, they are all working with the same raw data.

(William M. Connolley 08:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Well no. Most people are working with the same data. Singer, Douglass etc are working with the only 2/3 of the data because their prejudices oblige them to throw away the bit that shows warming.

On the temperature data, the readings themselves are accepted, it is how to correct for heat island effects and how to interpret trends recorded within heat islands, how to correct for uneven sampling of the globe, and how to interpret the relative importance of surface warming, vis'a'vis much less warming or even cooling in the rest of the troposhere.--Silverback 01:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I think it is a complete mischaracterization to say that one side is accepting the evidence and one side is rejecting it. Those who object to the conclusions of global warming are not rejecting science, this is just a strawman often put forward by environmentalists. Instead, they are generally just disagreeing about what the science says. I think the version put forward by Silverback satisfies the NPOV requirement, it just seems a more clumsy way to word it than simply describing what each group's views are. — Cortonin | Talk 04:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

accept/deny oversimplification

The four position summary is an oversimplification as is the accept/deny language. All positions generally accept all or almost all the data, sometimes data is rejected because it is thought to be bad, or is collected in such an inconsistent way that it represents a separate data set, rather than a continuous one. Thus the rejection of data that WMC is considering significant because that data had a different handling of snow.

(William M. Connolley 09:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)) No, the MSU data is not affected by snow.

I thought we were both referring to the data the Singer co-authored paper truncated at 1997 due to an altered treatment of snow after that date. I think this paper by authors on the otherside of the global warming divide makes the same decision, although this time they are interested in clouds and not temperatures:

• • Sun, B., and R. S. Bradley (2004), Reply to comment by N. D. Marsh and H. Svensmark on ‘‘Solar influences on cosmic rays and cloud formation: A reassessment,’’ J. Geophys. Res., 109, D14206, doi:10.1029/2003JD004479[1] "The reason we use the ISCCP data set up to the end of 1997 is because the data after 1998 could be affected by the use of wrong snow information in the retrieval (according to NASA Langley Atmospheric Sciences DataCenter), although no significant influence is thought to have occurred over the United States (Figure 1b). MS02 noticed that the GCR-IR LCC correlation becomes weaker if the data period extends from 1983–1994 to 1983–2001. They attribute this to the problem in satellite intercalibration in 1994–1995, though it has not been well documented. We also calculate the correlation for July 1983 to August 1994,during which period the cloud data are supposed to be free of problems"

--Silverback 21:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Of course this made no difference to the tropical ocean conclusions of the study. What is usually disputed or denied is the analysis, interpretation or the conclusions. It is not just the fourth position that rejects "evidence". The first position that accepts the modeling predictions by doing so, denies the significance of the evidence that the models poorly handle clouds and aerosols and do a poor job of replication vertical temperature profile data, especially over the tropical oceans. They deny the evidence of increased correlation with solar variability than can be explained by direct insolation

(William M. Connolley 09:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Much of the evidence for solar correlation rests on dodgy interpolation, as Damon and Laut showed.

Thanx, I hadn't seen that analysis before. The are multiple ways to interpret the breakdown of the correlation with the 1990s warming. I am curious about what the resolution will be. Note, that the strong increase in solar activity up to 1940, is matched by a recover to those levels with the recent warming, so some of the 1990s warming is probably due to climate commitement from the high levels of solar activity. More fairly recent solar activity cites:[2][3][4][5]--Silverback 21:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

and they deny that the paleo evidence that whatever mechanisms make the long term climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling much less than the short term modeling predictions, may also be true for the short term, despite all the known limitations of their models.--Silverback 09:22, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)) The problem is that while there is a coherent scientific position - the IPCC one - there is no real coherent skeptic position, even amongst the few scientists there. Most of them take refuge in use of outdated data - the SEPP site or the Douglass papers are obvious examples - in order to avoid discussing the current data. Do you think that there is anywhere that sets out the skeptic position properly?

Why does there need to be a coherent skeptic position? That would seem to be more characteristic of conspiracy or collusion rather than noting legitimate problems with the science being used to make extreme predictions.--Silverback 21:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The position of most so-called skeptics can probably be summed up as either, "the evidence is not as conclusive as environmentalists are saying it is," or, "the evidence points to at most insignificant warming," or a combination of those two. And no, there's no U.N. body promoting these views. — Cortonin | Talk 10:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Issue rephrase

Good edit, SEWilco. That better encapsulates the essence of the controversy. — Cortonin | Talk 22:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this a comedy - or psychic forces at work?

SEW phrases the various viewpoints as "Those who believe..." and almost immediately guess who shows up as "Some organisations were formed to further the opponents' views:" - the "Institute for Creation Research".
I knew the word believe had religious connotations, but this is hilarious! And, now we know why that institute was formed. This is great! If we edit out the believes will the link go away? Gotta have a little fun :-) Vsmith 02:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I chose "believe" due to several of its meanings and implications. (SEWilco 09:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• Related in several ways:

  

  Fishing in warm water for cold-loving fish.

That is partly why I suggest we tease apart the reason or motivations for the belief. For example, I could be a vegetarian because I analyse the food chain with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and see a limitation in energy availability while population increases, or because I value all life and don't want to lose karma, or because I want to avoid eating unclean meat in order to honour God while I'm in captivity. In any case, I believe I should be vegetarian, but for fundamentally different reasons. Thus, I, ah em, believe that if we identify the reasons behind the belief - be it scientific evidence, scientific theory, divine revelation, anthropic revelation, propaganda, greed, etc - we would do a great service to this discussion, and even help resolve the controversy (for those who wish that to happen). So, SEW, you choose the word because of "several of its meanings and implications". What are they? Cortonin, do you prefer it only becasue it is the simplest and greatest common factor, and yet overlook the point VS makes? VS, you clearly think some people don't believe in global warming or its problems because of non-scientific reasons, so why not say as such in the text? The controversy at hand is not just a scientific one, it is also very much social. Daniel Collins 21:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support a description of that form because at the core, what it is trying to do is divide people into categories, and the people are divided into categories on a controversy based on their beliefs or thoughts, not because of anything to do with scientific evidence. Now if you want to examine, lower in the article, some of the reasons why people prefer to believe or think a certain way, then scientific evidence comes into play for some of the people in each group (but certainly not all of any group). I say that there are people who believe in global warming for non-scientific reasons, and there are people who believe there's no global warming for non-scientific reasons. There are also people who believe in global warming for scientific reasons, and people who believe there's no global warming for scientific reasons. Part of this controversy involves people flinging mud back and forth at each other saying that the other side isn't being scientific, and it would be POV endorsement (not to mention wrong) to imply that one side is correct in this assessment. The truth is, each group of the controversy has people using science, and each group has people who are hopelessly biased with no regard for reason. Beware of the logical fallacies of people who try to stereotype any group one way or the other. — Cortonin | Talk 18:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's good, for me, to have such a clear picture, although I was suprised you thought my suggestion was more convoluted than SEW's change. (I hope I am not miscommunicating and giving the impression that we should advocate in the wiki one way of arriving at a conclusion over an other.) So VS and WMC, what do you think of having a section devoted to explaining why people may think what they think (I do prefer "think" or "consider" to "believe" for VS's reason; again, there is social baggage with the words we choose)? Although I would recommend, like other Wikipedia pages, that the introductory section indeed includes reference to this polychotomy prior to its fleshing out. Daniel Collins 21:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You had a useful analysis, but it was leading toward a matrix of selections which produces too many specific classifications. I kept the existing structure which was focused upon a few requirements for belief in GWT, and "other" seems to not need to be as specific unless discussing a specific issue. The "belief" phrasing doesn't care about individual reasons but rather upon the conceptual result. And just now I fixed the mistake in the first issue of "how much change" rather than the meaning of "more change than usual" (we wouldn't care about 1% change if 90% is usual); I intentionally did not specify "range" nor "trend" as those are details in deciding what is unusual. Details belong after the generalities. (SEWilco 05:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))

As you mention Vegetarianism, you might look at that article. It is a list of lists of beliefs. What is the goal here? (SEWilco 05:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))

OK. Let's see - the article states The controversy occurs almost entirely within the press and political arenas. and then discusses mainly the differing interpretations of the scientific evidence. The pre-SEW intro listed four viewpoints, three of which differed in the interpretation of the evidence and the fourth was in simple denial of the evidence for probably a variety of reasons. Therefore I don't see the problem with scientific evidence and its interpretation as useful grouping scheme.
Now, the word believe is far too loaded for use here. When my students ask me if I believe in evolution, I respond that "believe" is the wrong word, but, that I accept the scientific evidence for evolution. BTW, I'm in the "bible belt" where evolution is a hot button word. And believe is either religion or Santa Clause.
Now as to Daniel's question: what do you think of having a section devoted to explaining why people may think what they think? Go for it if you want, but it would be a POV minefield. American love affair with gas guzzling SUVs that never leave a paved road would be one starter (and the auto industry's love affair with profits). Lifestyle and the pocketbook sums up a lot of it. But, I'm not a psycho-analyst, just kinda psycho :-) -Vsmith 17:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

De-believed - emphasis on evidence. Vsmith 14:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we somehow include the fact that, according to Thomas Kuhn, during a period of scientific consensus, most opposing opinions will tend to be shut out by groupthink? Scientific consensus =/= truth. Tristangreer 15:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty pictures

I tired of the look of the page (and lack of scrolling landmarks). Pleasantly interesting now? (SEWilco 05:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Pretty pictures are fine, but they need a tie in to the article (relevance) and a caption or else they'll go. Do we need mere decoration? -Vsmith 14:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but these "pretty pictures" need to go. If they don't tie into the article, they just don't belong. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. I mean, I'm sure we all appreciate the effort to add some aesthetic appeal to an otherwise dry article, there is an insurmountable problem with using imagines that don't relate to the subject at hand. We had the same problem with the Kyoto Accord page - certain people kept trying to add decoration where it didn't belong.--JonGwynne 22:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not read before reverting?

C reverted with this in the edit summary: Unacceptable to say some deny evidence, and unacceptable to say some are "wrong". That is just shameless advocacy. Problem is the edits he reverted didn't say anyone was "wrong" and didn't say "some deny evidence". Seems he needs to read what it says before reverting to his religious believes :-) Vsmith 19:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And, yes the controversy or debate is pushed primarily by politicians and journalists and others who don't like or understand evidence and would rather hide it or not mention it. But, the evidence is real and the differing viewpoints on the meaning of the evidence are what the debate is about, so what is wrong with using the word rather than all those questionable believes? Vsmith 19:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence implies clear proof. Many things are real without being proof. (SEWilco 19:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC))

• Annals of Improbable Research
• Journal of Irreproducible Results

(Disclaimer: With the refs, I can't tell if you're joking. If not...) It is beyond me how evidence equals clear proof. If it implies it, I think there is a misunderstanding of what either one of them really is. "Proof" as I see it is (i) logically irrefutable, as in mathematic derivations, or (ii) an extrapolation of "a huge amount of consistent and unchallenged evidence". But indeed, things can be real without being proven, and even without being able to be proven. Daniel Collins 13:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vsmith, the version you are endorsing still has four categories which state "accept the evidence", and one which states "deny that climate is changing." This doesn't have the wording "deny the evidence," but the concept is still there just as well. If I say, for example, parental category A spends time with their children, and category B spends a lot of time at work, then it's still implying that category B doesn't spend time with their children even though it doesn't have those words. It's no different here. Saying that one category accepts the evidence, but other categories don't, is saying that they're just in denial, which trivializes the debate. The debate may be trivialized precisely that way inside your mind, but that's just your POV, and it doesn't belong expressed here. There is no way around it, categorizing people by "accept the evidence" is going to have this rhetorical problem any way you reword it it. If you list every single category as "accept the evidence", then you've attained symmetry, but then it's meaningless to even list it. This is why we need to find a different way to word it that does not endorse one group as "more scientific". Please try to understand the rhetorical implications of what you write, and the implications that has for NPOV, because it's critical to achieving NPOV, if you still genuinely support that goal. You cannot describe only one side of the global warming debate as scientific here, no matter how much you may want to. — Cortonin | Talk 23:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's all basically hot air. If it's not about evidence then what is the point? Just a bunch of worthless opinions based on beliefs. I agree that a lot of the political and journalistic debate is based on opinions rather than evidence, but that should not define the article here. The "deny that climate is changing." category is, I think (lose track of the reverts:-), SEW's phrase that I left. Don't know who fits there, maybe the creationists? Everything else is based on the evidence and interpretations of it.
And to SEW: evidence does not imply clear proof, this is not a court of law. Evidence in science has a different meaning - the facts that support or help refute an hypothesis or theory.
-Vsmith 00:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing hot air about rhetoric and NPOV, I'm sorry you can't grasp what I'm saying. Saying that one group believes X, and another group believes Y, does not say its a religion. I have no idea where you get this idea. I believe that the earth is round, I believe that the gluons hold quarks together, and I believe that photons mediate electromagnetic interaction. Which of these is religious? I also think that the earth is round, I think that gluons hold quarks together, and I think that photons mediate the electromagnetic interaction. Is it somehow diminished? If there's a group that things the strong force does not operate by gluon exchange, then I think it does, and they think it doesn't. This is a fairly straightforward method of describing two groups, and there's no reason to replace it with your opinion that one group adheres better to the evidence. Nobody is questioning that there's a whole lot of evidence involved with global warming (which should be examined in the article), but that has nothing to do with the groups of people. The groups differ by what they think about global warming. — Cortonin | Talk 09:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout the hot air bit, that was a bit much :-)

I believe that the earth is round, I believe that the gluons hold quarks together, and I believe that photons mediate electromagnetic interaction. Which of these is religious? Answer: All of 'em. Belief is the acceptance in the absence of evidence and is a religious concept. As for my feeling on those topics, I either accept the evidence or trust that the evidence is valid until I get around to studying it. Trust based on the scientific method and the journals publishing the evidence. There is a big difference there. As for think - that would be better, but quite weak. Philosophers think - scientists produce evidence. Maybe Nobody is questioning that there's a whole lot of evidence, ... maybe. The difference is in the interpretation or flat rejection of that evidence. Vsmith 12:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If someone refers to one person's claims as "evidence", that is POV. That is creating the implication that those who agree with the "evidence" are correct and those who disagree with it are incorrect. It doesn't allow for the possibility that the evidence itself may be flawed or that the people who observed the experiments responsible for it drew the wrong conclusions from those experiments. That would be a mistake. Try looking at it this way... the issue here is not what is being reported but *how* it is being reported. In a court of law, the person who is accused of a crime is properly referred to as the "alleged" perpetrator or "suspect" - even if the evidence against them appears to be incontrovertible. It is important in a court of law to remain objective and it is important to remain objective when reporting --JonGwynne 07:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

p.s. You're wrong about the earth being round. It isn't round at all, it is an oblate sphereoid. -JonGwynne

Vsmith, I think you're confused about the definition of the word belief. Read it here. Not one of the definitions says that belief implies a disregard for evidence, in fact, one of the definitions is actually, "a degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence". Your idea of what belief means is the opposite of what it actually means. — Cortonin | Talk 17:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not confused at all. From the first Webster's I picked up:

"1. the state of believing; acceptance that certain things are true or real [a belief in astrology] 2. faith, esp. religious faith ..." and under believe "vi 1. to have trust or confidence (in), as being true, real, etc. 2. to have religious faith."

And here in the bible belt you can be sure that the religious meaning is predominant. So back off and get rid of it. Vsmith 21:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, then it seems the people around you use a funny definition of belief, since the more general definition seems to be predominant elsewhere. "Think", however, should be neutral regardless of region. If there are people who think "thinking" is exclusively religious, that would just be silly. — Cortonin | Talk 21:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what the confusion is about. The word "belief" means "the state of believing; acceptance that certain things are true or real". How does this suggest that the "certain things" are necessarily untrue? I believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. I have no proof of this, yet I do not doubt it either. I "believe" in it. How is that different from those who believe in global warming? And how does VSmith convert the concept of belief from what it is into something akin to "blind faith in the fact of overwhelming contrary evidence"? --JonGwynne 22:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does the article on belief help any? Daniel Collins 14:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco's edits

WP:POINT. I assume that's what this bizarre edit is?

You don't think I'd have a suitably bizarre edit summary if that were the case? Actually, Wikipedia gave an error message when I first submitted, and apparently produced or was presented that mess during resubmission. (SEWilco 19:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Ok, I was wondering if it had something to do with how ridiculous this revert war is? I was looking for something logical. Sorry about that (I have never had WIkipedia do anything stranger than refuse an edit - had no idea something so odd could happen). Guettarda 20:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contentious

Here's another way to look at the article. (SEWilco 06:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC))

• Thomas Dietz. 2001. “Thinking about Environmental Conflicts”[6]
• "My observation is that at least seven factors contribute to making environmental problems especially contentious. They are:
  1. A muddling of facts and values
  2. Facts that are uncertain
  3. Values that are unformed
  4. Changes that are concrete and permanent
  5. Harm to innocents and inequities
  6. Confusion of boundaries between the public and the private
  7. A confusion of competences"

As in any debate, I would add the case where language use differs among the debaters. The use of "belief", as argued above, is a case in point - it means different things to different people. I suggest either (i) adding a paragraph that explains what is meant by "belief" or what other word is used, or (ii) tightening up that phrases themselves. It is more involved, but in light of the current debate, quite possibly necessary. Daniel Collins 13:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I chose "belief" because its ambiguity includes those whose thinking is based on facts and/or values. The purpose of the early article section is to classify people's thinking and behavior, not cataloging literature. Does the desired classification require identification of all facts and values, or where is painting with a broad brush appropriate? (SEWilco 02:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Recent edit war

I'm going to side with Connolley on this one. This controversy hasn't quite shaken out yet. I tend to sympathize more with the skeptics on this topic, but from an encyclopedic perspective, let's let the dust settle before documenting it with stats in the article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:51, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. What statistics are documenting what? (SEWilco 01:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC))

Gimme a break. The external links the current exchange is over. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 10:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Those numbers were not statistics documenting the topic. Those numbers were given, assuming you read the articles, to distinguish between the subjects. Article 1 featured a 75% number which was contradicted by Article 2, while Article 3 ignores those results and examines 3% of the data. (SEWilco 17:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC))

That link happens to be redundant anyway. It is a link to a newspaper article, but a link to the journal item is in the article. (SEWilco 03:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC))

Where at, specifically? This is a freakin' long article and my eyes are tired. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 03:48, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

The "Counting experts" section: A 2004 essay in Science surveyed abstracts of peer-reviewed research articles related to climate change. (SEWilco 03:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC))

But I thought you wanted to post a link refuting it. No longer interested in doing that? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 04:35, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

They're different links. (SEWilco 06:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC))

Guess I'm lost on what you were trying to do in the first place, then. Oh well... — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 06:56, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:mainarticle

The wrong template is being used. If you click on Template:mainarticle you'll see that is not an actual template. You end up at Template:main with the note (Redirected from Template:Mainarticle). In Template talk:Main you'll see that main is for use at the top of specialized articles (such as article hot water might mention to see main article water). Template:seemain is for usage within articles. The difference is also shown in Wikipedia:Template_messages/Links#Internal_links. (SEWilco 03:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC))

All right. Thanks for the info. I've seen it go back and forth in various articles. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 03:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

GHG strawman

What meaning of "correlation" is not the basis of the assertion that GHGs cause global warming? (SEWilco 05:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC))

• "One argument against global warming questions the contention that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) correlate with—and thus have caused—global warming. However, this amounts to questioning a strawman, since the assertion that GHGs cause global warming is not based on correlation at all: see attribution of recent climate change."

(William M. Connolley 22:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)) I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. The mathematical defn of "correlation" is the one that *isn't* used in D+A to demonstrate causation.

Temporary injunction

Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:

Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] by William M. Connolley [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

--mav 22:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

SEPP edits

Curious about Beland's recent edit. Can you provide a source that details the other active members of SEPP (ie, proof that it is not a one-man show from Singer?) Thanks. Guettarda 03:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 08:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Seconded. The article is now double-counting, since it lists SEPP and Singer, without noting that they are the same.

Intro/settled

I agreee that its a bit OTT to conclude that the controversy is over. Scientifically, probably it is, but it will be a little while yet before wiki ralises that. And of course the *policy* controversy of what-to-do in the future is not at all settled. OTOH, not mentioning the current weight of opinion in the intro is too teasing. Ive added some brief text on weight-of-opinion which I think reflects (a) the truth and (b) whats on GW, attribution, etc pages. I also took out Kyoto, because it didn't flow then, but it could go back. William M. Connolley 2005-06-29 17:22:00 (UTC).

Scientific exploration leaves no room for such closure. Especially not with so much conflicting evidence on both sides of the argument. User:mugwumpjism 2005-08-15T18:04+12

YI

Please stop inserting YI's personal opinions into the "supporters" section. If the RAS sig is a mistake, doubtless the RAS will withdraw it. In the rather more likely situation of this just being YI venting his own opinions, the sig will remain. But until its withdrawn, leave YI's statements in the "opponents" section, where it belongs. William M. Connolley 2005-07-03 19:35:24 (UTC).

Merge

Any comments on the merge proposal (with scientific opinion on climate change)? Rd232 3 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

The controversy spans more fields than just science - politics, policy, fiction, religion (Eg. non-scientist novelists have nothing to add to the scientific opinion on climate change, but they do to the controversy). And the controversy doesn't solely consider the observations of climate change, but also the policy responses to it, which is not a scientific endeavour. Thus, don't merge. Daniel Collins 3 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

Fair points, but as the article stands, it doesn't consider policy responses, and almost all the discussion is about scientific opinion or about the science itself. The amount of duplication from other articles isn't justified, IMO, just to be able to mention Michael Crichton. It looks like most of the article could neatly slot into the scientific opinion one, some into the Public controversy section of Global warming (I assume the science material already exists elsewhere in the appropriate articles). I say do those merges, and leave the possibility of creating a new article at some point in the future if someone wants to put material here which would justify the article's existence - eg the history of how global warming became a political issue (article doesn't even mention Margaret Thatcher) and how the politics and public opinion and debate has developed. Rd232 4 July 2005 08:39 (UTC)

Traditionally, this article has been a place to dump stuff too controversial for the main GW article. As the main article, and this one, has improved, that becomes rather less true. I think Rd232 is probably correct... if the only purpose of the article is to allow skeptics to list Crichton on their side, what is the point? Arguably, however, the article *could* have a point in discussing the political/popular responses to GW. There is room for such an article, and this could be it. If it was, then all of the sci discussion could go from this article - there is no point in repeating - and this article can talk about, eg, US policy on GW, which is sadly unreported on wiki. William M. Connolley 2005-07-04 10:12:23 (UTC).

On the policy front, I forgot to mention the (potential) overlap with the latter section (currently rather crappy) of Mitigation of global warming; there's also related material in Kyoto Protocol. I'm not sure where the best place is for it, but I'm inclined to think it best to separate discussion of the science of global warming from policy action details. Under Mitigation there's also an incipient distinction between technological/economic issues and political ones. Perhaps thinking in terms of a History of global warming (primarily political, economic, public opinion aspects, but some short and nontechnical summary of development of scientific opinion) would be useful. Rd232 4 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

In fact, nearly all of the "controversy" comes from outside of the scientific community. Nearly all the arguments against global warming are pseudoscience at best, and thus not highly regarded by actual scientists. RedXIV 05:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

perhaps a Politics of global warming page might be a good idea, to make it clear its the politics. Politics and science can be fairly readily separated: sadly, very little of hte science has made it into the politics debate. Mitigation is probably another issue, which could remain mostly technical rather than political William M. Connolley 2005-07-04 12:46:37 (UTC).

I echo both the benefit of moving the scientific element of this page to the sci page, and of creating new, appropriately binned pages that deal w/ subsets of the issue - like effects, like mitigation, like politics, like policy, like popular culture. There is much one could contribute to each, and they would be far better focused than this general controversy page, which I suggest remains even if it becomes a source of links to the other, more refined elements. Daniel Collins 4 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)

The controversy is not always based on science. In fact, many opponents of the global warming theory use methods disputed by many scientists. Therefore, it would be POV to put all references to controversy under the label of 'scientific opion.' Tjss 17:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The "global warming" contreversy indicates that global warming has been caused mainly by man. It is political in nature and should not be confused with science....unless you guys consider The Day After Tomorrow a documentary Barneygumble 14:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the articles organization and naming should split presentation of the science of what is understood about climate change, both global warming and global cooling, irrespective of ice ages and other extremes, and climate history evidence, as it is understood occurs thanks to nature, such as volcanos, super volcanos, and other influences. Then there would be separate main articles just on asteroid impact, because of public controversy over the evidence and threat of reoccurrence, and also separate main articles just on science's understanding of what human activities impact this, and efforts to alter human behavior so as to mitigate global warming and what impact, if any, these changes in human behavior might have on the next cycle of global cooling. User:AlMac|^(talk) 16:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

Whether or not the external links do exhibit a collective POV, their number could suggest some organisation w/in categories: eg. industry, think tank, media, acad; and maybe also where the fall w/in the controversy's continuum. Daniel Collins 4 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

Developing a schema

Anybody interested in this subject, please see my comment on Talk:global warming. I realise my thought on a possible merger of climate change with GW isn't likely to fly (though the amount of overlap should give pause for thought), but how about the rest of what I said, in terms of developing the topic structure? Anybody out there? Rd232 18:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Scientific Community

"Some opponents from within the scientific community"... goes on to list Kary Mullis and others. Mullis qualifications on the issue aren't better than mine. Being a scientist is neither a certificate of universal expertise nor of authority outside your field of specialization. Mullis in particular is notorious from making statements on all sorts of things he has little, if any, qualification to judge.

As an added point, most opponent positions cited are based on ten-year-old data, most of which has been sorted out by now, the balloon data only recently having been shown to be perfectly in line with global warming if one accounts for refits being done on the balloons which skewed the results. OliverH 09:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree; I've rephrased the category to "climate/science" rather than "science" and moved the 3 who then don't fit down, inc Mullis.

Re 10-y-old: I guess this section is reporting "prominent" skeptics *views* - not whether those views make sense or not. If Mullis said whatever, and has never retracted it, then I suppose (or that wiki may suppose) he still holds those views. William M. Connolley 10:36:03, 2005-09-04 (UTC).

Well, with the 10-year-old comment, I was mainly refering to the part listing only points made, not specific opponents. Though of course you could see it as a list of the points that have been raised over time, regardless of whether they have been debunked by now or not. However, I'd see that as a bit confusing for the reader not familiar with the current literature on the issue. OliverH 16:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeeeeeesss... there has been a tendency to let the skeptics list whatever they like, no matter how nonsensical, under the points made heading. If they list junk (as they do) then it makes their position look silly, which it is. The assumption I make is that people come here from the GW page itself, so (if they have been paying attention) all these points have already been answered. I think. William M. Connolley 20:30:45, 2005-09-04 (UTC).

"Being a scientist is neither" - how true. Unfortunately being a scientist doesn't even mean you are a scientist - your research and results may be socially, politically, monetarily, etc motivated. A PhD frequently just demonstrates that you had nothing else to do until you were 30 - and loved school - and Daddy had lots of spare cash. The analysis that the global warming controversy puts out is most glaring in the points it misses, not what it notes. The "consensus" of scientist could as well be their combined weight as far as I can see - 2638 lbs versus 1511 lbs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment

Silverback reverted:

humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment and if it turns out badly - however that is defined - we cannot undo it.

on the grounds of scaremongering. There are three problems: (a) its true: there is no (current) way to remove atmos CO2. We cannot remove this forcing. (b) its one of the arguments made, so whether its scaremongering or not is irrelevant (c) its breaking the unstated convention that "skeptics" get to add what they want - however nonsensical I might regard it - to the skeptic side; and - err - the "other side" add to the other side. This is the only way to avoid edit wars over this page. William M. Connolley 17:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC).

I agree. With regard to what should determine the decision on this particular edit, I think your point (b) is particularly salient. Silverback or others might vehemently disagree with the statement he deleted, but he can't seriously claim that this particular point is being made supporters of the global warming theory. I've reverted the edit. --Sheldon Rampton 18:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a peer reviewed citation for the not being able to undo it? My interpretation was that it referred to the consequences, not the CO2 forcing. Of course, we cannot change CO2 past CO2 forcing, but future forcing can easily be changed, by reducing emissions, seeding the oceans, etc. Paleoclimate studies, show that CO2 levels have been higher in the past, and thus reversal is physically possible. Thermo-haline circulation has also changed back and forth in the past. What ever the claim is, must be overstated, unless it is limited to the past, which nobody can change.--Silverback 03:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it can be undone over a timespan of thousands to millions of years - this, too, shall pass - but not on a human timescale. Do you have a citation for undoing it? Vsmith 05:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a peer reviewed citation for any of the following claims that this article attributes to skeptics?

• "IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models."
• "Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion."
• "Consensus is further compromised in this field of study due to students being attracted to the field by their belief that the something should be done about global warming."

If we limit the skeptic claims to things that can be supported from peer-reviewed citations, most of the skeptic side of this article will have to go. As William Connolley pointed out above, however, this isn't an article about the science. It's an article about the claims made on both sides of the controversy. --Sheldon Rampton 05:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that Silverback will be speeding to remove those points you mentioned until he can find a peer-reviewed reference for them. I the meantime I've found what looks like the source for the quote. William M. Connolley 09:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC).

Upon reading the source, the reason this statement is so implausible, is because it is being used in this article as a broader statement, than what was probably intended by the author. If appears that his analysis, as far as "undo"ing the experiment, was limited to reductions in the growth of emissions, such as proposed by Kyoto. He is obviously a Kyoto skeptic. He also made this statement, that I wonder if it is really correct, "carbon dioxide has an atmospheric lifetime of greater than a century". If this is true, how can there the be annual reductions measured at Mauna Loa? Does anyone know where this figure comes from?--Silverback 13:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, your position here is deeply hypocritical: you are insisting on exact quotes from one well-sourced piece, whilst ignoring the junk on the other side. Atmos lifetime of CO2 is indeed centuries (and more), not that that is relevant here. Look at my points (a), (b), (c): you haven't even attempted to address them. William M. Connolley 16:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

William M. Connolley, your position here is deeply hypocritical: you are insisting on exact quotes from one well-sourced piece, whilst ignoring the junk on the other side. Look at Silverback's responses to your points (a), (b), (c): you haven't even attempted to address them. (SEWilco 20:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

yes well that was an echo. But a quite senseless one. Sb hasn't even attempted to answer my points: and I don't seem to be insisting on exact quotes. What on earth are you talking about? Are you just trolling? William M. Connolley 21:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

Nope. Read again. (SEWilco 21:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

Yep, he's trolling. For starters, Silverback hasn't made any response whatsoever to WMC's points (b) and (c). I don't know why SEW is wasting our time with this nonsense. As for Silverback's claim that Kevin Trenberth is "obviously a Kyoto skeptic," Trenberth is one of the lead authors of the IPCC reports on global warming and is certainly not a skeptic about the question of whether human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Here's an article he wrote in 1997 titled "Global warming: It's happening." Trenberth can only be characterized as a "skeptic" about Kyoto in the sense that he thinks the Kyoto agreement doesn't go far enough, because the Kyoto measures will slow, but not stop, global warming. -- Sheldon Rampton 01:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

B and C are mere rhetorical points. A begins with a clause that is a rhetorical point and ends with a point that the IPCC itself acknowledged in the TAR. Any Kyoto slowing of global warming will be undetectable. Even in Britain, the successful reductions in emissions are outweighed by off the Kyoto books, releases of carbon from the soil. The peat fires (another "fossil" fuel) in Indonesia (exempted from Kyoto requirements) dwarf any Kyoto impact. As to points a, b, and c. I have no stake in them. They are possibly valid points. It is points that are invalid or overstated that I insist on accurate quotes for, because they are indefensible outside of quotes.--Silverback 11:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

By "B and C are mere rhetorical points" I think you mean you have no answer to them. A does not begin with a rhetorical point either. This has nothing to do with Kyoto. There are far worse bits of nonsense in the other side but you are blind to them because of your bias. You are displaying here the behaviour that has got you RFA'd, and it won't work. William M. Connolley 16:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC).

Not because of my bias, but because I actually haven't read them. I just have this article on my watchlist and saw a change that didn't make sense. I am more interested in the harder science articles. I won't oppose your deletion of those points, even point A, about the weakness in cloud physics has already been made on other pages. This article was supposed to disappear long ago.--Silverback 17:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This is getting implausible. You've not only read them, you've edited them: [17] [18] [19]. I don't see any signs of you insisting on sources for the stuff *you* added. William M. Connolley 18:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC).

Sorry, I forgot, I think that was back before this page was supposed to be merged away. You can delete them.--Silverback 18:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there's been some sort of miscommunication here. What I intended by my reference to points (a), (b) and (c) is William Connolley's comments above at the beginning of this section. They are:

(a) its true: there is no (current) way to remove atmos CO2. We cannot remove this forcing. (b) its one of the arguments made, so whether its scaremongering or not is irrelevant (c) its breaking the unstated convention that "skeptics" get to add what they want - however nonsensical I might regard it - to the skeptic side; and - err - the "other side" add to the other side.

I can't for the life of me imagine how WMC's point (a) above can be construed as something that "begins with a clause that is a rhetorical point and ends with a point that the IPCC itself acknowledged in the TAR," or how points B and C can be construed as "mere rhetorical points." I can only conclude therefore that Silverback is talking about something else entirely when he refers to "points A, B and C." However, I can't find any other points on on this talk page that have been labeled with the letters A, B and C, so I have no idea what Silverback is talking about. Perhaps he would care to clarify. --Sheldon Rampton 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

philosophy

I may be in the wrong place, but I've never seen my opinion even mentioned in any climate change debate. Why shouldn't we change the climate? We are a species on this planet just as any other. We just do more with it. We are smarter, we burn things, we exterminate competing species. That's what we do. What's wrong with that? why do we second guess ourselves? I consider it the essence of natural selection. we are natural —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kvuo (talk • contribs) Noverber 13, 2005.

Can you provide a source for this? Part of the concern is that your position appears to be original research (see WP:NOR. Guettarda 15:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have occasionally seen vague speculation on this. But I agree with G: sans source, it can't go in. More common is the idea of geoengineering: giant mirrors in space etc to counteract GW. Why not consider controlling the climate? Probably because on the eco-type side people would argue that we don't enough to try this, and should avoid playing with the system until we do. Whereas on the other side tends to be the idea that we *aren't* affecting the climate and (so they would argue) we probably can't. William M. Connolley 17:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC).

Maybe you could say something along the lines of "Some people take a fatalistic approach to climate change and advocate taking no action" on the Action on Climate Change article, but even then that article is not about philosophy--it is about events and actions--so I don't know if it would go there (you would have to explain and mention all perspectives, approaches, etc. and even then fatalism (I think) is not exactly what you are talking about here). It wouldn't go on the global warming controversy page though, since the perspective is not in conflict with the science which is what this article is about. Take a look through articles like Sociobiological determinism (and also Biological determinism and Social determinism), Conservation ethic, Human ecology, and Environmental sociology to give you an idea of what is out there. --Ben 00:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The science is science. I only wanted to point out that the debate seems to be very narrow -- between whether or not "we" caused a global warming, and it's results (consequences?). (The debate) presumes that any climate change is somehow negative, and I've always taken it as the ancient idea of "we should not meddle with things we don't understand". There is a fundamental flaw in the article. Somewhere, somehow, it seems that everyone agreed that if "we" change our environment, it is bad. Any other species on earth can change the environment, but we can't. I ask why? And I'm too drunk to find my way tonite. (oh and I forgot to sign my orignal talk, sorry.) --Kvuo 04:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This seems to assume that only negative effects of climate change (or "climate chaos" as some people now prefer to call it) are on other species or "the planet". Rd232 ^talk 13:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can see how part of the intro is kind of biased:

"The global warming controversy is a decades-old dispute about the effects of humans on the global climate and the policies that should be followed to avoid future effects."

But that actually doesn't describe what's on the page very well (and now there is an Action on Climate Change page anyway so that stuff should be on there). That ending part about policy can probably just be taken out altogether. I also think the intro should just be re-written, there's some inherent pro-human caused climate change bias that's gotten in there. There's some in the last part, but the first part should probably read "effects" or "any effects" rather than "the effects". "The effects" might be ok though, but there does seem to be a smidgen of bias in the way it is written. I think it would just be better to rewrite the intro differently anyway. And then there's the whole merge idea, which I kind of agree with which would do away with this intro. I'd have no problems with you taking out that last bit about policy and editing the first part so it is more neutral. Don't add your own bias in of course :P. I think I'd change the first part to something like:

"The global warming controversy is a decades-old dispute about the effect humans have on the global climate"

Which I think leaves it open to postulating "no effect" or "no substantial effect." --Ben 22:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the debate, as it has been framed, we should not have any effect. Positive or negative, apparently. --Kvuo 03:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There have been past efforts to protect civilization from nature. We humans

• take territory away from planetary wildlife.
• dam rivers, create lakes, reservoirs.
• chop down hills to build roads and railroads.
• build levees to block flooding of our cities, and along rivers.
• drain wetlands.
• experiment with what it takes to steer storms away from mainlands.
• dump sewage into rivers, downstream, into oceans, assuming the capacity of the oceans to absorb our garbage without bad effect, is infinite.

The effects of all this can be both beneficial to humanity civilization, but some of it can have bad side-effects. It would be nice if what science knows about which has side-effects, and which does not, was made known to policy makers. User:AlMac|^(talk) 17:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The controversy is over whether human activity has any significant effect - or not. If not, of course, then debating whether we should deliberately promote or prevent climate change (ie - if we were heading for an ice age - should we try to stop it?) is a bit pointless. However, it is true some GW skeptics go so far as to accept that human activity is probably changing climate - and then change the debate to whether this is indeed a good or bad thing, with eulogies about how increase CO2 and warmer winters will mean rice can grow in Canada - or in the words of a British comedian, we will "grow pineapples in Inverness".

My own opinion? We should certainly try not to change climate BY ACCIDENT. If we do decide to change it deliberately we had better know what we are doing - and getting a global political consensus, given that any change is likely to have positive effects for some and negative for others (remember the Soviet attempts to change courses of rivers etc) will be impossible.

Exile 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ordering strange

Considering the way most other articles on other controversies are formed, this one would be better if it started by stating what opponents of global warming say, countered by what the majority of scientists say. --chad 09:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Watson Ladd 02:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Volcanic activity and global warming

In my opinion the new section on volcanic activity is not stated as an NPOV report on the dicussion, but as a series of facts and hypotheses. Moreover, it is at least misleading. For one, the climatic influence of Mt. Minatubo (and Krakatoa and Tabora) are short-term climate signals. Note that 1816 was the "year without summer". The 1820 were not knows as "the decade without summer". Similarly, the Mt. Pinatubo signal has long vanished. CO₂ induced warming works on much longer time scales (centuries to millenia). Thus, the sentence "one massive volcanic eruption in one year offset a putative temperature rise over the past hundred years" is plain wrong. It only caused a very short term drop in the temperature signal.

Of course, if the Yellowstone supercaldera explodes with full force, global warming will be one of our lesser problems for some time. But "may be overdue" holds on a geologic time scale. If we talk about millions of years (and up), then the current global warming trend probably is irrelevant. But that is a straw man. We are talking about the next decades, centuries, and maybe millenia.

Anyways, is this a serious argument used in the controversy? If yes, can we find a source? And can we state it in NPOV style? Or is it original research?--Stephan Schulz 21:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the section. I fully agree with you. There are two big problems with it, as you point out: (1) its badly biased (2) its not really an argument much used in the controversy. The actual topic of volcanoes is briefly present in climate change and thats probably where it belongs. Ive briefly noted there that Pinatubo had a short-term effect. William M. Connolley 15:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

There is a point to be made that the amount of CO2 released by humans is minuscule compared to that from natural sources, volcanoes being one of them.--Quadalpha 23:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you make that point or do you claim it is being made? In the end, all carbon comes from supernovas, which is natural, I guess. Currently (i.e. for the last few millenia or millionenia (? (attached to the newly invented word, not the sentence ;-))), the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes is miniscule compared to the current release of CO2 by burning fossil fuels. The gross CO2 production of the bisophere likely is bigger, but all that carbon comes from atmospheric CO2, so the net contribution of the biosphere is more or less 0. --Stephan Schulz 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Fossil fuels come from atmospheric sources as well, though I admit that is a rather lame point. Alright, that point isn't defendable without solid data on my part :) --Quadalpha 23:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Say the biosphere produces 100 ppm CO2 in a year and absorbs 100 ppm (these are guesses, I don't know the true figures). Say humans produce, from fossil fuels, 6 ppm (I think this is a reasonable estimate) and absorb 0. The fact that only 6% of CO2 is produced by humans doesn't mean anything since 100% of excess production over absorption is due to human activity. It does, though, have some relevance to what we do about it - since there may be scope for increasing natural absorption, or reducing natural production, of CO2. Perhaps, planting more trees than we fell.

Exile 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Trees will die and rot, releasing the stored carbon in the form of CO_2. So, you would actually have to fell trees at the same rate as you plant them and then store these felled trees so that they don't decompose. Given the enormous volume of trees you would have to store, it's more practical to build nuclear power plants and store the radioactive waste. :) Count Iblis 18:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Global Warming Skepticism"

In one section, there is a parenthetical statement, (See: Global Warming Skepticism). "Global Warming Skepticism" currently redirects back to this article, "Global Warming Controversy". Will there eventually be a Skepticism article, or should this link be removed? Juansmith 00:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Its an old article that got deleted. I'll remove it. William M. Connolley 10:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Request review of Adaptation to global warming article

Well, I was "bold" and extracted the "adaptation" text from the Mitigation of global warming article into a new article Adaptation of global warming as suggested by others in the Talk:Mitigation of global warming page. Within minutes, the new article was put up as a candidate for deletion on the grounds that it was a "how-to" article which violated WP:NOT or that it was original research which violated WP:NOR. Other people said that it was not encyclopedic.

I have addressed these issues by expanding the article significantly and providing references to sources. Hopefully, this will convince those who voted for deletion to change their minds.

Just in case it doesn't, would you take a look at the Adaptation to global warming article and then vote to keep or delete the article?

If the vote is to delete the article then I will bring much of that text back into the Mitigation of global warming article which will make it longer and harder to read (which is why I created the new article in the first place).

Thanks.

Richard 05:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Scope of Debate

I skimmed this with the thought of improving it, but the entire thing is so riddled with nonsense that it is unsalvagable.

Italic text== Proposed change ==

The page, under the "Scope of the controversy" section, should be changed.

The controversy occurs almost entirely within the press and political arenas. In the scientific press and among climate researchers, there is little controversy about global warming.

This is itself a statement of the quality of the skeptics argument. It doesn't even deal with scope. Therefore, it should be changed to:

Among lay persons and the media, there is a great deal of controversy over anthropogenic global warming, as there is in the scientific debate. Our understanding of climate science is still in its infancy, and the matter is far from settled.

Nope, this is an unacceptable change: you are doing what you accuse us of: making a judgement; the difference is, yours is wrong. The existing statement is backed up, by the rest of the article and by global warming and scientific opinion on climate change William M. Connolley 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC).

The debate is not merely whether the earth is getting warmer over time, but most importantly, whether human beings are a significant cause of it.

Not really. There is very little debate about the T increase over the last century. The tropospheric stuff is dying down now that S+C admit their mistake. Whether people are a cause is indeed a big issue; within science, though, the question is just how big an influence people have William M. Connolley 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the earth's climate changes over time, there is no concrete yardstick to tell us how warm it should be today. Therefore we have to try to understand not only whether the earth's atmosphere is warming,

No, see above: thats already done William M. Connolley 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

but how much of this is attributable to humans, whether this is a significant amount, how much natural events contribute to this, and how the climate will be affected in the future. There is controvery on virtually all of these points among climate and other scientists.

Not really "controversy". Within the science, there is just about unanimity that people are warming the atmosphere William M. Connolley 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There may be "just about unanimity" that people are warming the atmosphere. You've left off whether the human influence is a significant amount, natural contributions and future predictions. These are all hotly debated, especially the future predictions, which could only be described as hypothetical. You are ignoring arguments that don't fit your view. And all of this is tangential anyway. My argument about this still stands: these are arguments about global warming, and have no place in a section entitled "Scope of controversy." Mrdarklight 16:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This addresses the scope of the debate without taking sides.

Kevin E. Trenberth writes:

In 1995 the IPCC assessment concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate". Since then the evidence has become much stronger ... Thus the headline in IPCC (2001) is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"... While some changes arising from global warming are benign or even beneficial, the economic effects of the weather extremes are substantial and clearly warrant attention in policy debates... Consequently, there is a strong case for slowing down the projected rates of climate change from human influences. [3]

Critics of GWT and/or the IPCC point out that the greater part of the rise in temperature had already occurred before the majority of the carbon dioxide had been released into the atmosphere; however, the instrumental temperature record shows that this isn't true.

This is all argument in favor of a theory of anthropogenic global warming, not a discussion of the scope of the debate, and should be deleted. These points are better argued elsewhere in the article. Putting them here gives them undue weight in the argument.

Errm, no, those are facts that you find inconvenient and would like hidden William M. Connolley 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no... these are arguments, not a discussion of scope. If I wanted them hidden I would try to hide them in the pertinent sections that deal with arguments. Please try to understand this: This section is not a section for arguing about global warming. It is a section dedicated to the scope of the debate. Mrdarklight 16:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Trenberth also provides evidence for the controversy that occurs when science meets the political arena:

The SPM was approved line by line by governments... The argument here is that the scientists determine what can said, [sic] but the governments determine how it can best be said. Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy. The IPCC process is dependent on the good will of the participants in producing a balanced assessment. However, in Shanghai, it appeared that there were attempts to blunt, and perhaps obfuscate, the messages in the report, most notably by Saudi Arabia. This led to very protracted debates over wording on even bland and what should be uncontroversial text... The most contentious paragraph in the IPCC (2001) SPM was the concluding one on attribution. After much debate the following was carefully crafted: "In the light of new evidence, and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." [4]

This deals more with the controversy, so I don't really oppose this part in this section. However, reference to IPCC-related debates should include the caveat that the IPCC is a political organization with a political goal, not necessarily a scientific one. Mrdarklight 00:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the IPCC. It is indeed a scientific body, not a political one. And it has a scientific goal, namely sumarizing and clarifying the state of knowledge climate change. See e.g. the evidence of Sir John Houghton before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources[20]: "Let me explain more about the work of the IPCC. It was formed in 1988 jointly by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme.[...]No assessment on any other scientific topic has been so thoroughly researched and reviewed. Because the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, the reports’ Summaries for Policymakers were agreed sentence by sentence by meetings in which governmental delegates from about 100 countries (including all the world’s major countries) work with around 40 leading scientists representing the scientific community. It is sometimes supposed that the presence of governments implies political interference with the process. That has not been the case. [...]The work of the IPCC is backed by the worldwide scientific community. A joint statement of support was issued in May 2001 by the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden and the UK. It stated ‘We recognize the IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving consensus.’ In 2001, a report of the United States National Academy of Sciences commissioned by the President George W Bush administration, supported the IPCC’s conclusions . A joint statement issued in June 2005 by the science academies of all the G8 countries together with the academies of Brazil, China and India also endorsed the work and conclusions of the IPCC ."'. The fact that the work has political implications does not make the work itself political. Gravity has political implications, as has electric light... --Stephan Schulz 02:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is rather difficult to explain the IPCC. While WGI is science, WGII is not. The IPCC is funded by political bodies, and while that may or may not have a bearing upon things scientifically, it is still a political organization, one that overlaps many societal and economic boundries. Add to that the fact that the summary parts of the reports by a WG is not usually subject to the intense review the non-summary parts are subjected to, it at least brings up one point; just claiming the IPCC (or the UN or the XYZ) is not biased doesn't make it so or not so. People are involved in these groups, and if you have more than 2 or 3 people, human dynamics intrude upon other aspects, especially on a subject such as this. The arguments here show us that, if we didn't understand it already as a matter of logic or common sense. To think the social or economic focus of member bodies doesn't affect the process in at least some way is not realistic. Just remember; because you don't understand it, or think about it a different way, doesn't mean it's true or not true. Sln3412 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not the political implications of the IPCC that are suspect. The UN is a wholely political institution. To say that something has no political bias or agenda, even though it is a product of a purely political institution, does not sound reasonable to me. For example:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a UN-sponsored organization led by government scientists, but also involving several hundred academic scientists and researchers from many nations. Thus far, the IPCC has published four major reports--1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996--reviewing the latest climate science. These reports, however, do not represent the complete spectrum of scientific views; for example, the 1990 report admits that there was a minority--of unspecified size--whose views "could not be accommodated." The number of scientists expressing skepticism on the global warming issue continues to grow, despite efforts to marginalize them. They are also becoming more vocal. More than 4,000 scientists endorsed the Heidelberg Appeal, first circulated at the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro. More recently, nearly 100 climate experts have signed on to the Leipzig Declaration.

So it obviously cannot be said that "The work of the IPCC is backed by the worldwide scientific community." Mrdarklight 07:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Its obvious to you, but not to me. Read Heidelberg Appeal: the Heidelberg Appeal itself makes no mention whatsoever of global warming, or for that matter of pesticides or antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It is simply a statement supporting rationality and science. William M. Connolley 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand this. The Heidelberg Appeal is an argument against irrational fear of (and attempts to throttle) science, technology and INDUSTRY. But I'm not going to be drawn down another rabbit hole of argument over global warming itself. As I said before, and you keep ignoring, these arguments are in favor of one side in the controversy, and do not belong in a section entitled "Scope of controversy." They are addressed elsewhere. Mrdarklight 16:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a fact that there is only one coherent position (roughly the IPCC position), and a number of "sceptics" with various and changing positions. The last years have seen a move of the very same sceptics from the "there is no warming" position (that by now is so untenable that even Singer vacates it) to the "it's natural" or "it's harmless" positions. The debate is defined by the IPCC position, which hence needs to be reasonably explained. --Stephan Schulz 18:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you knew the HA was irrelevant, why did you bring it up? Strike 1. Now onto the Leipzig_Declaration. Its isn't "nearly 100 climate experts" (except in SEPPS mind). There were 79 in 1995. Of these 79, 33 failed to respond when the SEPP asked them to sign the 1997 declaration; those identified as scientists and climate experts include at least ten weather presenters; etc. So the "nearly 100 climate experts" claim is nonsense. William M. Connolley 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to Vsmith/me/etc. There was too much in there that was unacceptable. How can you possibly add:

The controversy over anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is multi-layered; at its most basic level, it is an argument about whether the earth's climate has warmed over the past 150 years. There is little debate on this level.

There is no real controversy about the warming over the last 150y, as the thing above even says... the original text:

The controversy occurs almost entirely within the press and political arenas. In the scientific press and among climate researchers, there is little controversy about global warming.

says this far better than:

Since the earth's climate changes over time, scientists must try to understand not only whether the earth's atmosphere is warming, but how much of this is attributable to humans, how much natural events contribute to this, and how the climate will be affected in the future. There is controvery on virtually all of these points among climate and other scientists, especially about future climate modelling.

which strongly over-emphasises the degree of controversy within science, and fails even to distinguish science/media/politics debate.

No, your version advocates a viewpoint. To say that the controversy does not exist in the scientific arena is to denigrate your opponents - it is saying that there is no controversy, that your side won, that no more discussion should take place. If there is no controversy, then a page about "global warming controversy" is meaningless.

None of that is correct. As my version says, the controversy is largely within the media/politics. Not within science. William M. Connolley 21:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The plain fact is, you are advocating a specific view of global warming. This article is about the controversy - an attack on a paragraph that "overemphasizes the controversy" is proof of the fact that you are advocating a viewpoint. You may not like the fact that very respectable climate scientists disagree with you about these issues

Errrm well, no, thats not at all clear. On the attribution issue, measuring disagreement by papers in peer-reviewed journals (not just by spouting off to the media - this is *science* we're talking about) I'm not aware of any that disagree. Are you? If you are, do feel free to mention them here. And if you're tempted to say "Lindzen", then the reply is "in which paper?" and if you say Singer, the reply is "I thought you said respectable climate scientists" William M. Connolley 21:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

, but they do disagree with you, and any attempt to dismiss their disagreement by saying "there is no controversy" is intellectually dishonest and, incidentally, violates W:NPOV.Mrdarklight 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? This should describe the global warming controversy in a WP:NPOV manner. That includes stating the fact (carefully referenced!) that there is no serious scientific debate about the existance and anthropogenic nature of the current climate change. It does not mean treating all sides as if they have equal weight, and it does not mean pretending there is a scientific debate when there is none.--Stephan Schulz 21:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to seriously doubt your honesty on this issue. There is clearly debate about anthropogenic global warming, and very serious doubts about man's influence on climate. Visit NOAA's Global Warming FAQ site, if somehow you have missed this debate. Although if you have, I cannot see how you feel qualified to speak on the subject on this page. Mrdarklight 21:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is another Wikipedia policy. The NOAA FAQ you point to is a fairly accurate (if short and simplified) summary of the IPCC position. Rather than questioning the scientific consensus, it reiterates it! How is this a sign of a scientific debate about the existance and anthropogenic nature of the current climate change?--Stephan Schulz 21:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That was an unjustified comment. From your page: Is the climate warming? Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century. So that blows all the nonsense you've been pushing earlier about doubt about the warming. As to attribution, the page rather wimps out on that. It does say But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases. Quite how you get very serious doubts about man's influence on climate from that page I just don't know. The page says its based on IPCC 2001. If I were you, I'd go straight to IPCC instead of using this re-hash William M. Connolley 21:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't pushed any "nonsense". My change said that there is little debate about the fact that the earth has warmed, but rather the debate was whether and/or how much man has influenced this, which is why I have been careful to use the term "anthropogenic global warming".

Is your memory really so short? You wrote: he controversy over anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is multi-layered; at its most basic level, it is an argument about whether the earth's climate has warmed over the past 150 years. William M. Connolley 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A few quotes from the NOAA article:

"Large-scale measurements of sea-ice have only been possible since the satellite era, but through looking at a number of different satellite estimates, it has been determined that Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 1996 at a rate of -2.8 +/- 0.3%/decade. Although this seems to correspond to a general increase in temperature over the same period, there are lots of quasi-cyclic atmospheric dynamics (for example the Arctic Oscillation) which may also influence the extent and thickness of sea-ice in the Arctic."

"On a global scale there is little evidence of sustained trends in climate variability or extremes. This perhaps reflects inadequate data and a dearth of analyses."

"Global temperature extremes have been found to exhibit no significant trend in interannual variability, but several studies suggest a significant decrease in intra-annual variability. There has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely-separated areas in recent decades. Widespread significant changes in extreme high temperature events have not been observed."

"Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary."

"Due to the enormous complexity of the atmosphere, the most useful tools for gauging future changes are 'climate models'. These are computer-based mathematical models which simulate, in three dimensions, the climate's behavior, its components and their interactions. Climate models are constantly improving based on both our understanding and the increase in computer power, though by definition, a computer model is a simplification and simulation of reality, meaning that it is an approximation of the climate system. The first step in any modeled projection of climate change is to first simulate the present climate and compare it to observations. If the model is considered to do a good job at representing modern climate, then certain parameters can be changed, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases, which helps us understand how the climate would change in response. Projections of future climate change therefore depend on how well the computer climate model simulates the climate and on our understanding of how forcing functions will change in the future.

The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates."

Clearly, this page does not reiterate any concensus on any of these issues.

Where, in fact, did you read on this page that significant anthropogenic global warming is a settled issue?

Why have you dumped in a pile of irrelevant quotes? You asserted debate about anthropogenic global warming, and very serious doubts about man's influence on climate based on that NOAA page. To the contrary, all of your quotes above say *nothing* about attribution at all. But since the page purports to be based on IPCC 2001, why not just use IPCC instead? Everyone else does. Then you can say There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. [21] William M. Connolley 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"But since the page purports to be based on IPCC 2001, why not just use IPCC instead?"

Because I'm not arguing about global warming. I'm arguing that there is a controversy about anthropogenic global warming, and that there is indeed a controversy, and that this is not a settled issue. Mrdarklight 22:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Errm, well that might explain why you found nothing useful to your cause in a page based on IPCC, then. Perhaps you need to look somewhere else, and maybe understand what attribution is? William M. Connolley 22:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a "cause", and I'm not looking for evidence in a global warming debate. I don't see why you can't understand that I am trying to remove biased information from this piece, in a place where it doesn't belong. Mrdarklight 22:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing spelling from -ise to -ize isn't on.

Split controversy over science and policy?

I think this article needs to have a clearer division between the controversy over the science and over the responses. This would also help show how weak it is on the responses part (which I think is a much more open ended and difficult issue). I have tried to do this in my sandbox. Apart from adding a little linking text I have not changed the content. If people like this I will copy it here.--NHSavage 09:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article could clarify the politics/science split. Its hard to compare your sandbox thing... perhaps you could copy it into the article so we can diff it, and keep it if liked? William M. Connolley 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I don't like to make edits this significant without asking permission usually.--NHSavage 10:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

New Documentary this evening on BBC 1

see here. Count Iblis 14:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"assertions" vs "reasons"

I've changed the lead-in to the "reasons given by opponents" section from There are many reasons given for opposition to the global warming theory to Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include: It seemed to me that explicitly using the word "assertions" in the "supporters" section, while not doing so in the opponents section is unbalanced. "Assertions" are pretty clearly statements that may or may not be fact, while the softer "reasons given" wording implies a series of true reasons. I tried to write the sentence to be consistent with the fact that there are many, possibly contradictory, assertions against the global warming theory, without explicitly saying it as it used to a year ago or so. PenguiN42 22:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What about refutations?

A wider criticism of this article: It lists the claims made by each side of the debate, but is very light on refutations of those claims made by the other side -- which is just as an important, if not more, part of the rational discourse. The format of the article also makes it difficult to insert such refutations: do you put the refutation right next to the claim? But that could be seen as NPOV (you're introducing a claim and then immediately shooting it down) and runs the risk of an endless string of refutations and counter-refutations in each section. Do you instead put the refutation in the "claims" section for the other side of the debate? But that could bloat out each "claim" list with vague refutations and make it difficult to navigate. Do you just remove obviously incorrect claims from the article? Hah, as if the wikipedians could agree on what's "obviously incorrect"!

Nevertheless, I really think that if a claim has been strongly refuted, that should be mentioned. For example, the article references satellite data being cooler than surface data. But it's been widely reported [22] that the satellite data was erroneous. Even so, this "satellite data" claim continues to live and be used in debates, even with such strong evidence against it. Allowing this claim to stand without the counterclaim being mentioned seems quite unfair!

As another example: The "net greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1%" is widely refuted as being based on a faulty understanding of atmospheric models at best and downright disingenuous at worst, and in either case incorrect [23]. But again, this point stands with no contraindicating statement on the page, except for the un-sourced and considerably weaker "and that this is human-caused."

I think that there has to be room in a "controversy rundown" article such as this to allow each side to defend against at least the weaker claims made by the other. If not, the article becomes biased in favor of whichever side does more "attacking," and becomes a free-for-all of claims and poorly-supported statements. Such an article is useless to readers at best and misleading at worst. PenguiN42 22:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dicksonlaprade here. I agree entirely. Virtually every "reason given by opponents" is either factually wrong, logically fallacious, lacking in evidence/support, or all three. For example: 1) "Using 'consensus' as evidence is an appeal to majority argument rather than scientific discussion." Nonsense. How else could a scientific discussion occur? The journal Science published a study of over 900 essays from peer-reviewed science journals between 1993 and 2003, and not one of those articles took issue with GW being human-caused. This is not an "appeal to majority" argument--it is how science works! 2) "There is no significant global warming relative to the expected natural trends." This reason must either be made more specific (e.g., numerical information from a reliable source) or removed entirely. 3) "Some global warming studies have errors or have not been reproduced." Really? Which ones? How egregious were these errors? How many of these over 900 studies have had such problems? What is the source for this assertion?

Currently, there are eleven bullet points under "Reasons given by opponents." I have above taken issue with #s 2, 5, and 9. On or about August 1, I intend to delete or revise these bullet points, as well as #s 3, 4, 8. This is because (1) they are problematic at best and, worse, (2) they do not include links to reliable sources. If anyone would like to rescue one or more of this unsupported and vague points, please speak now.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicksonlaprade (talk • contribs) 17:33, 25 July 2006

Dicksonlaprade, there are two "Reasons given by..." sections in the article - the one for supporters has 10 assertions with 2 external sources while the one for opponents has 11 assertions with 1 external source. These sections are not about which assertions are correct, but that the assertions have been/are being made. If you're looking for adding sources where these assertions are made, that's fine (though some here will think that makes it too cluttered), but if you delete them because you disagree with them, it will be reverted. --Spiffy sperry 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dicksonlaprade replies: You make a valid point. However, points 3, 4, and 5 have no external or internal links of any kind, and neither do 8 or 9.

By contrast, the ten "reasons given by supporters" (ignoring, for the moment, items on the second bulleted list under this heading) include internal links such as "historical temperature record," "greenhouse gases," "urban heat island," and "IPCC." Further, these internal links provide the information necessary to serve as evidence for the argument made by that list item. For example, point 3 is "we know carbon dioxide captures IR radiation," etc. The carbon dioxide internal link, under the heading "Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere," explains this IR capture. One little internal link within the entry itself provides the support needed to show, at least, that this point deserves consideration.

If we delete all and only those entries from the 2 bulleted lists mentioned above which lack both salient internal links and external links, we can agree (I hope) to delete the following: under "supporters" reasons, point 8. Under "opponents" reasons, points 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9. I have no problem with this compromise--deleting point 8 under the first list as well as sparing point 2 under the second. I would be happy to do this myself about August 1. My agreement or disagreement with any of these items is immaterial. If someone wishes for their rescue, bring in the links to solid evidence! In order for an item to have any life expectancy on these lists, it seems reasonable that the lister must provide either (1) a link to one example of this argument which includes at least some sort of evidence in support of it, or (2) a link to evidence which directly supports the point being made. Otherwise, any blogger can toss off an evidence-free paragraph, add an external link to it to one list, and give the incorrect impression that it has the same weight among GW experts as those items on the other list.

I welcome further discussion/objections relating to these matters.

What controversy?

Why on Earth are there no quotation marks around controversy in the title of this article? Point me at one peer-reviewed scientific paper that disputes its existence.

Here´s a nice article making the point stated above . Sean Heron 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I too tend to be a bit uneasy about it, but Global warming is quite large and there certainly is a almost entirely political controversy surrounding it. --TeaDrinker 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Several scientists dispute the theory that the Modern Warming is anthropogenic. Lindzen, Baliunas, etc. We shouldn't assume that the consensus in the media represents any kind of "scientific consensus" which justifies ignoring Wikipedia:NPOV.

It might be good to list the names of scientists (and titles of their peer-reviewed scientific papers) who endorse the anthropegenic global warming theory, along with scientists (and their papers) who question it (or reject it outright).

Cut from intro:

This article is about that controversy. The description and scientific explanation of global warming is spread over several articles:

• The basic scientific description is in greenhouse effect and global warming.
• Past climate behavior is in historical temperature record, temperature record of the past 1000 years, and satellite temperature record.
• Causes of recent climate trends are in attribution of recent climate change.

I dispute the phrase scientific explanation of global warming, as the article linked to assumes as a premise that global warming is (1) caused significantly by people and (2) the additional warming caused by people is likely to have detrimental effects. Neither point of view is a "fact" but is still being discussed by scientists.

The other links can go back, but not in a way that endorses the pro-GW view. --Uncle Ed 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in, of course. The basic description *is* in GW, etc, and those links are useful. If you don't like the GW article, you need to correct it. Yes yes I know - your persistent attempts to "correct" it have been rebuffed. Well don't spread the war here William M. Connolley 15:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In this and previous discussions, I see an incorrect idea being presented, both implicitly and explicitly, again and again. It is that there exists a large body of articles by respected climate scientists which are published in peer-reviewed science journals arguing on the basis of empirical observation and experiment that global warming is not really caused by human industrial activity.

There is no such body of writing. In a 2004 article in Science, Naomi Oreskes took a sample of over 900 journal articles on global warming and found not a single one which took issue with anthropogenic GW--a strong scientific consensus indeed. Though there are undoubtedly at least a few such articles, they are an astonishingly rare exception to the rule--a fact which needs to be brought out more in this article. In order for a list of published articles on each side to maintain NPOV, there would have to be a representative sampling from each side: thus, among supporters, there would be, say, citations for 2000 such articles, and among opponents, at most, three. Clearly, this would not be practical. Dicksonlaprade 20:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To me, that is just one of the problems with that "essay". The viewpoint hinges on one thing; a paragraph from the technnical summary of WGII of the IPCC TAR. It's not even quoted in its entirety in the essay, and the reference isn't to what's quoted, it's to the entire report. And since the quote is from a summary, and went through a different process, that point is important to know. That essay was (to me) written for those that already agreed with it, or to be used as a talking point, or for people glancing at this subject, as a piece of twiff to distract attention and present an impression of total unification, for political and policy purposes. In my opinion. I'm not saying there is or isn't a consensus, I'm just saying that essay is a poor example of "proof". NPOV is giving the facts and letting others come to a conclusion from a factual, balanced description of "both" sides of an issue as fairly as possible. In my opinion.

Technical Summary: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability

Disclaimer at start of Technical Summary

This summary was accepted but not approved in detail at the Sixth Session of IPCC Working Group II (Geneva, Switzerland • 13-16 February 2001). “Acceptance” of IPCC reports at a session of the Working Group or Panel signifies that the material has not been subject to line-by-line discussion and agreement, but nevertheless presents a comprehensive, objective, and balanced view of the subject matter.

First paragraph of section 1.2

1.2. What is Potentially at Stake?

Human activities—primarily burning of fossil fuels and changes in land cover—are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents or properties of the surface that absorb or scatter radiant energy. The WGI contribution to the TAR—Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis—found, “In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” Future changes in climate are expected to include additional warming, changes in precipitation patterns and amounts, sea-level rise, and changes in the frequency and intensity of some extreme events.

--Oreskes reports it as: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

The reference:4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).

Sln3412 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Opponents of the Global Warming Theory--credibility

The "supporters of the global warming theory" head includes a list of half a dozen or so scientific organizations, while the "opponents of global warming theory" head lists seventeen individuals.

Three changes are necessary in order to put these headings in their proper context. First, the "supporters" head needs to include a note that the entire scientific community--not just these half-dozen or so organizations--accepts "the global warming theory." This note already appears twice in the body of the article, but it needs to be included here as well--particularly after the 2004 article in the journal Science showing near-complete unanimity among established climate scientists about the causes of global warming.

Um, if "the entire scientific community" accepted the theory, then why is there such huge debate on it?

There isn't a debate within the scientific community. The core issue is settled. The "debate" is nealry exclusively in the US public sphere.--Stephan Schulz 23:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? Let's see. If you wade through the IPCC summaries, anthropogenic effect starts as "discernible" which then becomes "significant" which finally becomes "the major factor in climate change". That depends on who wrote what, so I guess there's some debate, since it is the Intergovernmental Panel and hence international. Look at all the caveats and opposite trend data the IPCC mentions. Ditto with the British Antarctica Survey: The influence of the human race on climate is still a matter for study and speculation, but interestingly the page stating that humans were definitely responsible seems to have disappeared since the appearance of the Climate Change Position Statement on 18th July... Any scan of the BBC News web site will show lots of debate about the issues, and new work, such as global dimming, arctic sea level dropping, ice core analysis, the sun's output increasing, glacier response time lag, sulphate aerosols, the idea that pollution controls already enacted may be speeding warming, Mars is getting warmer too etc etc are showing things are more complex. More and more data is turning up that is inconsistent with the anthropogenic hypothesis and models, or at least could equally explain it.

Even the IPCC says: Evidence is increasing, therefore, that a rapid reorganisation of atmospheric and ocean circulation (time-scales of several decades or more) can occur during inter-glacial periods without human interference. Since we now live in a climate where free speech and thought is getting limited, and if you don't agree with me, you must be my enemy, it's hardly surprising people are reticent to go against the flow or kill their cash cow. Science is still science, ie it follows the scientific method and not blind faith - or it should do or else it's not science. And any scientist can tell how good the confidence is in the data and the stats regardless of their subject, and it ain't high in climate science. The error bars are so huge, most of the data is proxy or heavily statistically manipulated to try and take account of all sorts of variations like sea temps using canvas and wooden buckets amongst the more esoteric corrections, that it is difficult to have faith in the data, whatever new analysis comes along.

There is controversy because the issues are: has warming occurred; is it unusual; could it be natural variability; is it caused by man; even if it is anthropogenic, will the planet compensate, and can we really do anything about it anyway - and there are varying views on all of those! And 170 years of direct observation over a small part of the globe is not enough to answer those questions reliably. But it probably doesn't matter: maybe the effects are due to Dark Matter or Dark Energy, which the physicists have invented in order to not have to rework their theories whilst getting a shed load of money trying to find evidence of them... ;)

As an aside, AFAIK the data for recent historic CO2 levels comes from the deep ice cores, but I'm thinking the lack of pressure of 2 or 3 km of ice would release bubbles of gas, which could screw up the analysis. I've searched for info on this to no avail - maybe someone can enlighten me. --Tony Spencer 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your problem. There is no "even the IPCC says". The IPCC report you cite is five years old. In science, this is ages. You miss the huge body of scientific publications since then. There is no controversy. If there were, you wouldn't have to cite the IPCC report, you could cite 2005 publications which raise doubts. You won't. What you're doing is suggesting science doesn't progress --OliverH 07:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the Climate Change Position Statement from the British Antarctica Survey, released on 19th July 2006 and including work done for the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report for the IPCC. They admit that from simulations using 20 climate models: "This lack of a clear and consistent model response to changed imposed forcing suggests that much of the observed change in temperatures may be due to natural variability rather than changes in natural or anthropogenic forcing." They have also taken off all the references to warming being anthropogenic on the climate change section. They do try hard to blame man somehow though, and assign the changes in the westerlies to ozone changes, which affects the peninsular where temps are increasing, but this is after saying it is due to lowering air pressure since the 60s as part of the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM). AFAIK I've not heard lowering air pressure raised as anthropogenic. Tony Spencer 09:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that the above quotes from the BAS refer specifically to the changes observed on Antartica. The claim is not that it is unclear if human influence significantly changes climate. The claim is that the specific climate changes observed in Antartica cannot be clearly linked to human influence. This is consistent with the scientific concensus that though we can identify world-wide trends in climate change as being caused by human behaviour; our climate models are not yet exact enough to make specific area-based predictions, such as predictions about the weather on Antartica in recent years. Frostlion 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a sweeping statement. Secondly, many of the organisations just parrot the IPCC, whose Third Report is littered with inconsistencies, concusions varying depending on who has written it. --Tony Spencer 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

False. They cite current scientific publications. --OliverH 07:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the link given to the AMS statement is a 2003 rehashing of the 2001 IPCC TAR. Tony Spencer 09:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And see my 7/25 note under "What Controversy." Though there are still questions about what policy works best for dealing with GW, the scientific consensus that GW is anthropogenic is very powerful since 1993, and is based on a large variety of different types of evidence. Finding an article by a climate scientist in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which denies that global warming is human caused is almost as difficult as finding an essay in a science journal arguing that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS. Dicksonlaprade 12:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying it is very difficult given the witchhunt attitude against non-GW supporters. But there are lots of recent studies that are bringing up data which is not consistent with the anthropogenic ideas of GW eg sun's output increasing, the fact that Mars is warming, arctic sea levels have fallen by 20cm, and the BAS's finding that none of 20 models were consistent with observed temps in Antarctica. Since as far as I can determine, all of the models assume anthropogenic GW, and don't fit the data, has anyone tried running the models without putting the anthropogenic forcings in to see if the models fit the data any better? Tony Spencer 09:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick search in our university's library, and didn't find any models without anthropogenic forcing that gave better fits. But if you would be interested in doing a more extensive search and you can find any, I would be very interested in seeing them; because it would mean a major scientific argument against anthropogenic GW, which should certainly be mentioned on this page. Frostlion 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The models don't "assume anthropogenic GW." They are run using a variety of assumptions regarding future greenhouse gas concentrations -- fast growth, slow growth with eventual stabilization, and so on. The warming is a product of the models' physical equations (mostly computation of radiative transfer), not an assumption. Raymond Arritt 20:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Second, the "opponents" should be grouped by which petroleum-funded, conservative think tank they work for. After all, in the absence of obvious corporate influence among "supporters," such energy industry backing causes serious questions of credibility and ethics. Thus (all the following data from SourceWatch.org), the George C. Marshall Institute would claim Patrick J. Michaels and Frederick Seitz; the Cato Institute would claim Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr.; and the Competitive Enterprise Institute would claim Robert C. Balling Jr., S. Frederick Singer, and Ross McKittrick. This leaves only Seitz, Idso, Lindzen, Gray, and Spencer (who, according to his Wikipedia entry, supports intelligent design over the theory of evolution) as opposing the scientific consensus of, among other groups, the IPCC, the NAS, the AMS, and the AGU. If anyone knows of evidence that GW "supporters" are funded by alternative fuels companies or solar power companies, this should be included as well, though I know of no such evidence.

Done 8/3 129.15.127.254 18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Sorry. Forgot to log in. I am Dicksonlaprade 18:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In much the same way, government support and the heavy grants that are given to supporters of the theory are similarily tainted. For some reason, the article doesn't apply the same standard in this area. There is a double standard. Likwidshoe 17:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Third, the non-scientist "opponents" list needs to be pruned. Coulter and Crichton obviously belong on the list, but who is--who cares about--Petr Beckmann, Lester Hogan, John Lawrence Daly, or, least of all, David Bellamy, "who has since decided to draw back from the debate on global warming"? The inclusion of such names clutters the list--what about all the non-scientists who support the GW theory?--and makes the scientific consensus appear less powerful than it actually is.

Done 8/3. Left Bellamy in, per discussion below. 129.15.127.254 18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to log in. I am Dicksonlaprade 18:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The non-scientist "opponents" list certainly needs to be changed, as it includes at least 3 scientists: Beckmann (physics), Mullis (biochemistry) and Bellamy (botany). If you read Bellamy's page, you will find out he's a Professor of Botany as well as an environmentalist, and very famous in the UK for his educational and TV work. He is perhaps single handedly responsible for much of the Green attitude in the UK as Greenpeace were regarded by many as off topic political loonies at the time. As an environmentalist, his views are certainly important, but as you can see, by opposing anthropogenic GW, he has lost some of his posts and most of his TV work - probably the reason he has decided to draw back from the debate. In fact the attitude to him illustrates the sometimes rabid nature of responses to those who don't toe the anthropogenic GW line. The article is a bit ambiguous, describing him as an "English professor, botanist", which is true: he is a Professor of Botany from England i.e. English, but not a literature/language professor... As such, he is certainly not paid by any lobby. --Tony Spencer 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Bellamy withdraw from the debate because he had noticed that he fell for some invented data pushed apparently by a LaRouche magazine and thus made a fool of himself [24].--Stephan Schulz 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit unclear from the New Scientist article (not always itself very scientific), but whilst he certainly retracted the glacier stuff, didn't necessarily retract "the science of man-made climate change was "poppycock"." --Tony Spencer 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It hardly matters. The glacier data Bellamy used, if true, would have put a real crimp in the anthropogenic global warming argument. As it turns out, he got the data from Robert W. Felix--a former architect who believes that there's an ice age on the way. Felix got his data, ultimately, from Fred Singer--who was unable to provide an original source for it. Here is the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1480279,00.html Dicksonlaprade 12:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need to be changed, since while these people are scientists, it is irrelevant in this context: Their expertise is in totally unrelated fields. A biochemist has no authority whatsoever on climate issues. Otherwise, you'd have to just as well accept mine. --OliverH 05:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not, they may not be qualified, but thay can still see dodgy statistics. Still, apparantly the Jet Propulsion Lab is an acceptable authority on climate change... Tony Spencer 10:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I intend to make these changes on or about August 3 if there are no objections.

If government-supported organizations are the chief pro-GW supporters, and individual scientists ore the chief opponents, what does this tell us? Maybe government money is just as capable of swaying research results as "industry money".

We need to see sourced POVs on both sides of the money issue. Who says that industry money sways researchers? And who says that government money cannot sway researchers? And who simply says that money (regardless of who dangles it in front of you) can tempt anybody?

Check out A load of hot air? A BBC article, it contains: "I agree the 11C figure was unreasonably hyped. It's a difficult line for all scientists to tread, as we need something 'exciting' to have any chance of publishing... to justify our funding," one scientist wrote us." --Tony Spencer 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A more balance quote from that article is All of the climate scientists we spoke to fervently believe global warming is being caused by human activity. Many agree there's also a major problem with alarmism. Those evil, UN-sponsored scientists, trying to present unbiased results!--Stephan Schulz 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My point there was more about the sway people can have. In this case, misleading data was allowed to stand in the press, because it probably strengthened the POV of the proponent. As your quote says, many of the anthropogenic GW supporters feel alarmism, and differ on its effects, which is part of the debate, or controversy. But since you mention the UN, you should check out UNFCCC's Current Evidence of Climate Change and contrast with what the IPCC says appears not to have changed. Basically IPCC says no trend in extreme weather, glacier behaviour lags behind temp data, winter ice is the same, snow is Northern Hemisphere only, which knocks a lot of their arguments on the head. UNFCCC of course is committed to anthropogenic GW causing all and reduction of carbon emissions, and widely followed eg by the UKs proposed Carbon Points system. This is the sort of dangerous behaviour that if we rush into things without fully understanding, we could end up making things worse. We need a lot more research.

Ah, the "We need a lot more research" card. How much more research do we need, exactly? Two or three more Intergovernmental Panels involving hundreds of scientists over dozens of countries? Another 1800 or so peer-reviewed journal articles? There comes a time when scientific consensus is strong enough that the question is no longer "is there a danger" but "what precisely ought to be done about the danger?" A time in which "nothing" is no longer an answer that is even worth joking about. As for the BBC article which you cite--what is your point about it? It does nothing to support your assertion that "we could end up making things worse."

It is unclear what argument you are trying to make with the two websites which you cite--the "Climate Change 2001" page and the UNFCCC page. Both sites mention that droughts and floods in different areas become more pronounced with global warming. The "Climate Change 2001" site does say that there were "no significant trends evident over the 20th century" in the frequency or intensity of "tropical and extra-tropical" storms; however, this site is from 2001--before last year's bevy of tropical storms forced us to start using Greek letters to name them because they were so numerous.Dicksonlaprade 12:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You missed the point and saw the wrong "card". Adopting something such as the UK's proposed Carbon Points scheme is the potentially dangerous behavior that the poster before you was referring to. History doesn't favor well on economic redistribution (essentially what a carbon trading scheme is). You also mention the strong tropical storms of 2005 and make the point that "There comes a time when scientific consensus is strong enough". Remember the scientific consensus of a strong tropical storm season for 2006? And yet it didn't happen. It looks like your point there is null and void. And that's no joke. Likwidshoe 18:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Take again the British Antarctica Survey's Climate Change Position Statement , July 2006, which includes work for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report for 2007. They are trying so hard to tie up observations with anthropogenic activity, but can't. Their 20 climate models don't show temp increase as anthropogenic, but they want to use the same models to predict a temp increase in the future. They state low pressures since the 1960s have had a profound effect on the westerlies, but then have "experiments" that show it's man made (experiments no doubt carried out with the aforementioned models). --Tony Spencer 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely the liberal POV that individual scientists who oppose GW theory are swayed by "industry money". Should that be the basis of the article, or should the opposite POV be included too? (Hint: what does NPOV say about opposing points of view?) --Uncle Ed 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dicksonlaprade replies: You raise excellent points. I would, of course, have to put in studies which show that industry money does, in fact, sway the results of scientific research. This, I believe, will be rather easy to do. (For starters, there are the myriad newspaper stories cited in Chris Mooney's book The Republican War on Science. I believe I can find a few scholarly sources, as well.)

Later note: in drafting my edits on the "opponents" section, I realized that there is no need to show that money can impact the science. All that matters is that (1)many observers point to a conflict of interest which is based on funding from the fossil fuel industry, and (2) there is evidence supporting such a conflict. In other words, I do not use this entry to argue that global warming contrarians REALLY ARE in the pockets of oil companies (this would be original research, which is a no-no): all that matters is that I show that many observers ARGUE THAT THERE IS such a conflict. Dicksonlaprade 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your point about government money is interesting, but there are two problems. First, why on earth would U.S. government money cause scientists to support global warming science, when the Bush administration has made no bones about its opposition to the Kyoto protocol and its ties to the energy industry? Second, not all of the organizations listed under "supporters" are funded by the U.S. government exclusively or even primarily (e.g., the IPCC, the "national academies of science" for Brazil, China, and India, and, according to their 2005 annual report, the Union of Concerned Scientists). To assume that government money from any governement whatsoever would tip the scales in favor of the scientific consensus seems rather ad hoc and unlikely.

As long as I can show that corporate money distorts science and that most GW opponents are beneficiaries of corporate money from the oil industry, at least one possible motivation of GW denialists is clear. What motivation is there for a scientist to support GW consensus when funding comes from the U.S. (or any other) government? This is not, by the way, a rhetorical question; if you've got stuff on this, maybe we can update both the "supporters" and the "opponents" headings in tandem in light of our disparate viewpoints on this issue. My point is simply that, given the research I've been doing, I notice very few "opponents" whose paychecks aren't being signed by petroleum companies and their beneficiaries, and I notice very few "supporters" whose checks are being signed by, for example, Greenpeace, the Alternate Fuel Vehicle Group, or the Sierra Club.

Ed's comments miss a few very critical points: A)There isn't just one government and its organizations, but scores of nations and their universities, many of which have funding schemes which prevent any direct connection between government and funding of the individual scientist. In fact, in Germany, this is constitutionally guaranteed. B)It can hardly be a solely liberal point of view if even industry, including oil companies, share it. It is only a handful of US fossil fuel companies which don't. C)Even if government money could sway scientists, this would be evidence of nothing. Because the opinion of the individual scientist is not important -what's important is what he gets published. And the editors of the major scientific journals are employees of private entities and have last call on whether to publish a submission or not. The few dissenters usually are distinguished by not publishing articles which really demonstrate their point -not because of some conspiracy, but because of their data not adding up. --OliverH 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Most respected journals have scientific people as editors and journalists, but their decision to publish is usually based on the peer review opinions, and in the ever increasing niches that make up science, there may be very few people available, so the independent viewpoint can evaporate. Plus for many university people, their job is dependant on citations, so there is pressure to get published. Look at The pressure to hoax. --Tony Spencer 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you completely miss the process. No, the decision is informed by the reviews, but it is entirely their own. Especially in controversial topics, journals like to give the author leeway, because it can mean they were the first to publish sensational data. So the opposite of your statement is actually true. Your claim about the publication process are easily refuted: When Stanley Prusiner started to publish about prions, there was literally no one who thought he was right. But the data was sound. There are so many journals, some with very low standards, that it's not an issue of IF you get your stuff published, but mainly one of WHERE. You might not get it in "Nature", but there's plenty of other journals. If there are no journals who will publish something, then because it is plain to see for everyone that it is wrong. Your last sentence finally has no connection whatsoever to the point at hand because it talks about the side of scientists, not the side of publications (and is a piece of very bad journalism citing the Piltdown, which is an incident so old it has no connection with modern scientific process and was in fact revealed as fraud by it). Don't you realize you're postulating ever larger conspiracies? When does it become unrealistic for you? --OliverH 07:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the link, but in niche areas there are not all that many reviewers usually available, sometimes just one or two other than the author. In such cases, these guys will know who the author is, and like breeds like. What we don't have is data on which were rejected because they didn't follow the view. But I know this anyway because I have some university buddies who worked for journals. True, the decision is the editor's in the end, but it does depend on what the reviewer concludes as to importance, and also on how many submissions they have at any one time. And if you don't think back scratching doesn't go on in science like it does in business and politics, you're not in the real world. Since we don't have hard data on a lot of climate change, or very small studies, not statistically valid, there is still a lot of faith. You can see that in the public reponse to the recent heatwave in Europe. Yes, they were record temperatures, as far as our 170 years of measurements go, but only by 0.5°. But the public is now convinced of anthropogenic global warming rather than see it as variation. If they're right, we'll be cooked in a couple of years rather than a century. Who is going to go up against that?

Well actually my last sentence does have relevance (Piltdown was a bad example, but that's reporting today for you - unscientific and uneducated, part of the problem!) - The stem cell guy was published, as were Pons and Fleischmann for cold fusion a few years back, because yes, the data did look good. There are countless other examples of either fraudulent data, or nobody else being able to replicate the experiments. That is part of science, and the ideas did look good and passed peer review. My point here is that an awful lot of people seem to be saying no comment is valid unless it's been peer reviewed, but peer review itself is far from infallible. Not that the data has to be fraudulent: the idea may just be wrong. There are endless examples to list, but that's how science works.

This page is about controversy. The reason there is controversy here is because there is debate about the accuracy of the original temp data, debate about accuracy of the models, hardly any experimentation, reliance on sometimes just a few samples, very heavy statistical analysis, correction factors all over the place (sats versus ground, wooden buckets versus canvas ones etc), disagreement over whether the hockey stick graph is accurate, varying opinions on the amounts due to man, and an almost complete ignoring of any data that doesn't fit the anthropogenic GW view, and there are an awful lot of "currently unexplained" results. None of the models can yet fully account for all the data, and are therefore worthless for predictions. Yet on the basis of all this, or lack of it, we are supposed to go marching ahead assuming most of it is down to man and GHGs, and spend a great deal of money doing so. Great science - not. Tony Spencer 10:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If a climate scientist came up with solid data demonstrating the absolute falsehood of some major part of anthropogenic GW theory, it would be a coup, and that person would be a God among scientists. A Nobel prize might be involved. At the very least, that person would be able to sell a load of books (no matter how well or poorly written they were) for the rest of his or her life. Everybody--scientists and academics included--loves a David and Goliath story. Particularly if, by publishing David, you bring your journal to the forefront of public attention. That this has not happened suggests that GW is less like Goliath and more like the germ theory of disease, the heliocentric solar system, and the theory of evolution. Dicksonlaprade 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

...there is an IPU in my garden, and if a scientist came up with solid data demonstrating the absolute falsehood of some major part of IPU theory, it would be a coup, and that person would be a God among scientists. A Nobel prize might be involved. --ghw 11:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. Reductio ad absurdum is a standard way to falsify a concept, and this is given from the get-go for IPUs. --OliverH 14:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Another point: several of these skeptics have had fact problems (see above discussion on Bellamy). I intend to do further research on this and edit the section accordingly on or about August 11. 129.15.127.254 18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to log in. I am Dicksonlaprade 18:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Have added info on factual problems of anthropogenic GW skeptics. 129.15.127.254 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Gods = published authors. Quite a few books have been written by GW skeptics. Wikipedia just hasn't caught up with these yet.

I wish you guys would stop yapping about 'credibility' and stick to the consensus view that 'verifiability' is good enough for Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Books, yes. Peer-reviewed articles in science journals, no. Outside of academia, very few book publishers use any sort of rigorous peer review process. For example, it was the fossil-fuel-funded Cato Institute which published Patrick J. Michaels's book "Meltdown," while the Ronald Bailey-edited "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths" was put out by the Crown Publishing Group--the same people who brought us both Larry the Cable Guy's "Git-R-Done" and Ann Coulter's "Godless." When the publisher is a journal like "Science," "Nature," or "Cell," however, the number of publications by Michaels and co. seems to drop off a good deal. Dicksonlaprade 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In your cited link Wikipedia:verifiability we see: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." If there is a substantive difference between 'credible' sources (the call for which you disparage as 'yapping') and 'reliable and reputable' sources (in the link you recommend) it would be helpful for you to explain this difference. Raymond Arritt 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the article is lopsided. The Supporters section lists organizations, not people. (Yes, yes, I understand there's too many people to list and they are the groups that reflect the mainstream thought process. Just like the politicians representing everyone matches their thoughts and says what they would say.) But no matter what anyone's opinion is, that the group says certain things that have gotten to the top does not equal the members supporting the specific thoughts or wording. It's feelings, not cause/effect. In fact, from my experience in organizations, the bulk probably doesn't feel the same way. They just haven't banded together, probably because their emotional and/or professional interest isn't great enough (or is too great) to want to rock the boat. They're just not motivated to force any of the issue. In my opinion. I know from my days in customer service that maybe 1 out of every 20 disgruntled customers will say anything. That leads to the Opponents section. This is the small group that feels strongly enough to express something about it. Okay, so. What is that "guilt by association" paragragraph doing there in the section? I don't see anything in the other section listing all the funding and inter-relationships between the people and groups and funding. That paragraph reads like conspiracy theory POV. And it's only in the Opponents, and it's huge. Come on. Can't we keep the pro-AGW (or anti-corporate?) bias out of the controversy pages at least? Yes, yes, I know, it's all about the science. Sln3412 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Any statistician who works with models would chuckle over the almost godlike predictive powers of the current climate models. With next weeks weather almost a total mystery and next months weather even more so, we now have weather models that can predict weather in future centuries - yeah fat chance. It is fun though to see the "scientists" milk the public and government for billions of bucks. With models this good you would think that something like the stockmarket would be shutdown - a stockmarket model would have perfect input ( for many variables ) but I don't see it working quite as well as the "climate models". Who said liberals have no faith.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

You are confusing weather with climate. And for your analogy: Nearly all experts will tell you that on average, stocks will give you the best return on investment of the major forms of investment. That's climate: In the long term the stocks (and temperature) go up. They will not tell you where General Motors will be on November 28th, 2007 - that would be comparable to a weather prediction.--Stephan Schulz 15:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't guess what you are confusing - but climate is the weather over years ( a couple of days hot weather and I still don't live in the tropics). So far models can't guess the weather or the climate. For a good critic - they didn't intend to be - read some older Astronmoy magazines. Some years ago they noticed that the sun was giving out more energy, and they predicted higher temperature and a warmer climate. I guess they were right - remember global warming - well as long as the sun ramps up the energy you had better get use to it. When the sun turns down the energy the climate will get cooler - a wild guess - original research - on my part. If the sun keeps it up long enough you can farm in Greenland, if it falls off we dodge glaciers in CT. Global warming/cooling are the goofiest things ever argued since space aliens. Astronmy magazine predicted this long before it was a "cause" - that makes them "credible".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

Models don't "guess", they model. Yes, climate can be described as a long-term distribution of weather. That makes climate easier to predict than weather. If you flip a coin a 1000 times, I still cannot predict the outcome of your next flip. But I can give you a very good and very reliable estimate about the number of tails in the next 1000 flips. Short term weather models can predict the weather for a few days. Long term climate models can predict the climate for longer periods, but do not predict the weather for any particular short period. I don't know what "Astronmy" is (or is it "Astronmoy"?), but the solar contribution to the current warming is estimated somewhere between 5% and 20%. And if you think that seniority makes for credibility: Swedish Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius has predicted the warming effect of CO2 more than 100 years ago.--Stephan Schulz 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh contraire - models output is always a guess. One aspect of the "models" that we rarely see is the error range - I would bet that the error range overlaps colder, no change and hotter. With the input I have seen it had better. When does the model predict the sun's energy diminshing ( it fluctuates ). When it stars to go down I hope the model catches up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Addendum to above - error ranges. I leave the TV on at night, in the middle of last night(2/2/2007) a news show stated that scientists were 90% sure that man was causing global warming ( I woke up with a start - I did the same thing when in the middle of the night a few weeks ago Henry Kissinger said we couldn't win the war ). Like Izzy Stone said - "they always tell the truth ( a nervous teitch or religious thing I guess ) but they may tell it in the middle of the night" - close paraphrase. With the 90% ( confidence range, a statistical slip, I hope they don't beat the scientist who let this slip too badly - I do hope they beat him a little though )all we need know is the standard deviation and we can more or less reverse engineer this garbage. Has anyone been able to get the raw data and tatistical model used for this - outlier analysis etc. This is like pulling teeth. I am betting that the standard deviation is not tight. I bet the model overlaps increase, decrease and no change at the 90%. At the 95% range I bet it overlaps LA.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

How much are you willing to bet? My son wants to attend an expensive private college, so I could use the cash. Raymond Arritt 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tell him to save his money - I have been to both. The cheap state colleges are better - professor may not be world famous but can teach you more. Graduating from one of the "best" only helps if daddy - you- are already rich. As to the model - I have already read an article that implied that the spread in the estimates was not convincing - hard time finding the actual data, etc. The prowarming scientists - all educated at the expensive private schools I would "bet" - seem to have lost the data or are reluctant to share. The peer review all seems to be private - maybe at that college you mention.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Erm, well, that's an interesting perspective. (And you'd lose the bet about all of us being educated at expensive private schools.) Raymond Arritt 13:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If "all of us" includes someone with access to one of the models and the data, please link to it. The one request I tried to followup was about the odd field of tree ring climate guessing. The little devils were keeping their data even from other professors, etc. Maybe they have relinquished their valuable tree ring data since, but I haven't heard about it.

Patrick Michaels statement

I edited the following sentence by/about Patrick Michaels:

"Some, such as Patrick Michaels, propose that human influence has warmed the atmosphere yet dispute the conclusion of the IPCC TAR, which says "[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"."

...by inserting a "not" at the obvious place. --ChrisWinter 01:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooops! Belay that — I saw "dispute" and read "despite". Time to take a break. --ChrisWinter 01:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Any room for facts?

I realize this is an article on "controversy" per se and does not focus on the science. But does that mean there's no room for facts at all? A laundry list of talking points on each side, with no indication of their veracity, risks deceiving the reader. Consider for example the statement "CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly volcanic in origin, accounting for 97% of the CO2 found in the atmosphere." This is not just wrong; it's ridiculously, irredeemably, incontestibly wrong, so wrong as to be explainable only as gross incompetence and/or deliberate deception. Are we doing a service to the reader by including such statements without comment? Raymond Arritt 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

An excellent point. I'm not sure how it should look--probably a good many INTERNAL references to the main GW article (and the CO2 article, and the volcano article, etc) are the way to go. Otherwise, we will have, in essence, two main GW articles. But I agree that a bit of factual context would better suit this page to its intended purpose. That way, readers will get at least a few pointers on how to interpret what each side is saying about fact X or fact Y Dicksonlaprade 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So CO2 being mainly volcanic is "not just nonsense, but nonsense on stilts", eh? (Love that phrase.) But you raise a good point. Given the importance of the controversy, this article should go to great lengths to avoid misleading anyone about what the established facts are. I think the way to do that is, instead of having "laundry lists" — supporters say this, this, and this; opponents say that and the other thing — the article should discuss each contention separately. Here's an example of what I mean:

Volcanic contribution to CO2 levels

• Opponents maintain that mankind's emissions of CO2 are irrelevant, since volcanoes contribute 97% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere. They say that volcanic activity cannot be predicted so there is no way to know what the CO2 level will be in the future.
• Supporters point out that on-site measurements of volcanic gases show them to be mostly sulfur dioxide and steam. In fact, a study by (whoever) found that the 13 eruptions of the past decade contributed only 1% to the increase of atmospheric CO2.

I made those numbers up, but I trust you see what I'm getting at. If the article were rewritten following this pattern, it would be a lot easier for the reader to determine what's fact and what isn't. --ChrisWinter 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

On the CO2 issue, there is no controversy, and the facts are clear (the best meta-proof of this is that altough volcanoes are episodic, the CO2 record shows a smooth rise). But many of the other issues are not so clear-cut and amenable to dealing with in this fashion. Up to now, the "agreement" has been that the skeptics get to add whatever junk they like to the skeptics position (the wackier the better, since it undermines them, ha ha) the rest of us and the std position stuff. But maybe those issues that can be definitively settled should be taken out as you suggest William M. Connolley 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me most about the CO2/volcano thing is that I can't source it. The only references I've been able to find point back to this article! So I wonder if AGW opponents did in fact claim this. I'll lgo through theists and put {fact} tags on the ones that I don't recognize and can't readily find mentioned elsewhere. After a while I'll delete those points, then we can figure out what to do with the rest. Raymond Arritt 01:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

RA added a comment:

Need a cite for this. Pielke and... ? Note also there were a LOT more than 120 contributing authors to the TAR

for the 2/120 bit. The 2/120 is my count (I counted 120 lead authors; people have found 2 of them who complained). Trouble is I can't find where this was originally said... it is elsewhere on wiki I think... William M. Connolley 08:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I thought it might be related to the whole CLA/LA/etc. heirarchy in IPCC. It's your baby... The point is not all that important, so if you can't find the details it's probably best simply to delete the statement. Raymond Arritt 18:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that 120 distinct authors, or 120 totalled by every author listed in each part? Which might be overlap. I don't know. I know Lindzen complained some, is that it, Pielke and Lindzen? Public statements are a bit difficult to track down, if anyone involved even takes the time to say anything. Just an observation, I have no idea. I don't know if it needs to be deleted if nobody can find dissention from the figures, but if there is another source it would be better. I think the only two places I myself have seen it on Wikipedia in different articles, but I don't believe either was cited. Sln3412 06:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Breathing contribution to CO2 levels

• Proponents maintain that mankind's emissions of CO2 are not just 88% of the total and are often ignored, but given that the number of humans alive is 350% greater now than it was just one thousand years ago is key, and that every decade has produced 3.5% greater a concentration. They point out that every human produces carbon dioxide and CH4 that has a larger impact than industrial production, solar activity, vehicles, the building of cities, ozone depletion, fishing activities and everything else combined. Their solution is to send 60% of everyone born back to the sea, and to cease any activity that adds to human life-spans. [25] [26] [27] www.prisonplanet.com]
• Opponents point out that on-site measurements of fast food restaurants show the businesses produce 223% more CO2 and 3% more methane than the patrons do. In fact, a study by the NSF found that a simple majority of the US Senate is not enough to override a presidential veto, even discounting the role of the US House in the process. Clearly, they say, something must be done. However, the most vocal of these they have been funded by Walt Disney, and those they have gathered over nine hundred trillion Euros in IOUs for their research. The those they conclude the solution is that 95% of the proponents are clearly totally doo-doo heads and should be eaten by rats, cats, bats or dogs. [28][29] [30] [31]
• Sln3412 07:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Science Essay changes

The essay (I suppose 'opinion essay' is a bit redundant) reports the analysis of certain abstracts (the essay didn't analyze anything; the analyzer did), and the essay lists the results of the analysis as "the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities." per paragraph 2.

The essay specifically states this was a survey/study to see if any of the abstracts "might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions" by the "societies' members" of the societies' statements that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling" per paragraphs 3-6.

I don't know if something about this needs to be in two sections, though. Sln3412 00:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Removal

This article should be removed because there is not a legitimate controversy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) August 16, 2006.

There is not a legitimate scientific controversy, perhaps, but there is still a controversy. Even if (as appears to be the case) the vast majority of global warming contrarians (Michaels, Lindzen, et al.) and contrarian organizations (the Cato Institute, JunkScience.com, et al.) are contrarian BECAUSE of ties to the fossil fuels industry, the high-profile nature of this controversy (just think of Al Gore's movie and its detractors, John Stossel, etc.) means that it is still important that Wikipedia users have solid information about it--even though no respectable climate scientists see it as a specifically scientific controversy. Dicksonlaprade 20:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem - you loose. And there is in fact a scientific controversy, notwithstanding the Hockey-Team is working on that problem [32] Um! I totally forgot, that the House of Representatives is on the payroll of the fossil fuels industry... --ghw 08:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

First sentence, mathchem - Did you post that because you like to read my long posts?? Let's not look at this using "scientific". (Scientific being the language constructs, rhetorical style, style and way of thinking/expressing things in the field of science, and scientific terminology and scientific jargon.) Even if this were an article about a science, it shouldn't be written in scientific. The articles dealing just with science shouldn't be written that way either; all these articles are for anyone to read so they understand what it is we're talking about!! From a perspective of a climate scientist, there may be no "scientific controversy" in that if the most generally accepted explanation has no alternatives seen as being as probable, (as seen by the peers writing the peer-reviewed materials the organizations use to make statements with), then it might be fine to say something like "CO2 caused by people is causing a forcing effect and making the earth warmer." as a statement by the "powers that be". From the perspective of an encyclopedia, it's not fine to say anything of the sort. There are other scientists (climate, as well as social, physical, etc) that disagree based upon science and others that disagree based upon what impact the science makes. And some that do both. In addition, there are other possible explanations for how and what and how much in the science. There is incomplete information in other explanations of the more accepted view, as well as just how extensive the consensus is, and who exactly makes up those in consensus. Just because what we know now to the extent we know it tends to favor a certain explanation from the majority, there are other possibilities that haven't been ruled out yet. This is science, right? Even the NAS has said "The changes ‘’observed’’ over the last several decades are ‘’likely’’ ‘’mostly’’ due to human activities, but we ‘’cannot rule out’’ that ‘’some significant part’’ of these changes is ‘’also a reflection of natural variability’’." And the IPCC has said "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." What about that don't we understand?

Let’s take part of the IPCC WGI TAR and turn it into something plain and direct.

Climate variations and change, caused by external forcings, may be partly predictable, particularly on the larger, continental and global, spatial scales. Because human activities, such as the emission of greenhouse gases or land-use change, do result in external forcing, it is believed that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change are also partly predictable. However the ability to actually do so is limited because we cannot accurately predict population change, economic change, technological development, and other relevant characteristics of future human activity. In practice, therefore, one has to rely on carefully constructed scenarios of human behaviour and determine climate projections on the basis of such scenarios.”

--We can kinda predict what’s going on with the climate and we can do that the best kinda when it’s huge climate stuff . We know some stuff like greenhouse gases and land-use change make the climate change and we can kinda predict that too. But we can’t really do it well because we don’t know how other stuff like population, economics, technology and others will change later. So what we really do is guess what might happen and then guess how climate might act based upon the other guesses.

Now, from another perspective, you may not agree with a scientist because they're not a climate-specific scientist and are just in a related field (botany, agriculture, anthropology, geology, sociology, history, archeology, etc), you may not agree with a climate scientist because they either have accepted grants from an energy company or an environmental group or work for one, you may attribute other motives rather than science to their statements, you may not trust somebody working in the private sector versus the public sector versus education versus charity versus something else…. Well, they’ve got an opinion and you have an opinion. That means there’s a controversy. Period. Ad hominem and post hoc arguments mean nothing.

In fact, there’s two controversies here; the controversy over the science of a whole bunch of different issues (which are usually lumped into a disagreement over 1 thing as being skepticism about everything) and the controversy over that everyone agrees and that everyone is potentially free to disagree. Well, maybe there’s even more. Sln3412 20:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's more controversy:

What exactly proves a causal relationship between somebody's opinion on some of the global warming factors, or the nature and extent of the consensus over it, being BECAUSE OF ties to some group or another, be it the Sierra Club or Cato or the government of Togo? What, is ExxonMobil supposed to hire high-school sports students to do their scientific geology work for them? Give grants to people that activly try and show they are doing bad things? Hunh? Why would anyone do that? It's like asking a Liberal why they don't donate to the Conservatives, or why are Green organizations donating to environmentalists. Is there a problem with TexacoChevron contributing to the world economy or funding research into something, but no problem with it providing us with energy? What kind of illogical thinking is that? I like having food in the stores, gasoline in my car, air conditioning, a computer, power in my outlets and fresh water. Me, I like there being companies that provide energy, and I hope they make money off of it, but we should watch them to make sure they don't screw up the environment. Finding that balance is the matter of contention I suppose.

But I should hope the energy industry hires very good scientists of all sorts to do their R&D, design pipelines and drilling platforms, invent and refine methods of finding and recovering oil, make sure they meet governmental regulations, research public opinion, and so on and so forth. Not everyone can deal in theory in a lecture hall or do research for governments their entire life, somebody has to go out there and do the work. They probably learn a little about how things really are in the real world while they're out there doing things in it. Who knows more about climbing a mountain – a PhD with an IQ of 175 that sits in libraries for twenty years reading about how to climb mountains and writing books on it, or a grade-school dropout with an IQ of 50 that been climbing them for five years? You don't think working out in an industry opens your eyes to things you may have not seen or miscategorized in the past? Perhaps people who don't meet and talk with others out of their circle might get a bit of tunnel vision? Maybe one really can't understand other POVs if they've never dealt with any of them in a practical manner?

Looking at the work they do, the many books they’ve written on this subject and related issues, and their comments, I tend to trust an opinion like Lindzen’s or Peiser’s more than I do something like Oreskes’ illogical confused PR editorial (she and Science call it an essay). (And if we go back and talk about conflicts of interest, how about a magazine that is from one of the organizations that holds the view the author does, but won't publish other essays that don't?) Pity is, Lindzen and Peiser (and many others with points against some of the arguments being made or some of the evidence being presented or some of the levels of knowledge claimed to be possessed) seem particularly bad at making their points to people that won't listen or read them, and they also don’t seem to understand the rhetorical styles of the people refuting them, since they keep talking and writing in a way that leaves themselves wide open to the character assassination, exaggeration and distraction methods used against them.

For example, what Peiser wrote in his letter never questions there is global warming, and he agrees the majority of abstracts support ‘the consensus’. He has issues with her document review (study) though; the conclusions. He just made the mistake of trying to recreate it when it wasn’t written to be recreated, at least from the paucity of data about the actual research and her not providing the abstract numbers. Don't try and answer an editorial (opinion essay) with science, answer it with PR techniques also. But as far as having issues with the essay I have issues with it also; the way she characterizes what it finds, and the way the body doesn’t really match the thesis, which is rather at odds with the introduction and conclusion (and they with each other). The last two paragraphs are especially meaningless drivel.

But now Peiser is a “global warming skeptic” “not a scientist” “unreliable” “wrong” “confused” etc. Interesting. No, he's a scientist that finds fault with her conclusion on the consensus. Oh, it also seems he made the mistake of providing the abstracts he found to people that would never interpret them from the standpoint he interpreted them from. Bad idea, but worse, it seems he expected the others to interpret them that way also and argued with them about it; instant loss. So he's a scientist that finds fault with her conclusion on the consensus and tried to explain it from a position of weakness to people he didn't know how to talk with. Which is what Oreskes did know how to do; she didn't bother. That's one of the few ways to win at that game; don't give anyone anything, and don't talk about it.

The reason I like talking about the three of those views; to me it presents a fairly good picture of what’s going on, it’s actually pretty much out of date and therefore static, and the argument is pretty clear to see from it. I think. I try not to talk about them on a personal level, but about what they’ve said and done, and how they’ve said and done it. That’s about it, nothing personal about it. Observations, not judgments. If I seem to be judging, it’s not intentional.

Is it all about this? Sometimes it seems so.

Scientific method: Invent Hypothesis--->Make Observations--->Do all Observations fit? Yes, go to Theory, Theory leads back to making more observations. No, go back to Invent Hypothesis.

Often used Pro-AGW theory method: Do not accept other reasons for GW ---> Look for errors in statements ---> Find any? Yes, harp on any error and exaggerate it so as to give the impression the person is a total skeptic and/or doesn’t know the subject. No, use bad logic, character assassination and/or guilt by association attacks instead.

Now, tell me there's not a controversy, whatever it is it's about. And if you think this discussion isn't at least partially about science, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. If that's how you think, my opinion is that you're wrong. Sln3412 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sln3412: It genuinely doesn't matter what your opinion is. If you are really, truely interested in a clear explination on why carbon dioxide warms the planet then contact me. Mathchem271828

Ah, yes. I'm not arguing that CO2 doesn't warm the planet, or that the planet warming doesn't involve CO2. I could also substitute CH4 or say building cities or say farming. That's not the point here; This is a controvery and it's involving science. --Sln3412 18:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That alone doesn't make it a scientific controversy. Whether to use one supplier or the other is often a controversy in science. That doesn't mean that the reasons for one or the other have anything to do with scientific arguments, making the controversy not a scientific one (but rather, most often, a budgetary one). A scientific controversy is one where there's substantial disagreement in the scientific literature, meaning all sides pass the muster of peer-review. Which is not the case with global warming. --OliverH 20:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, there are dissenters. Some areas are more disagreed within than others, and some is cross-discipline. I'm not sure; are there peer-reviewed papers about the interactions between things crossing 2 or 5 or 10 or 20 areas related to the pure-science (scientific basis?) portions of Global Warming? Although the numbers are small, is there anyone in science-areas related to GW or AGW that disagrees? Yes. So there you go. They're listed on at least a couple of articles around here. On peer-review, that's nice, but it's not everything out there, and all it proves is the people that agree with you agree with you. Do experts in geology peer-review the products of chemists or biologists? Those three the products of oceanographers, or they of meteorologists mixed with anthropologists? In any case, just because you consider there "are not enough" dissenters doesn't mean that there "aren't enough," and there certainly "aren't any".

Second, yes. This is about the Global Warming Controversy, not one on biology or chemistry or astronomy or physics. This isn't just about science no, any more than science is only about peer-reviewed papers, experiments, theories or knowledge. Governments, educational institutions, industry, policy panels and the like are all part of science. Putting together all the information from all the different scientific (and non-scientific) disciplines involved in GW and AGW is as much related to the science as getting the data in the first place is. Even if that isn't true (or you don't agree with it) applied science is science too, as is instrumental science, and they both apply also.

Maybe if you want to discuss what science is, you should define what it is you're talking about, say, for example; computer science, a system of knowledge attained by verifiable means, natural science, social science, biological science, normative science, etc. So when you say science, you could be talking about logic. I'm taking it you are defining science as only physical science? Maybe throwing in some areas of biological science? Are we throwing in botany but ignoring zoology? I mean, this does affect humans, so we should keep anthropology, but maybe the opinion of a molecular genetics expert doesn't matter, but might we want a physiologist? Or are we just considering natural science? Do we really need much astronomy or physics going on though? Or when we say "science" in this case, are we just including Hydrology, Meteorology and Oceanography?

But again, it doesn't matter, this is about Global Warming and there's quite clearly a controversy. Sln3412 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Finding articles in peer-reviewed science journals which reject the anthropogenic global warming argument is virtually impossible. Finding AGW supporters who are funded by Greenpeace or alternative energy organizations is also almost impossible. By contrast, it is very easy to find (1) articles in science journals which support AGW and (2) AGW contrarians who are funded by the fossil fuels industry.

If someone were to argue that all anti-AGW people hold their beliefs ONLY because of fossil fuels ties, it would be an ad hominem fallacy. This is not, however, what is being argued. The scientific consensus, like it or not, is that AGW is accurate. Scientists have had no luck disconfirming it experimentally or by observation. Mentioning the anti-AGW fossil fuels ties is thus the only available explanation for why so many contrarians continue to hold their beliefs when these beliefs fail empirically. Dicksonlaprade 19:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's part of the point exactly. It needs to be disprovable.

Anyway, in this section, my point is that there is a controversy, and we can see there is one. How wide or deep it is, that's another matter. This section is about Article Removal due to their not being a controversy. There clearly is one.

I've said plenty of times myself, it's quite clear the planet's warmer and that there's more CO2 and that we produce CO2. Linking them all together is not as clear and neither is what to do about it. I beleive we can't and/or won't do much about it. I also believe the short time we've been looking at it is not long enough to really know. I interpret what's being said as "It looks like this so we should do something in case it's as bad as it might be." Most of the controversy is what to do and how much to do. Anything that is influenced by "energy" is dismissed; the House of Lords report or some of the findings of the US Congress.

Would anyone be surprised that you can't find much from the system that refutes the system? Or that those that would have to pay for any cleanup fund those that are not totally in agreement with the system or fund more research into the subject of what to do and what it would mean to do a particular thing?

But even back to the system, I don't think it's corrupt so much as a clique. A lot of what's being said is very vague. And that's usually paraphrased or not fully quoted, in order to make things look more logical dispassionate statements of fact than they really are. I'll let part of WGII's piece of TAR say it. Whole quote, but emphasis mine:

What is Potentially at Stake?

Human activities—primarily burning of fossil fuels and changes in land cover—are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents or properties of the surface that absorb or scatter radiant energy. The WGI contribution to the TAR—Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis—found, “In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” Future changes in climate are expected to include additional warming, changes in precipitation patterns and amounts, sea-level rise, and changes in the frequency and intensity of some extreme events.

I don't know what you get out of that, but it seems fairly timid, but also very wishy-washy. Could maybe possibly it looks like. Okay, fine. There's AGW. And?

Now I paraphrase part of the WGI piece of TAR

We can kinda predict what’s going on with the climate and we can do that the best kinda moreso when it’s huge climate stuff . We know some stuff like greenhouse gases and land-use change make the climate change and we can kinda predict that too. But we can’t really do it well because we don’t know how other stuff like population, economics, technology and others will change later. So what we really do is guess what might happen and then guess how climate might act based upon the other guesses.

Well, I guess now we need to, along with Russia, China and India, change our human activities to reduce the warming we've seen over the last 50 years. Good luck with that. --Sln3412 18:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's neither timid nor wishy-washy, it's proper scientific conduct. Only political agitators and religious zealots know absolute truths by grace of a light shining down from heaven and telling them that the earth is a disc and that all infidels will one day be roasted beneath it in the fires of hell. The scientist realises his entire job consists of approximating what actually is and consequentially is careful in his phrasing. "are expected" by the way in no way means "could maybe possibly". It is the very fundament of modern science: A prediction based on the currently accepted model. --OliverH 20:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Science is not just about doing the actual science itself, not just about the theory, experimentation and knowledge. It also involves the real world, and others with different ways of looking at things that have to pay for things and provide the time to do them. People that have a way of thinking more like mine than like yours.

It so far seems to have been difficult if not impossible to convince those involved in the policy, organizational, political and/or economic aspects of the science to do anything. I suppose you could call it "science-related controversy" if you wanted to split hairs. But you can't make the argument to do anything about it, unless you use the science to make that argument. Hence, scientific controversy. Since nobody's doing anything about it, obviously, the case is not being made.

Okay, there's 35% more CO2 in the atmosphere. Fine, it's .8 C warmer. Wonderful, we know a lot about climate sensitivity. Great, models the IPCC used project average temperatures might rise 1-6 C in the next 100 years. So?

Until somebody can better prove A causes B and will lead to C so we must do Z by spending Y, nothing's major's going to happen. That's my guess. And by the time something might get done, the odds are technologically (and/or economically) nothing will need to. That's my guess too. I'm more worried about radicals acquiring nuclear bombs and destroying the planet than I am about another 30% rise in CO2. It seems a lot of other people are also. Science has not made its case to take action. That's why we get meaningless purposely misleading drivel like BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.

Considering them timid, wishy washy, maybe kinda sortta wiggle statements is not a value judgement; those statements are simply a by-product of consensus compromise science. And it seems the people with the equipment and money think so too. Yep. It's clear what the ice cores show. What it means, that's part of science also, and that's what the argument's about. Or what it means to compare the ice cores to the atmosphere or a thermometer, or how any of that interacts with clouds etc etc. Global warming's not about the act of carrying out scientific experiments and making observations. It's about the policy, politics and economics of science. Don't complain about the rules; figure out how to play the game and then win it. Those statements are like The Oracle telling Croesus a great empire would fall if he crossed Halys; well, yes. Nice vague statements, yum. Bet they taste great with ketsup.

This isn't about predictions based on models. And it has nothing to do with political agitation or religious zeal. It's about proving something with the predictions and models to the extent somebody does something about what they show or tend to. The fact we're having this discussion proves the controversy. And what's it about? Is the science clear enough to take action now and how and why. Obviously, the answer is no. Why? Statements like that don't compel action. They can't, since there's still too much unknown. You may say I'm wrong, but the lack of anyone doing anything rather proves I'm correct.

Anyway, I don't really think we're even talking about the same subject. And nobody needs to convince me of anything. The need is to convince the people with the power and money. And they haven't been. That's one of the things this article is about. Sln3412 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said the people with power and money aren't convinced? There are a lot of people with power and money who appear convinced, even in the US. More importantly, you're confusing what people think and what people do. This may surprise you but a lot of people with power and money don't actually believe what they preach. It wouldn't surprise me for example if Bush and petroleum execs do believe global warming is going to be a big problem, but just aren't willing to do anything about it for various reasons and don't care what happens to the world because of it. BTW, you appear to have no idea how science works. Personally, I would rarely trust a scientist who tells me he's proven A causes B and will lead to C because science is rarely that clear cut. On the other hand, I would probably trust a scietist who says A may cause B which will likely lead to C and provides me the research to back it up. Finally, I too am worried about radicals with nuclear bombs. Unfortunately, many radicals do already have nuclear bombs like GWB and Olmert... Nil Einne 10:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I know they probably are very convinced already about a lot of things, but not with this issue; at least not in public. Who cares, it's just how it is. Anyway. That said, I'd actually be pretty surprised if people with money and power (or anyone, really) ever did what they said. I very much understand how science works, thanks for the vote of confidence. This idea of brave bold scientists valiantly trying to fight for the truth is nice -- unfortunate, but it often if not always becomes enmeshed in things like the politics and realities of life and where they work. Science is very often clear cut. Just not when any of it smashes against the realities of things that aren't about Dihydrogen Monoxide and how dangerous it is or how pouring sulfuric acid on silver results in certain other behaviors. This is not gravity or magnetism or electrons; this is politics. Your interesting little quips about Bush and petroleum (aka "Big Oil") and equating fanatics who might grab some left over cold-war bombs or other radicals (like the ones that flew chemical weapons into buildings of international finance) is interesting. How the religous, geopolitical or economic situations of anything or anywhere is the same as AGW escapes me. Perhaps if you're worried about Big Oil and Isreal having nukes you should move to the forest and build a log cabin, power it with solar cells (oh, sorry, you need oil to build them, no, plant trees and in a few years burn them in a steam engine) in Greenland and just get away from the threat of thermonuclear war. Hope you like cutting down trees with a handsaw and plowing fields. Good luck with that by the way, wish you all the best. Sln3412 05:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Its amazing that people who are members of The Church of Global Warming are willing to point out scientific Ties to Big Oil, but are unwilling to point out scientific ties to EnvironMental groups. The bottom line is Money will influance the science. Either from Greenpeace or from "Big Oil." The EnvironMental groups are far from balanced, and they have alot of influance when it comes to money. EnvironMentals have an Ajenda too. Greenpeace's world headquarters, after all, only cost them $2.8443 million in 1991.--Zeeboid 21:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Supporters/Opponents

Stephan, 5 of the 7 listed supported organizations are based in the US; who else will I talk about?

Well, you miscount. There are, among others, 11 national academies of science mentioned, only one of which is based in the US.

I don't think so; the summary on the page says "Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (e.g. American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)) agree with these general points."

The "Supporters of the global warming theory" section lists 1) IPCC, 2) "The national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, China and India" (could count as 11 by itself, yes, but all governmentally funded bodies that might be a bit biased perhaps) and then 3) NAS (duplicate of 2), 4) AMS, 5) AGU, 6) AAAS, 7) UoCC. I didn't write that list, I'm just trying to put it into perspective the way it's written. I'm thinking a lot of the 4-7 are part of the NAS, which is part of 2 which is part of 1.

It isn't important at all to this that the AGU's biggest supporter last year was ExxonMobil, especially since a lot of the sources in the opponent's section about funding is one that's very critical of that company? AGU is listed as one of the proofs of consensus. On the other hand, the internationally-based ones are governmental; that doesn't mean they are or are not scientific, but they are listed.

It might be just coincidence that the AGU was about the most sceptical of the organizations for a long time...

If Mother Jones and exxonsecrets.org (which is listed a source for info on the George C. Marshall Institute and CEI; better to drop those as simply web sites, both redundant and biased) are listed as references, then the fact that in 2005 AGU's biggest living contributor ($100,000+) is ExxonMobil is important to the discussion. I'm not trying to argue with you here, but I think we have a logical fallacy that their support for some things is "bad", but we don't mention other things that are purported to be "good". I don't care myself, but let's be somewhat consistant on it.

"Reverted. This is giving undue weight to some US organizations. Most academies of science are funded by members, endowments, or long term agreements.)" 00:00, 22 August 2006 Stephan Schulz

Then edit it so it says that. It doesn't say that in the AAAS, AMU and AGU donor reports, which I sourced, which are from them, which are almost half of the listed Supporters!!! I don't see why everyone's reverting and not editing. If you don't like the way I wrote it, rewrite it, don't just toss it.

Well, since the AAAS, AMU and AGU are not academies of science, this should not be surprising. Also, do these donor reports list just donors or the whole budget? The German "Akademie der Naturforscher Leoplodina" does e.g. cover 80% of its budget from federal and state grants guaranteed by long-term and legally binding agreements. They are not subject to any short-term political pressure. --Stephan Schulz 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What's suprising isn't important, what's mentioned and what's not mentioned (and why) might be important. I got the fairly random but expressive list of those companies from the donor reports, verifiable and from the organizations themselves. No comment on what it means, readers can go read the reports (or the web sites, which are also listed other places in the article). Since my point in putting in the balance about funding was that these organizations all basically are members of each other, and the AAAS, AMU and AGU are about half of the listed bullets in the Supporters section, why isn't who funds them a matter of fact given their own donation statements, if it is an issue in the Opposers section as to where they get their funding or who they think like?

Long-term and legally binding equals no short-term political pressure? One wouldn't expect a government that long-term has the same basic patterns short-term would change so suddenly. And if it did, are there no examples of governments suddenly ending funding or firing people? That's part of my point; this is as political or social as it is science. If those organizations don't care to detail other non-donor funding or break down their budget, that's not my fault, I'm just looking for verifiable information. I try and find such that treats other views with the same style as those that seem to give undue weight to the sources of funding for the Opponents. Which is what I added, other viewpoints.

Rather than revert, balance it with the links to the budgets and actions of those and other organizations such as the Leopoldina Academy of Natural Scientists or whomever. I don't know, I haven't been to Schweinfurt in about 16 years, last year I was in Nürnberg (and the Kitzingen area), but I wasn't looking at science organizations and that doesn't matter anyway as far as quoting lists or statements of organizations, either. I'm just going with those listed in this article.

I admit I had certain misunderstood ideas in the recent past that these discussions have enlightened me upon, and that I get somewhat defensive or silly at times, and very wordy most of the time. But just because people are too busy to read what I say, or try to understand it or my grammatical constructs, or ignore me because I don't support their view, or if I add something that has no rhetorical counter; that's not my problem. We are trying to all make this as balanced, reliable, factual, balanced and neutral as possible, correct? I know I am attempting that, personal bias or not. Sln3412 05:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sln3412 00:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to have two paragraphs on opponents fundings, there needs to be more. Feel free to edit, I know it needs it. Please don't revert just to get rid of it because it doesn't make its point well, or you disagree it's not sourced properly, or don't want to take the time to read who's funding the supporters. It should be obvious that the IPCC is funded by the member countries/UN or that the NAS is funded by the US Government, and therefore by the public through taxes and based upon policy and budget matters by the process.

Supporters

Funding of the governmental bodies and international governmental groups is based upon the public and political policy and budgets of the member countries and bodies. The societies are variously funded by individuals, some of whom work for the societies (The largest donor for the AAAS is the CEO of Science), or are considered skeptics themselves (S. Fred Singer to the AMS, Richard Lindzen to the AGU), as well as many corporations and foundations, some of which also fund opponents. These donors in 2005 include the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Ford Foundation, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Louisiana State University, Tri-Star Petroleum Company and American Petroleum Institute for the AAAS; IBM, Raytheon, and ITT for the AMS; and Lockheed Martin, Cray, and 2G Enterprises to the AGU. Interestingly enough, the largest single living contributor to the AGU is ExxonMobil.[33] [34] [35]. A very busy anonymous has donated to all three.

For opponents, there is something more needed to balance 2 paragraphs of information linked to all negative sources. I have added some more therefore. Again, I would appreciate editing and not blindly reverting. I have also removed links that simply link to copies of the wikipedia articles already linked to.

Scientists critical of some aspects of the discussion and their donors dispute the validity of this guilt by association argument, and the scientists are also themselves part of government, state college and university systems, the scientific organzations listed in the proponents section, or some mix. Most have been considered skeptics or at least somewhat skeptical of certain points since long before the funding was provided. According to the Forbes story [36] above, The Intermountain Rural Electric Association of Sedalia, CO (IREA) funded Patrick Michaels because according to their GM "'We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists,'" and said although he "...believes global warming is real just not as big a problem as scientists claim, <he> acknowledged this is a special interest issue. He said the bigger concern is his 130,000 customers, who want to keep rates low, so coal-dependent utilities need to prevent any taxes or programs that penalize fossil fuel use." Donald Kennedy of Science, said "'skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers'" and that "'I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," and that "donations to skeptics amounts to 'trying to get a political message across.'" This tends to further refine the entire dispute as being one of a political nature.

Other criticisms of funding are made by groups known to be in direct opposition to either corporations in general or energy ones in particular, such as the Mother Jones criticism of ExxonMobil donating to groups such as the American Council for Capital Formation [37]. They complain that the ACCF presented an appendix that focused only on the uncertainties of a 2001 NAS report when the ACCF testified in front of the U.S. Senate. Mother Jones’ complaint seems to be only that although the ACCF usually focuses on economic critiques of policies, this time they wrote something one-sided about the science involved in the debate to support their economic position on the Kyoto Protocol. Doing that, according to Mother Jones, puts them in the skeptic camp.

Some opponents to the anthropogenic view of global warming have also been criticized for using incorrect information or flawed analyses in support of their opposition. For example, in April 2005 David Bellamy published a letter in the journal New Scientist in which he claimed that, of the 625 glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service, 555 of them were growing, not shrinking--a statement which, if true, would cast a good deal of doubt on the existence of global warming. It turned out, however, that Bellamy's figures were incorrect: the vast majority of the world's glaciers have been retreating for the last several decades. A journalist for the Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer's website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but to date this article has not been found.[38] Similarly, before starting JunkScience.com, Steven Milloy belonged to an organization called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which was paid by tobacco companies to cast doubt on studies about the dangers of secondhand smoke.[39][40] However, most of the authors of these editorials, their websites, and the publications themselves are almost universally extremely critical of the role of industry and government in environmental matters and focus almost entirely on negative aspects of the debate [41] [42][43] [44].

Worst case scenario

Citing the "worst case scenario" to found an argument about mitigating anthopogenic forcing of "global warming" accompishes nothing. We should rework the reference in Paragraph 2 of this article. Conventional scientific procedure would be to calculate expected values for costs and benefits of such efforts as cutting down on "greenhouse emissions" along with calculating the precision of those estimates. In other words, rather than attempting to bludgeon one's opponent by citing some extreme figure for what it would take to slow the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide by 25 percent, a reasonable presentation would give a sort of average estimate along with, say, an error range; and this could be compared to the estimated expected benefit of so doing. Of course, our poor understanding of the science makes the error range huge, but the probablistic distributions can be calculated and reasonably applied to cost-benefit comparisons. Absent this, much of the "controversy" is nothing but polemic or propaganda. I don't know how to word all of this neatly and make it a perspective on the remainder of the article. Maybe some discussion here would generate usable text? Myron 09:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific about which paragraph and which reference you are talking?--Stephan Schulz 10:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 starting from the very top of the main article on Global warming controversy where the phrase begins with the word "worst". :-) Myron 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been blind. Yes, that paragraph sucks. It's full of unstated and unclear assumptions, and mixes opposition to the science with objections to the politics. It also adds little real information. We need something on the public and political debate, but as far as I am concerned, this paragraph can just go. I don't think I agree with the rest of your comment, though. While the climate projections have reasonably well-known error bars (but depend on assumptions on carbon emission), the political and economical effects of both global warming and mitigation are much harder to quantify. Assume we spend a lot of money on reducing fossil fuel dependency. Will this increase or decrease tension in the Near/Middle East? And how do we put a monetary value on that effect? --Stephan Schulz 22:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I am particularly concerned with the science links. I see much pseudoscience in there so, is there a particular reason for that?? Should we make a distinction on the links between what is considered mainstream and whats not? Brusegadi 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a bunch of stuff under "Science" that should be under "Politics." A more important point is that the article contains waaay too many links, period. See WP:NOT. At least two-thirds of them should be removed. Be bold and get out your pruning shears. Raymond Arritt 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed http://www.aim.org/cgi-bin/aim/pubsearch.cgi?pubsec=allpubs&pubyear=alldates&words=global+warming&x=45&y=22 because it does not work. Brusegadi 17:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the science part now has good length. I will work on the politics section. Since pretty much anything can go under that category, I will simply try to remove the stuff that is redundant. Until later, Brusegadi 04:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much for your work on this. AntiEcoHype and Greening Earth Society belong under "politics" or "other". (GES society is dead at the moment.) Raymond Arritt 04:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope that this is an appropriate place to post that the Forbes article cited is no longer available. I would suggest that we find the article again or remove it as a citation as well as it's associated paragraph. 64.213.220.45 23:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Does it bother anyone else that a section of this article addresses the controversy over the scientific consensus on global warming, yet several other sections go out of their way to support their cases by invoking scientific consensus? This prevents the article from having a neutral tone. It seems to me that rather than constructing an encyclopedic article about the controversy, people are using this page as a forum to continue the debate.

I really do not understand what you are saying. By quickly skeeming I noticed that there is a brief intro to the controversy. Then the article discusses views on both sides concerning the science and even the politics of the issue. I think that is good and NPOV. Feel free to re-explain since I feel like I am not getting the point of what you are saying. Thanks, Brusegadi 17:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In the section titled Supporters of the global warming theory it says "It should be noted that these groups, far from advocating an unusual position, represent the mainstream position (consensus) that is the scientific opinion on climate change." Because the article acknowledges a debate over whether there is a concensus, it seems to me to be a little presumptuous to turn around and declare that these groups are the consensus. "It should be noted" tries to highlight information for the reader and "far from advocating an unusual position" lends credence to 'supporters' and villifies 'opponents'. To maintain NPOV, I suggest it be revised to read something along these lines: "Supporters of the global warming theory aver that these groups represent the mainstream scientific position (consensus) on climate change." Further, in the section titled Opponents of the global warming theory it says "A small number of climate scientists and scientists in related fields have expressed opposition to the scientific consensus on global warming." Again this takes the side of the controversy that there is a consensus. To maintain NPOV I suggest: "A small number of climate scientists and scientists in related fields have expressed opposition to the theory of global warming (though opponents of the theory claim that there may be more who are unwilling to make their opinion public)." Other than these two instances, though, you are correct that the article is fair and robust. That said, I don't think these are glaring problems and if you think revision is unwarranted, I can respect that.

Be careful with the way you interpret the debate. I dont think that article attempts to say that there is a debate over the consensus. The article says that there is a debate over the theory and the predicted effects. Basically, think of this article as the description of the debate. On one side you have those representing the consensus and on the other those that are not part of the consensus (they are a minority, hence the term 'against consensus.') Thus, the article is not scientific in nature and gets to include much of the politics that are left out in the main global warming article. For example, most science guys believe that global warming is happening. In the global warming article we stop there. In this one we can say wether global warming would be bad or good from an economic point of view. Brusegadi 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article explicitly states there is a debate over the consensus. In Counting experts / Petitions and attacks on them it says, "The proportion of scientists who support or oppose any of the global warming theories is a matter of controversy in its own right." The main article is Scientific opinion on climate change. My point is simply this: if we acknowledge there is a debate, to maintain NPOV we shouldn't imply in the article that one side is right or use one side's arguments without recognizing them as such. The suggestions I made don't violate the validity of the information in the article, but they do help it to be more neutral. In fact, now that I think about it, the statement "It should be noted that these groups, far from advocating an unusual position, represent the mainstream position (consensus) that is the scientific opinion on climate change" is tautological in relation to the list.

This whole "consensus" business is a strange beast. Those working inside the field know what the consensus is, but it's left to those outside the field to document it. The result is that the existence or otherwise of a consensus is evaluated by people who know little about the science, and as a result sometimes get it spectacularly wrong (witness Peiser's grossly incompetent assessment). Raymond Arritt 04:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hah! From a distance it seems kinda like watching ant colonies at work. From up close it's even more confusing. Yes it takes time and we can make some dumb mistakes, but the alternative is to limit the project to folks with proven credentials and pay them. Once you pay them, there's the potential for junk science. Given the potential for junk science, how much junkier can the consensus process be? Over time, these articles have shown generally steady improvement over the first six years of WP. So it does seem to work, especially on articles that have a number of genuinely interested editors involved. While the desire for more competent assessments is quite understandable and even laudable in my opinion, if one source has a "grossly incompetent assessment" it should be corrected per WP:VER and WP:RS, and the overall result should in keeping with WP:NPOV and in particular WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. ... Kenosis 04:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we have our wires crossed... the "consensus" we're debating at the moment is not WP:Consensus, but rather attempts by academic social scientists to determine whether there is a consensus within the climate science community with regard to anthropogenic climate change. See Global warming controversy under "Counting experts." Raymond Arritt 05:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood now, thanks. This too is rather like ant-colony behavior--very tough to pin down when exactly there becomes a consensus, whether from within or from outside. It hurts to watch at times, given the various often-hidden agendas that are involved in this topic. Thanks for clarifying; I will try to follow this talk page more closely than I have been. ... Kenosis 18:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This topic is FAR from balanced.

all throughout the topic, it is attempted to point out how wrong those who don't believe in the Church of Global Warming are. If we are talking about controversy here, it shouldn't be one side writing about the other. For example, the article points out funding from Exxon, but doesn't point out where the funding for the Pro-Human-Caused-Global-Warming scientists is comming from. Even the idea of human caused global warming, much like creationism or evolution, is only "Theory" as it can not be proven (according to the scientific method). Why is it not stated as a theory? Even the whole CO2 thing is in question: This image for example shows the history of the earth's temp, and CO2. this makes me ask a couple of questions:

1. If the earth's temp has been going up and down and up and down, how is it our falt this time when it wasn't our fault in the Precambrian, Silurian, Premian, and Cretaceous peorids?

If people die all the time, how is it that Timothy McVeigh is a murderer? In both cases, because we understand the process by which things happen to a reasonably good degree. We do not rely on correlation alone.

2. If the earth has been warmer then it is now, for most of the earth's life, why do people think our current temps are normal (when it looks as if current temps are lower then the average/norm)

Because we have a short attention span. For the last few thousand years, the temperature has been very stable, and we would normally expect this happy state to continue for a few thousand more. Nothing siginficant in geological terms, but rather important on a human time scalse.

3. Is it possible, that perhaps, the last 100-150 years of temperature records are no enough to base any opinion? after all, time and NYTimes have gone back and fourth allmost as often as the temperatures have in earth's history.

Time and the New York Times are not scientific publications, and are rather irrelevant to the debate. Luckily, we (well, the scientific commjunity) do not primarily base our opinion on the last 100-150 years of temperature records, but on the laws of thermodynamics, long term climate studies, and a fairly good understanding of the underlying processes.--Stephan Schulz 20:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

1.2. and 3. are the best arguments on the whole darn page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what you want to do with them. They seem kinda ok for a parody...--Stephan Schulz 20:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeeboid (talk • contribs) 13:48, October 20, 2006 (UTC).--Zeeboid 18:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no "Pro-Human-Caused-Global-Warming scientists", there are just scientists who look objectively at the observations. Science is not politics. Therefore, if almost all scientists agree on something it is because the facts are so compelling. Count Iblis 13:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's right, scientists are not human, they're robots. They never make subjective interpretations. (I don't agree with Zeeboid, but I couldn't resist this) --Spiffy sperry 14:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How can Global Warming be a accepted theory if it, like creationism, can't be proven or disproven by the Scientific Method?--Zeeboid 18:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mu--Stephan Schulz 18:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does this always have to include something about evolution or creationism. Then it automatically becomes a big mistake. Evolution is one of the STRONGEST Theories in Science. Also, look up the defenition of theory. Dont bash something if you do not know what it means. Brusegadi 20:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Because just like the Theory of Evolution, or Theory of Creationism, the Theory of Human Caused Global Warming can't be Proven. Also, Look up the definition of Theory VS a Scientific Proof. Don't bash something if you do not know what it means. Though looking up the definition of Theory, Your are correct, the Theory of human caused Global Warming is not a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It is, however a Phenomena that is biased depending on where the scientists are getting their money from. And the strength of a theory in Science is a moot point. It is either a Hypothesis, Theory Or Proof. There are no guidelines for Kind-Of-A-Theory, to Sort-Of-A-Theory going up to My-Opinion-Of-One-Of-The-STRONGEST-Theories-In-Science.--Zeeboid 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no "Theory of Creationism". And no scientific theory can ever be "proven". The singular form is phenomenon. Of course scientific theories can and do exist with different levels of validation and support. This is different from the "strength" of a theory, which refers to the breadth of explantions and predictions it offers (although these are often confused). "Scientific proof" is always within the framework of accepted scientific theories. Have a nice day. --Stephan Schulz 22:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

When a scientific theory is proved it is called a "law" - gravity, etc. Evolution and Global Warming and Creationism are and will remain "theories". By the time we get enough data on evolution and global warming to beef up the theory we will have forgotten what the question was ( or be super-monkeys or roasted). By the time we can prove creationism we will be standing in line at the Judgement trying to think up a good lie.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, but wrong a gain. A "law" is a conscience statement that is part of a well-supported theory. Scientific theories are never provable (otherwise they would not be falsifiable, and hence not scientific theories). The confusing term "scientific proof" refers to proofs within the framework of an accepted theory.--Stephan Schulz 20:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A "law" is an action that has never been shown to vary - the sun comes up in the east. It is possible for the sun to come up in the west, but then all bets are off. A theory is a guess - like the CT is going to be a rain forest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

A law is not an "action", but a statement. And a scientific theory is not a "guess". Sorry, but unless you get the basic terms right, I don't think this discussion is useful.--Stephan Schulz 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Law - a statement of observed action. Educated guess - not yet proven, still working on it - open to debate ( not terribly surprised if it turns out wrong). Sun coming up in the west - terribly surprised. To get the terms right wont help this ( global warming ) much.

The ext links

Since we seem to be having an argument about one ext link... this section tends to become a dumping ground for things people want others to see, but which don't appear to belong in the article. How about going through the list and trying to fit them in, or getting rid of them if they really don't fit? William M. Connolley 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed a much stuff that was just taking up space, but I dont know what has been going on lately since I have been having much work in my non-cyber life... Brusegadi 20:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Major rework?

I think this article has evolved into a mess, with lots of irrelevant tangents and other verbiage. Anyone care to join me in being bold and trying to prune it down? Raymond Arritt 09:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias is disturbing

This Wiki is filled with bias and slant, which unfortunately brings the credibility of the entire page into question.

One small example: the statement that many opponents claim that there is no consensus, while other opponents claim that science should not be decided by consensus. Then the snide comment that the belief that science should be based on science rather than public opinion polls may be a tacit admission by the opponents that there is a consensus.

One could just as easily write that most supporters say there is a consensus, while other supporters say that it doesn't matter whether there is a consensus because the evidence for global warming stands on its own merits. Then state that the fact some supporters say it doesn't matter whether there is a consensus is an admission that there is, in fact, no consensus on global warming.

The language used is thoroughly biased, and the Wiki is filled with condescension and diminishing of the "opponents" arguments, even going to far as to suggest that anyone who disagrees with the author's opinion is bought off by the oil industry. It's Michael Moore in a suit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruthfulScience (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

yup, I'd agree. the showing of the "other side" is worryingly missing in not just this but all the other related page to global warming as well. although this page is the best of the worst i'd say in keeping it "balanced" of what i've seen here. Mathmo ^Talk 07:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. It depends what you mean by "balance". On mainstream pages like global warming the balance is to the state of the science; which naturally enough marginalises the non-science skeptics. Here, they get somewhat more say William M. Connolley 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The bias doesn't really disturb me; in fact, it is par for the course. The people who asserted that "science is not politics" have no knowledge of what scientists have to do to get grants. If they have a history of publishing "maverick science", that is science that, no matter how well researched, goes against conventiional wisdom on the subject, they have a tendency of not getting grants for further work. "political" scientists (pun intended) tend to get further in this process by donning their protective stupidity when confronting such subjects. The bunch that is promoting the global warming idea has been well-known within political circles for more than a half-century now. Just over thirty years ago, this same group was using the same mass-saturation propaganda techniques to promote the idea of global COOLING. We were supposed to be expecting the next ice age. What it boils down to politically is an excuse for global socialism. There is already a world government system in place, although it differs from that alluded to by conspiracy theorists in that it is treaty-based: ie, the UN, WTO, Kyoto Treaty, International Criminal Court, IAEA, etc etc. only have supernational power IN LAW over nations that have signed on to the respective treaties. This having been said, in fact were a nation to withdraw from one of these treaties it might face sanctions anyway. Being actually somewhat of a socialist myself, well, okay. Except that for some reason, this group has gotten into its collective head that technology is EEEEVIL and that therefore all technological advancement must be stopped. The fact that the leaders of the environmental movement have these opinions is well documented. For instance, one obvious way to stop global warming, assuming you choose to buy into it, would be to switch to a methanol economy fueled by nuclear power. Not so fast: these same groups will block that as well, even though civilian nuclear power is responsible for less death and destruction than oil, coal, or natural gas. And certain technologies that have been blocked, like photoremidiation which you can read about at http://www.nuclearsolutions.com and also like the idea of fast breeder reactors.

Anyway. This article is highly biased, and the style of the article is being systematically controlled to where it reads like "And over here, we have these loonies who DON'T believe that the sky is falling..." which of course is the goal of the propagandists working in the service of that group.

I make a proposal: if I were to write a detailed, annotated, well-researched article describing just who these groups and individuals are, what means they have used to manufacture this particular public panic, where their money comes from, and what, based upon THEIR OWN WORDS recorded in public places, their actual global policy goals really are... My proposal is this: just how long do you think such an article would last here before encountering an edit war or bing outright vandalized? No matter how well researched, trying to present not only the "other side" of the GW debate, but also the political reasons for its initial manufacture: how long? My guess is, and please, chime in here, not very long at all. Certain individuals who seem to have a rather personal stake in this would edit it out of existance immediately and commence with ad hominem attacks on me personally. They would deny or minimize the importance of what I had uncovered and presented: ultimately, they would try to use the wikipedia process to get me banned or restricted (if they could not silence me any other way.) And I think we have all seen that happen before.Jay Trench 19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that the nuclear solutions website doesn't do much of a good job describing the technology: here is a better link http://users.erols.com/iri/Pauleulogy.htm This tchnology has been around for e very, very long time actually... called the hypercon process. Just FYI.Jay Trench 19:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: for all you GW supporters out there, don't even think about me trying to go into science anymore. I was well and thoroughly scared out of my wits, thank you very much, and I have other things to do besides suck up to the lackies of either the oil companies or the global euthanizers these days. Plenty of people have already written on the subject I theorized about today, and were I to take up their mantle I would be in the same position they are. I'll save you work and say that I'm not actually going to do it (write the article). However, it would be nice if some of the people who have picked up on the pattern of your activities had some clue beforehand just how dangerous you are to tangle with, no? Then they might just drop out and study computers like me lol! Have fun storming the castle guys; it is inevitable that these technologies will be used, although only after fossile fuels are soooo outrageously expensive due to depletion and engineered political supply disruptions like the current war in Iraq that it becomes economically impossible to use them anymore. Say, what, about fifty years or so? I'll be dead by then. To heck with it.Jay Trench 20:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see that you are not into science if you fall for obvious pseudo-science/conspiracy theory stuff like the "photoremediation--Hypercon process". Remember Bozo the clown...--Stephan Schulz 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that this whole article and surrounding articles are biased and not NPOV. There is a clique of editors here who are trying to push their view and will revert any changes made by others that support the criticism.The machine512 05:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you lookl through the archives of global warming and the various arbitration cases. Especially the main article has been very carefully balanced. It is based on reliable published sources. Yes, pseudo-science like the "photoremediation--Hypercon process" will not find its place here unless it first found its way into the peer-reviewed literature. Likewise, we don't treat opinion pieces as scientific literature. If you have any example where a concrete, relevant, sourced statement was reverted, please show it. --Stephan Schulz 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV check

Apparently someone proposed this article for NPOV check. Well, fine... I think that the article gives too much preference to the views of marginal skeptics and needs rebalancing in favour of the consensus view William M. Connolley 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I am sure if it was up to you this article wouldn't even exist. The machine512 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice Connolley's use of the phrase "marginal skeptics". This will no doubt pass over the head of most who agree with the infallibility of "scientific consensus", but the American Meteorological Society is listed as a supporter of human induced global warming. Yet many, if not most, meteorologists who are certified by the AMS do not believe in human induced global warming. Now what? It puts a whole new meaning into "marginal". Likwidshoe 03:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the most helpful direction for this article - and most of wikipedia - would be to have a proponent write the article and the opponents write a separate article and have one dicussion page. Wiki tends to have opponents write articles and try to gut their own ( the title position ) article. Trying to get the gist of the anti-global warming message is hard when the writer is trying to kill it.

removed buzzword supporters argument

I removed from the list of "Reasons given by supporters of the global warming theory", the argument:

"Our existence is poised within a fluid-dynamic, ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system, where non-linear feedbacks are common and where climate states are only relatively stable (i.e., "metastable"). Unknown unknowns are likely to surprise us, particularly if they trigger a non-linear, positive feedback that flips climate to a new meta-stable state."

because it was buzzword filled, unreferenced and in itself not an argument.

(Basically all it says is: - The climate is complex and only relatively stable. - This means large unpredictable climate changes might occur. - This might be caused by things we don't know about.)

Frostlion 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Has global warming been successfully predicted? Is the theory falsifiable?

Is there a generally accepted model of global warming which has successfully predicted global temperature within the margin of error? I noticed an objection that it would first be necessary to predict changes in solar and volcanic activity, but I don't think that's strictly necessary. A global warming model could predict temperature for each possible variation of solar and volcanic activity. However, "fudging" historical data does not convince me at all. I'm waiting for an actual successful prediction of future temperature, within the margin of error of measurements. For instance, if the global temperature could only be measured within a tenth of a degree, but the theory predicted a temperature increase of one-hundredth of a degree per year, then it would take ten years to test the theory. Has the theory been tested yet? What was the result?

Note: If there are hundreds of different models, each making different predictions, then I would expect one model to come close to an correct prediction, just by pure chance. So what I'd really like to see is a correct and accurate prediction by a model which has been endorsed by a large consensus of experts. Ray Eston Smith Jr 21:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hansens 1988 (?) prediction turned out pretty well. But a more meaningful response would be that currently used state-of-the-art models only date from about 5 years ago (err, or less, if you push it) and so you only have 5 years to "predict". Which is easy to do. You appear to misunderstand weather/cliamte though: the peaks and troughs in the temperature record are due to internal variability and can't be predicted by GCMs William M. Connolley 21:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are predictions of other aspect of the climate than future temperature, (e.g. the prediction of stratospheric cooling) that can be used to validate the models to a certain degree.--Stephan Schulz 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to a critical discussion of Hansen's prediction: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000836evaluating_jim_hanse.html Basically it says (reading from the graph) that the measured temperature increase between 1988 and 2005 was around 0.5 degrees Centigrade, with an error of plus or minus 0.25. Hansen predicted an increase of 0.75 degrees Centigrade (in Scenario A, exponential increase of trace gases, which most closely matched measured increase of trace gases. (The prediction for Scenario B, reduced linear growth of trace gases, gave a closer match with the measured temperature, but didn't match the actual exponential growth in trace gases. His Scenario A prediction was within the margin of error of the temperature measurements, just barely. That's a crude way to estimate the reliability, but it's better than nothing.

Was there a consensus in 1988 that Hansen's (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) model was the most accurate? Or did you just retroactively pick out the model that happened to give the best predictions?

You say predicting 5 years in advance is "easy to do." Then you say peaks and troughs in the weather can't be predicted by GCMs. I assume you mean that 5-year predictions are easy to make but not so easy to verify. If the average year-to-year random variation is 0.5 degrees and the predicted change is about 0.1 degrees per year, then I would expect it to take about 5 years for the predicted behavior to start to stand out above the noise. That's assuming that there are not even larger random variations on time scales longer than one year. So how are the models doing so far? How do they compare with measured temperatures, and with each other?

What I'm looking for is not exactly a validation of the models. I accept that human-induced global warming is probably the best explanation so far for recent climate changes. But being the best explanation does not automatically imply that it is a reliable predictor. The theory of evolution is the best explanation for the history of life on earth, but it has very little predictive power. The main importance of global warming theory is how accurately and reliably it can predict. Ray Eston Smith Jr 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, no. That's not what was observed, and it's not even what Pielke says. Hansen claims (rightly, I think), that GHG emissions have followed scenarios b/c (which are the same up to 2000). See the discussion here. Pielke looks not at overall emissions, but at individual gases and developed/developing countries, and finds no good match with any scenario (but does not exclude that the overal effect might match scenario b). Since the atmosphere is well-mixed, we can indeed compute the overall forcing even if the individual components vary, and hence we can see that scenario b is indeed a good match, which puts us back to Hansen.--Stephan Schulz 00:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The best we can do is to predict the past, so to speak. If we try to predict the future we have to wait at least 30 years to verify the results, by which time models will have changed so much that the exercise is no longer meaningful. So insteead we put in the known forcings that occurred for some prior period (greenhouse gases, volcanos, and so forth), start the model at the beginning of that period, and then see how well the resulting "predictions" fit the observed climate. This type of simulation is commonly done. All of the GCMs that have supplied output for the the upcoming IPCC Fourth Assessment Report have performed what are called "Climate of the 20th Century" runs. Do the results match observed climate? Broadly, the large-scale features of the climate are reproduced well -- better in some models than in others -- and results become progressively worse as one looks at more detailed features. Raymond Arritt 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Predicting the past is not adequate. It would be easy to construct a model based on astrology which would accurately predict the past, just by adjusting fudge factors. If we really have to wait 30 years to verify the predictions of GCMs, then they are not falsifiable, which, for me at least, is a big problem. However, I'm not yet convinced that the predictions can't be tested over a shorter timespan. Perhaps, the Hanssen prediction has already passed a test (which doesn't mean that scientists should stop trying to disprove GCMs - they're still testing quantum mechanics, which is already the best-tested theory ever). Before we can make policy based on GCMs, we must first get reasonably reliable estimates of their reliability. Those reliablility estimates should be based largely on tests of their ability to predict the future. Ray Eston Smith Jr 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to make successful backward predictions. For example, there are lots of stock picking systems you can purchase that are proven to successfully predict the past. Unfortunately, those systems are almost always worthless at predicting the future.

This article contains the establishment global warming predictions on a graph against the actual results:

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm TruthfulScience 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that page contains a Marshall Inst fantasy of what someone might have predicted, together with a fantasy of the temperature record... William M. Connolley 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A small hint: JunkScience is junk science. The article is from 1997, i.e. nearly 10 years old. Even then, it was nonsense. As we now now, the "very reliable satellite data" and the "confirming balloon measurements" have been wrong, there is a real warming trend (and there was one from 1980 to 1997), and it is driven primarily by greenhouse gases. See any recent reliable source... --Stephan Schulz 22:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Any "recent reliable source" that puts greenhouse gases above the sun is suspect. The sun has been measured as getting brighter and throwing off more energy, and you focus all of your efforts at the atmosphere? Why would you do that? Likwidshoe 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent observation started by Smith - move this on to the title page, at the top. This is really the core of the whole deal. Have the "consensus" of scientists tell us what next year's temperature is going to rise by - give us their model predictions for the distant future too. In a few years we should be able to come back to hese detailed predictions and see if they are good or full of it

I understand from astronomy sources that Mars, Venus, etc are all gettung warmer. Has anyone done a study seeing if the increase on these planets mirrors our increase. I suspect the Sun is the cause of their increase and ours. A good statistical analysis would be fun to see - unless you believe in manmade global warming. {{subst:unsigned}}

You understand wrongly. There may be some variation in various planets climate (though it's the first time I hear about Venus), but the data is extremely thin, most of the climate processes are not understood at all, and there is no serious claim that the planets all get warmer. As an example, Pluto has been claimed to warm up. But Pluto's temperature estimates are extremely tentative and based on two (2) spectral readings from star occlusions, years apart, that may or may not be tainted by local effects. Moreover, Pluto has a very excentric orbit and is actually now near it's perihelion - if it has any thermal inertia, it is expected to warm somewhat. This is just a smokescreen (funnily often laid by the same people who until recently claimed that century-long temperature measurements and detailed proxy reconstructions are insufficient to determine if earth warms). Also see here. --Stephan Schulz 19:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cites for assertions

Many of the "assertions by supporters and opponents" do not include cites. This is especially the case for the assertions by opponents. If we can't verify that anyone actually made a given assertion, it should be deleted. I'll tag them for now and if no one steps forward within a reasonable time I'll start trimming. Raymond Arritt 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to clear this up a bit - but I think some of these anti-GW points should go. Correlation doesn't imply causation is a very basic point, but it's so basic that maybe it shouldn't be in there. Almost every disputed wiki article seems to make this point - and as you pointed out, if it can't be sourced, WP:NOR. The stuff on cloud formation, and global cloud chambers I think should also go - it's citation is a broken link to the Danish space centre and it sounds like a cutting edge theory that really may not be relevant - I don't really think it's persuasive. The tone of the other "opposition" points is now highly assertive, as I think is appropriate. --Dilaudid 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Svensmark

Is Svensmark really a skeptic regarding AGW? He's proposing the cosmic ray stuff, but I've not been able to find any statement where he explicitly repudiates the role of increased CO2 in warming. Raymond Arritt 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow the Money - it is about grants, not facts

The supporters of global warming theory have access to more than $120,000,000 in U.S. federal grants regarding climate change (ea. Program number 11.432 OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH (OAR) JOINT AND COOPERATIVE INSTITUTES)[[45]]. Increasing funds for research based grants are driven by political considerations and lobbying having nothing to do with the scientific validity of the issue at hand.

71.211.241.40 03:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This should be as much emphasized as the fact that some global warming skeptics benefit from industry grants. That is the danger lurking when the State decides a course of action (i.e. Kyoto) according to a scientific theory (i.e. IPCC). Once in it, politicians have more interest in maintaining the theory as being valid than science has. And the truth gets more and more edicted by the State (even indirectly through propaganda and money) rather than established by science. And The End of Truth awaits. --Childhood's End 21:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting wars

Okay, so posting the following, documented, cited information is bias?:

The supporters of global warming theory have access to more than $120,000,000 in U.S. federal grants regarding climate change (ea. Grant Program 11.432 OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH (OAR) JOINT AND COOPERATIVE INSTITUTES)[[46]]. The budget obligation for Grant 11.432 indicates "FY 05 actual: $112,681,000; FY 06 est $120,000,000. Total obligations include funding from all NOAA line offices). FY 07 estimates are not yet complete." [[47]]

71.211.241.40 04:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. First and foremost, the money is not available to "supporters of global warming," it is available to anyone who applies and whose application succeeds. Secondarily, such applications are not necessarily related to climate research, so even listing it as climate related is misleading. Finally, it implies there is more funding available for scientists who view global warming as true than those who do not, without giving a context as to why this is the case (virtually all climate scientists believe global warming is real and anthropogenic). So yes, I think it should be left out. --TeaDrinker 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The bulk of the funds under that RFP are for projects that don't have anything at all to do with global warming, so to state that the funds are for "supporters of global warming" has no possible basis in fact. Raymond Arritt 04:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The citations of Mother Jones and various anti petrolium organizations in relation to the opponents of the theory is far more suspect than a note about grants supporting climate change. The focus is the funding sources and there are, in fact, cases where researchers have come to a conclusion other than that of their sponsor's desires. Pointing out that the very large federal grants go to those who currently support Global warming theories or even "climate change" in general is just as valid. How about:

Supporters of global warming theory have made use of U.S. federal grants regarding climate change (ea. Grant Program 11.432 OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH (OAR) JOINT AND COOPERATIVE INSTITUTES)[[48]]. The budget obligation for Grant 11.432 indicates "FY 05 actual: $112,681,000; FY 06 est $120,000,000. Total obligations include funding from all NOAA line offices). FY 07 estimates are not yet complete." [[49]] 71.211.241.40 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think all of my criticisms apply to this version as well. You're presenting these grants as if they primarily (or completely) go to supporting the case that there is global warming. That is not what the citation you give says. --TeaDrinker 05:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Both supporters and opponents of the GW consensus have "made use of U.S. federal grants" (and private funds) for their research, so I'm at a loss to understand what point you're trying to make. Raymond Arritt 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The grant is not an RFP, it is a grant and nothing else. The "bulk of the funds" is not refered to in the grant listing and stating that the "supporters have made use" is exactly parallel to the series of citations regarding the opponents funding. The proponents have received funds from oil and energy organizations also. There is a clear agenda in the bias of the article and the history indicates clear actions aimed at defeating any additions that might excessively dilute the purity of those who support the global warming theory. I am sure the Funded Project, "Understanding Climate Change from the Medieval Warm Period to the Greenhouse Future" and others I could locate and list would be rejected due to the inability to accept some inconveniant truths.

How about this: Projects such as "Understanding Climate Change from the Medieval Warm Period to the Greenhouse Future" [[50]] have made use of U.S. federal grants regarding climate change (ea. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Grant Program 11.432 OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH (OAR) JOINT AND COOPERATIVE INSTITUTES)[[51]]. The budget obligation for Grant 11.432 indicates "FY 05 actual: $112,681,000; FY 06 est $120,000,000. Total obligations include funding from all NOAA line offices). FY 07 estimates are not yet complete." [[52]]

71.211.241.40 05:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why reference a pool of money which has little to do with global warming at all? Even if it were related, there is no evidence that the grants are issued in an unscientific manner. I can't see how your reference can be made relevant to the article. --TeaDrinker 05:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire subsection concerning the opponents is a collection of speculative positions on who funds them and connections to "the fossil-fules industry" and such nonsense. Pointing out the availability and use of the CFDA by proponents is far more valid as it involves taxpayer money and documented groups and organizations that largely push the global-warming agenda at the public's expense. The "Competitive Enterprise Institute" and some of the other Foundations mentioned fund many non-climate change research and the web site JunkScience.com spends significant time on documenting findings, while the Mother Jones refrences are typically unfounded rantings of non-tobacco smokers. The entire section below the listing of opponents could well be deleted on the grounds that they are largely unrelated to anything other than a series of personal attacks on the critics of the global warming theory based on their association with other politically incorrect things.

The pool of money is related and I clearly indicated one of the programs funded by taxpayers with little to do with anything other than the one-sided name of the program. The relevance is that the funding of research is just as prolific on the side of proponents as that of opponents (who the article further, personally attacks in a way that is not relevant). If I were to take the time to research the proponents listed, I am certian the posts would be considered irrelevant or disallowed as personal attacks. If that is not the case, please let me know and I will take the time to locate some relevant exploitation of each of them so it can be posted in the same manner as those listed under the opponent section.

As we are snowed in here in Colorado once again, I have nothing but time on my hands and would be happy to do so. -- 71.211.241.40 06:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As presented, there is simply no evidence that the distribution of the money is biased. As noted in the article, the interest in industry funding comes from guilt by association; industry groups presumably fund projects in their interest (ie that global warming is not real, or not anthropogenic, or not a big deal, etc.). There is no similar popular presumption (at least I await evidence of such) in governmental funding. That, to me at least, is the primary issue. Secondarily, the presentation is misleading in that a reader would assume that the whole of the money was going to fund global warming research, when that is not the case. Thirdly, even if it were going primarily to demonstrating the fact of global warming, it occurs in a context where virtually all scientists agree global warming is real, so research under that presumption is not unexpected.

Regarding the suggestion that the association with industry section be deleted, would you argue that it is not a notable criticism? While you may find the criticism to be flawed, it shold be presented in context if it is a major part of the case against critics of global warming. That such criticisms are guilt by association is made clear in the article. I see no similarly compelling case with the NOAA funding you cite (and no sources documenting this as a major criticism).

Finally, on a complete aside, you may find the article on Junkscience.com interesting. In particular, I would point out the editing of junkscience articles by tobacco companies [53]. --TeaDrinker 07:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It stretches credulity to suggest that money is being funneled to hardcore global warming supporters through an agency whose head serves at the pleasure of George W. Bush. Raymond Arritt 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly no evidence that would pass your logic test as the circular arguments abound. The simple fact that global warming is only evidence of the cyclic nature of our planet's history is not enough. The fact that the increases in CO2 in all of the charts displayed show it as a lagging indicator and not a leading contributor to the cooling in the past. The elevated levels of CO2 during periods of cooling being disregarded, the lack of any water-vapor effect in any of the projections, the position that "virtually all scientists" agree there is global warming when the arguemnt is cause-effect.

Finally, what does tobacco have to do with global warming, why insist on even mentioning that when there are scientific and sound arguments put forward that happen to be on the junkscience.com web site? If 2+2=4 it makes little difference if Karl Marx or Groucho Marx made the point it is still a fact. Additionally a 1996 article does not impress me much. Global Cooling was all the rage in the 1970's but that too is an inconvenient truth.

I would remind you, Raymond, the national parks were started under Grant and expanded by Teddy Roosavelt (both Republicans), the Endangered Species Act was signed into law by Nixon (also a Republican). The sophmoric comment about agency heads serving at the pleasure of George Bush is a great example of ignorance and a clear indication of your bias. All appointees are approved by the Senate and have little to no authority with regard to awarding of Grants (they are typically being sued by various organizations and have little time to spend on monitoring such things as grants). While I could, as I said, list grantees, or research the amounting of funding to anthropogenic based global warming theory recipients, the bias of the status-quo protectors would not be moved.

Just like the "Population Bomb" preditions, the "Japan take-over" predictions, the "Peace in our time" paper wavers, the "Spotted Owl extinction" purvayors, the "whale oil chrisis" supporters and anyone else who was looking for a way to predict societal upevil using limited resources of intelligence or logic, time will prove the anthropogenic global warming hoax to be just that. The particulate release of one volcano is enough to mask the anthropogenic effects for hundreds of years, and render the models meaningless.

Grants are not issued to prove anything wrong they are issued to those who have the time and energy it takes to request them. They are also, frequently, earmarked to specific regions or organizations. It is a game, the "sky is falling" folks are very good at the game because the rest of us are trying to live our lives and drive our SUVs to and from work, in the snow, and wondering why we are wasting our time trying to engage in a conversation where the closed minded, biased, intolerant and ignorant choose to flourish.

Please feel free to do your part in reducing global warming and remove yourselves from the cycle of anthropogenic environmental destruction in whatever way you see fit. I believe Dr. Kevorkian is about to be paroled, he may have some ideas that would help. --- 71.211.241.40 04:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)a

Global warming is bogus science. but for a piece of that $120,000,000 I'll kiss up - where does the line start.

$120M is peanuts compared to the funding for wars, weapons research, banking, oil exploration... you name it. If you want money, climate is a poor place to be William M. Connolley 19:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But if you want power, it's the best place. Politicians win elections with the climate hysteria all over the world right now. And where power is, the money isnt far. --Childhood's End 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, like... errrmmm... Bush. Oh no. Your grasp of reality is weak William M. Connolley 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bush would not be winning his next election as far as I know, and anyway, he has already started to give pieces of support to mainstream climate science since his support went under 45%. Just watch the next Republican candidate make further concessions to the climate buzz. --Childhood's End 16:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Think Tanks

From wikipedia's own "think tank" page:

" The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition has also worked to cast doubt on the scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming, as have a number of conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute--all of whom receive large contributions from petroleum industry companies like ExxonMobil and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. "

(go to the Think Tank page and you will see several citations)

This certainly deserves a mention on this page. Such think tanks are a big force in this ongoing debate and its worth mentioning where they get their funding from. Any ideas on the best way to work this into the page? 160.39.208.20 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Global warming skepticism

I suggest the recently re-created Global warming skepticism article should be merged into this article (whatever useful npov material which is contained therein). As it stands as two articles, the skepticism seems to be a pov fork of this article. I don't think we should be in the position of starting a seperate article for different sides of a debate, as it would seem to give undue weight to the minority positions. Thus merge any useful material into this article and restoring the redirect seems to be a reasonable course of action. --TeaDrinker 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Global warming skepticism is mostly WP:OR and is very poorly written. The few useful bits should be brought here, and then GWS can be euthanized. Raymond Arritt 19:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see anything in the Global warming skepticism article that should be saved, except possibly the Tennekes quote. But I think that only needs to be saved if T is notable and deserves his own article. --Nethgirb 21:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the notion of skepticism differs largely from the notion of controversy. You seem to disregard the philosophical issues about new sciences, which is related to skepticism a lot more than to the controversy aspects. There are persons outside the specific science fields associated with climatology who can have legitimate grounds for skepticism about climatology issues, just like it can be for evolution/intelligent design, or for the Big Bang, or for other cases. I think that it is what this article should aim to encompass, although it may need improvement or modifications. Remember that nowadays, climatology extends to the lives of almost every person on the planet since most governments have adopted public policies in this field and with the large media coverage. Also, @Raymond Arritt, if an article is poorly written according to you, nothing prevents you to help make it better in this regard. --Childhood's End 21:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"You seem to disregard the philosophical issues about new sciences, which is related to skepticism a lot more than to the controversy aspects." I see no reason why they can't be discussed in this article, as long as this is a position advanced by notable climate skeptics and is not original research. "There are persons outside the specific science fields associated with climatology who can have legitimate grounds for skepticism about climatology issues..." Such people are already included in Global warming controversy#Opponents_of_the_global_warming_theory. --Nethgirb 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"I see no reason why they can't be discussed in this article" - As I pointed out, skepticism and controversy are very different notions, and one does not encompasses the other. Such people are already included in Global warming controversy#Opponents_of_the_global_warming_theory. Again, the notion of controversy is different from skepticism and its sources. Please read skepticism and controversy. --Childhood's End 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it's an original essay, i.e., WP:OR. Raymond Arritt 23:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. GWS is a disaster of OR. I've reverted it to a redirect here. If there was anything of value it could be merged, but I didn't see anything William M. Connolley 11:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that what you did is unacceptable. Erasing an entire article so quickly before more than 3 persons can discuss about it is close to arbitrary censorship and is assuming an authority which you do not possess. Also, the fact that you are ignorant about or see no interest in philosophy does not mean that you are blessed with a mission to keep all the world ignorant about it. There are interesting and material philosophical issues about climatology, just like there are about stem cell research, the Big Bang, evolution, and other such sciences. Many thinkers are actually publishing articles about the epistemological problems of climatology, and the quoted article from Valerio Lucarini at MIT was just an example.

There are important public decisions that are taken around the world which affects the lives of most persons in advanced countries on the grounds of a new science, which appears to be right according to most scientists but which can legitimately be doubted to provide enough certainty as a groud for important public policies, or so many think in the public. Philosophy and epistemology belong to the discussion.

If I am wrong about making a specific article on skepticism and most people consider that it should be merged here, although there is a very wide margin between skepticism and controversy, fine. But do not fancy yourself as a perfect and all-knowledgeable judge of what should be discussed about climatology and what should not.

I will revert the article and will gladly participate in the discussion about a possible merge. Right now, you are just censoring the philosophical issues from the climate debate, as well as Hendrik Tennekes comments. A better solution can certainly be found. --Childhood's End 15:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it seems there are 4 of us in agreement. --Nethgirb 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to write an NPOV article on epistemological problems of climatology which isn't OR, then feel free. If you want to create a POV fork of this article filled with OR, then take it off wiki William M. Connolley 20:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As you would have noticed if you would have read before erasing, I had a full quote from a detailed article by Lucarini from MIT about the epistemological problems of climatology. Your actual behavior is no less than a censorship attempt. --Childhood's End 02:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to keep wiki sane. If we let everyone put their stuff in just cos they kept saying "censorship" it would be chock full of junk William M. Connolley 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but right now, you seem to have given yourself the position of "the boss" of climate-related pages. What I'm saying, which seems to me fair, is that there are sciences which are subject to a relatively important epistemological debate, and climatology is one of them. Not only is it complex and grounded on 10+ different disciplines, but it is still fairly new. If older fields of research like psychology, evolution, stem cells and others accept that they are subject to a philosophical controversy, climatology would do as well if it was honest. Lucarini from MIT is not "everyone putting his stuff". To help you understand, here is something that you will find on the article about psychology, : "A common criticism of psychology concerns its fuzziness as a science. Philosopher Thomas Kuhn suggested that psychology is in a pre-paradigmatic state, lacking the agreement on facts found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics." Psychology exists since centuries and this is still discussed.

You may firmly believe in climatology and have no doubt about its findings, but this should not bring you to prevent such a discussion about it, which is actually happening in many places, and not only at MIT (which is good enough to appear on Wiki imho). Waiting for thoughts about this. --Childhood's End 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As WMC said above, it may be possible to write an appropriate article for Wikipedia on epistemological problems of climatology. The problem is that the way you wrote the article was almost entirely WP:OR. The single quote you gave is not enough. Even that quote was purported to support a conclusion which it did not state (that "the findings of climatology ... are less likely to be knowledge"). Those who wish to include material bear the burden to demonstrate that it is verifiable. --Nethgirb 19:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not help improve the article and the words used in it instead of calling for erasing it? I may try to get something more specific on epistemology. But as I look at the pages about psychology and other sciences, I am thinking more and more about a short section "Criticism" on the climatology page.

It was more than a matter of wording, it would take a significant amount of time to bring the article into compliance with WP:OR] while salvaging salient points. It's fine if you want to put in the effort but asking others to do for you is not reasonable. --Nethgirb 06:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cutting down on size

This article seems too long, unfocused, poorly organized, and as a result not very useful. One way to begin to fix that would be to cut way down on the discussion of the scientific consensus here, including in the introduction and section 2.1 --- except of course for a brief overview. The "Assertions by supporters of the global warming theory" is much better handled at Global warming, Attribution of recent climate change, etc., while the fact that there is a consensus is better handled at Scientific opinion on climate change. --Nethgirb 09:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me reasonable. --Childhood's End 13:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, let me propose something more radical -- get rid of this article entirely, merging the discussion of controversy of the science, to the extent that it is notable or credible, into a section of Scientific opinion on climate change; and the discussion of controversy in the political/public spheres into Politics of global warming. Opinions? --Nethgirb 22:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias by juxtaposition?

When the supporters and opponents of global warming are listed, shouldn't a list of prominent supporters from outside of the scientific community be listed to equalize the sides and keep the arguement as unbiased as possible?

Not really. Given the list of prominent organistations, who needs a few individuals? William M. Connolley 09:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

This link was removed - http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm - because it is "POV heavy"??? C'mon, it's in the politics section! Politics is always POV heavy. And this wiki-article is about Global Warming *Controversy* - I am convinced that the above mentioned link belongs here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.78.88 (talk • contribs) 21:05, January 20, 2007 (UTC).

Here is a government source for the same thing: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Better? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.78.88 (talk • contribs) 21:07, January 20, 2007 (UTC).

Well, it's not really a government source; it's Mark Morano's personal blog which happens to be hosted on the EPW's web site. If it is included, it should be paired with a link to Heidi Cullen's original post [54]. I could be convinced otherwise, but it didn't seem to rise to the level of import necessary for inclusion -- there are too many links there already, and the article mostly just shows that Mark Morano is a skeptic. --Nethgirb 22:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In summary form it's "conservative blogger supports global warming skeptics", which is not exactly an earth-shattering insight. If it were, say, the director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research criticizing Cullen then it would be worth noting. Raymond Arritt 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No. In summary form it is "global warming believers look to silence dissent", which is not exactly an earth-shattering insight. It's not surprising that you would want to silence this bit of insightful information into the behavior of the believers. After all, you're a believer. The link also describes some of the big money that flows towards the global warming alarmists. You couldn't even be truthful about the contents of the link Raymond. Your credibility is already weak, and it's over the insertion of a simple link. This says a lot about you and how you operate. But don't let me stop you. You and Nethgirb have censoring and whitewashing to do. Likwidshoe 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your perspective. Everyone is entitled to their own view; I'll not challenge you on it. Raymond Arritt 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If setting the record straight is somehow baiting you, then so be it. It just needed to be pointed out that you were being less than honest. Also of note is that you employ some of the same tactics as described in the article. Likwidshoe 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro needs to be rewritten

The Intro says the controversy is about what should be done about global warming. That is not accurate. If you read the article, the controversy is about the role of mankind in global warming and what should be done about it. Recent science indicates the role of mankind has been overstated by the IPCC, i.e, the research by Giese and Svensmark. RonCram 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't push one or two papers as though they were the new consensus. But I agree the first sentence is a bit odd: there is plenty of controversy within the political sphere as to whether GW is anthro or not William M. Connolley 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RonCram didn't give any indication that he holds consensus above all else, as you do. Speaking of unimpeachable "scientific consensus" - what happened to the major hurricane season of 2006? It never showed up. Granted, it is a slightly different subject, but the point remains. Likwidshoe 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I don't hold consensus above all else. You seem to be going out of your way to be offensive. If you can find some nice scientific predictions of a major 2006 season that didn't show up, that would be interesting William M. Connolley 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure you do. I find it funny that an article supposedly about the controversy is controlled by a small cadre of believers. Those believers keep on citing "consensus" as if that alone makes the opinion right. I ask again - what happened to the major hurricane season of 2006? Now here is your cue to dodge it as if those predictions never happened. You believe the science is settled, which is also funny considering that the prevailing opinion on it changes every decade or so. Human induced global cooling, global warming, "climate change" is true, and it has to be true because of the ever changing "strong scientific consensus". That position is offensive and so is your belligerence and condescension towards those who ask the questions you dodge. And that's no bull. Likwidshoe 02:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I again switched one reference to the "minority" of skeptics back to "small minority". This is not redundant: 5% is a small minority, 49% is a large minority. Given the evidence that nearly everyone agrees with the principal points in the consensus, those of you who wish to imply that the skeptics form a significant minority of climate scientists had better provide some evidence before putting your assertions into the article. --Nethgirb 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine Nethgirb. I didn't expect you to be fair about the issue. I was changing it while knowing that you supporters would go apeshit over the small change. You have an agenda, and it must be protected. Those asking uncomfortable questions will be minimalized and mocked. Likwidshoe 02:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny that the burden of proof should belong to those who hold the view that the majority opinion in climate science is not bold enough to allow a resonable use of the word consensus. In any reasonable debate, those who allege consensus have the burden to i- prove such consensus, and ii- prove that the criteria they have use to define "consensus" is reasonable and generally accepted.

In the case of global warming, there is plenty of litterature casting doubts about climate change, just like there is plenty supporting it. But climate activists here want people to believe that the existence of a consensus must be proven untrue, just like a religious would want you to prove that God does not exist before you can say that there is no consensus about the existence of God. --Childhood's End 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Finding a scientific paper that contradicts the consensus opinion is extremely hard. We have had a couple of proposals, but nearly all of them crumbled under closer scrutiny, in that the proponent had misread or overinterpreted them (Hi Ron ;-). Deciding if a paper is compatible with the IPCC position or not requires reasonable competence in the field. It also counts as original research. The consensus position is supported by reliable external sources: The IPCC reports themselves, which have undergone multiple levels of peer review, as well as the Oreskes analysis, the joint statement of the G8+ academies of science (which explicitely states "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the IPCC") and similar high-ranking scientific sources. On the "other side" there are few individuals (very few of them actual scientists), and a number of lobbying organizations like the Cato Institute, the Greener Earth Society, SEPP, ... , with essentially no scientific standing. None of this is a reliable source to dispute the existence of the consensus. --Stephan Schulz 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What an amusement to read this stuff. I'll recommend it for scientific peer review.

Finding a scientific paper that contradicts the consensus opinion is extremely hard - for who? / but nearly all of them crumbled under closer scrutiny - whose scrutinity? not the House of Lords[[55]] at least... / Deciding if a paper is compatible with the IPCC position or not requires reasonable competence in the field - which only IPCC supporters got, right? / The consensus position is supported by reliable external sources: The IPCC reports themselves - wooaaah so the IPCC reports support their reports? / the G8+ academies of science (which explicitely states "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the IPCC") and similar high-ranking scientific sources - ever looked at the individual members of these academies instead ? / On the "other side" there are few individuals (very few of them actual scientists) - where "scientist" is defined by what suits your POV / and a number of lobbying organizations like the Cato Institute, the Greener Earth Society, SEPP, ... , with essentially no scientific standing. - oops, you just ignored Friends of Science, this list of 60 scientists [[56]] and all the others, probably on the ground that they are rumoured to receive funding from the oil industry. None of this is a reliable source to dispute the existence of the consensus. Indeed, as you present it. --Childhood's End 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad we agree. --Stephan Schulz 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He agreed with you? I think that you're showing us that you don't listen to anybody's opinion unless you agree with it. All you have to do is say that something has "no scientific standing" and wipe your hands clean of any questions. Those scientists over there? "No scientific standing". After all, the science of global cooling global warming "climate change" is a settled matter and the answer is indisputable. Until the next time it changes, of course. Likwidshoe 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SARCASM and [57]. It's the very nature of science that it is always open to revision. But it also is a fact that complete reversals and radical changes are extremely rare compared to conservative extensions. Compare Albert Einstein and Bozo the Clown. --Stephan Schulz 14:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny that you speak of Einstein here, after what you posted. Einstein once said "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." You should reflect about this before setting yourself as a judge of who is a reliable scientist and who is not... --Childhood's End 14:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If global warming is true then I suspect that the government will rapidly/eventually step in a controll many parts of our lives ( mostly econmic - what you heat your house with, what car you drive, etc). Is it possible that global warming is a sideline - a nicer gentler way to ease us into an oilles lifestyle - a graceful - nonrevolutionary mean - way to ease into poverty and smile while you do it.

Socialism has transformed democracy in the 20th century to suit its authoritarian views without changing the name "democracy". Socialism is about to do the same to science in the 21st century. The slow process makes it unnoticeable to most people. --Childhood's End 16:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Singer and Avery

Is there any particular reason why the S+A book is in the "printed media" section? It isn't particularly notable; on any trawl of 10 best books on the GWC it wouldn't be included. Singers argument is so unimportant it isn't even on this page... William M. Connolley 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but an argument could be put up that Singer is one of the front-line sceptics who is setting the "scepticism of the week" agenda :-) --Kim D. Petersen 19:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the books where added because of a press-release/review from Hudson Institute [58] --Kim D. Petersen 19:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite likely. But article bloat with misc ext links is always a problem, why not just delete it as NN? It can go on Singers page if anyone cares William M. Connolley 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know the first use of 'Global Warming Alarmist'

This may be unknowable, but I came to wikipedia to find out, and it's not in the article, so I might as well ask. Did some public relations firm come up with the tag 'Global Warming Alarmist', or is this an extension of a broader trend to label people raising questions about something others wish to downplay as 'X Alarmists', perhaps predating current concern about Global Warming? DavidWeisman

Here's another one

Wikipedia's left wing mod-squad won't allow any counter-points to the global warming alarmists on the global warming article itself. If that's not 100% pure evidence of the bias, I don't know what is.Ymous 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been called many things in my life but left-wing is a first, thanks :). Actually "alarmist" is a first too. The main global warming article gets a lot of editing from people who read an article "from our science correspondent" sandwiched between "Elvis Prestley seen in Birmingham" and "aliens made me fat" in a local newspaper and want to include the viewpoint. Serious counter points from peer reviewed scientific sources get discussed in the talk pages and put in. Its a bit like Scientists called Steve though: the scientific consensus is extremely strong on the issue and WP defaults to scientists determining science since (as Feymann said) "nature cannot be fooled" --BozMo talk 11:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I share Ymous Ymous's concern. Global warming has been politicized to the point where the debate is no longer scientific. Left-wing squads do have the upper hand on Wiki, although I suppose this is legitimate since the real world left-wing squad, the UN politicians, have the upper hand on science right now. It seems to be the fate of freedom that is has to be fight for again and again... Socialism changed the meaning of the word "democracy" in the 20th century, and will now use the 21st century to do a similar thing to science. --Childhood's End 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to distinguish the scientific and political spheres. The politics is... politicised. Oddly enough. The science isn't. All this "squads" stuff is just... pointless. You're ranting, without making any effort to improve wiki William M. Connolley 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Coming from you, this has to be quite an awkward accusation. You are actually policing all climate-related pages on Wiki, with an openly admitted strong belief in global warming. And please allow me to quote your last statement : You need to distinguish the scientific and political spheres. The politics is... politicised. Oddly enough. The science isn't. You are perhaps trying to tell us that the IPCC is not under the control of the ultimate polcitical machine that the UN is, but that is untrue, unfortunately. You are perhaps trying to tell us that the scientists who produce the global warming science are not hugely funded by governments, that is also unfortunately untrue. You may believe that all the scientists who support the IPCC do it on an honest scientific belief, but in fact we do not know the extent to which some or many of them are afraid of losing their fundings or positions if they dont follow suit. You are perhaps forgetting that the IPCC's Summaries for Policymakers are written out by UN government representatives, but that is just reality. Sorry for these sad facts, but that's what they are : facts. And these facts do not call for believing that the science is not politicized, and I am not only ranting on this. --Childhood's End 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

More science-free stuff, and more errors. For who writes the SPM, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/ . The *science* of the reports is not under control of the UN. If the SPM is inconsistent with the science, I'm sure lots of people will queue up to tell us, but so far the efforts have been rubbish [59]. However, I'm sure *you* wont want to talk about the science :-( William M. Connolley 18:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry William, but I see no point in talking about politicized science, because it's politicized (and anyway, whenever someone brings forth a scientist in disagreement with the IPCC, you label him as a non-scientist or as an oil-industry-puppet). I'll talk about reliable science anytime. You may have a valuable point about how the SPMs are drafted, but it remains that the mainstream climate sience is mostly under the direct or indirect influence of the UN or of national governements. Perhaps they're right, I'm not saying they cannot be, but there's too many reasons to doubt it. If you cannot trust politicians most of the time, there's no reason you should trust them when they get involved into science. --Childhood's End 20:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Childhood's End, maybe your time would be better spent helping out Ymous in the fight against the evil communist evolutionists. But why not go to the root of the problem and attack heliocentrism instead?JQ 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You may not be willing to believe it, but the anthropogenic aspects of global warming are not as certain as the fact that the Earth circles the Sun... --Childhood's End 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the conspiracy-theoretic arguments probably apply just as well in that setting. --Nethgirb 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean, just like when Copernicus first spoke about the Earth not being at the centre of the Universe? --Childhood's End 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing shrinks refer to as projection. Just because global-warming-deniers behave in such a fashion, they assume that those they oppose must be equally guilty. Gzuckier 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Monckton's analysis of 4AR

Lord Monckton has a very readable analysis. Here are some excerpts:

FIGURES in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

Also, the UN, in its 2007 report, has more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. It suggests that the rate of sea-level rise is up from 2mm/yr to 3mm/year – no more than one foot in a century.

UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling.

The Summary for Policymakers was issued February 2, 2007, but the report on which the Summary is based will not be published until May. This strange separation of the publication dates has raised in some minds the possibility that the Summary (written by political representatives of governments) will be taken as a basis for altering the science chapters (written by scientists, and supposedly finalized and closed in December 2006).

The draft of the science chapters, now being circulated to governments for last-minute comments, reveals that the tendency of computers to over-predict rises in temperature and sea level has forced a major rethink.

The report’s generally more cautiously-expressed projections confirm scientists’ warnings that the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.

You can read the full report here. [60] RonCram 01:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Or better still, read why its hopelessly wrong here William M. Connolley 19:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, given what a low bar being better qualified than someone whose only claim to fame is cyncism about global warming is, I have to concede you are better qualified that Monckton to discuss the issue ... --BozMo talk 21:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And now I've read both I am happy to add rather more convincing... --BozMo talk 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh thank you. I'm still waiting for RC's rebuttal. And I haven't forgotten your stoats William M. Connolley 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Funding of Skeptics" Section a Mess

Paragraph two: "Scientists, critical of some aspects of the discussion and their donors, dispute the validity of this guilt-by-association argument. These same critics are, themselves, part of government, state-college, and university systems; the scientific organizations listed in the proponents section; or some mix." So anyone who is funded by the (anti-Kyoto-protocol) U.S. Government, institutions of higher education (including science education), or scientific organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and the American Meteorological Society are untrustworthy? Come again? The deletion of this passage would greatly benefit the section as a whole, particularly since no citations are provided in support of this point.

Paragraph three: "Other criticisms of funding are made by groups known to be in direct opposition to either corporations in general or energy ones in particular, such as the Mother Jones criticism of ExxonMobil donating to groups such as the American Council for Capital Formation." So Mother Jones is anti-corporation? What on Earth does that even mean? And how does this passage enhance the utility or completeness of the entry?

The last paragraph, of course, is practically word salad. A sentence about Steven Milloy and TASSC is followed by a non sequitur about "these editorials." In essence, this whole section has been leavened with stuff that has no bearing on the entry and which adds no new information.

In keeping with the above points, I'll be doing a bit of spring cleaning on this section about a week from today, if there are no objections. Dicksonlaprade 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole section is an embarrassment. There's a little bit of useful information in there, but it needs to be severely pruned and brought up to an intelligible standard of grammar. Hack away... Raymond Arritt 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The sooner the better --Nethgirb 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, someone has taken out the paragraph on Bellamy and Singer's use of false information (see any pre-Feb 5 version from the last few months) w/o mentioning anything about it on the talk page. Not cool! Unless someone has a justification for me, I'll be reinserting this piece of text during my spring cleaning. Here it is:

"Some opponents to the anthropogenic view of global warming have also been criticized for using incorrect information or flawed analyses in support of their opposition. For example, in April 2005 David Bellamy published a letter in the journal New Scientist in which he claimed that, of the 625 glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service, 555 of them were growing, not shrinking--a statement which, if true, would cast a good deal of doubt on the existence of global warming. It turned out, however, that Bellamy's figures were incorrect: the vast majority of the world's glaciers have been retreating for the last several decades. A journalist for the Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer's website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but to date this article has not been found.[41]" Dicksonlaprade 21:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That was me [61]. As I noted in the diff, I moved the material to the Bellamy article. I thought it was a bit of a strange statement -- "some opponents ... have also been criticised for using incorrect information or flawed analyses" -- well actually almost all of them are using incorrect information or flawed analyses. Singling out Bellamy seemed odd too. What do you think? --Nethgirb 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I used this example since it also mentioned Fred Singer, but I think that a much shorter version of this paragraph with a link to the Bellamy article would work better. Thanks for explaining your rationale. Dicksonlaprade 14:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)