Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Risks of passive smoking

I don't think this should be in here. It is not related. Simply because there are scientists that are active in both issues does not lend anything to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.86.78 (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's part of the controversy. That's exactly why it belongs here. Many notable sources have discussed this connection. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid i have to agree with anonymous up there, it doesn't seem to contribute much, if anything, to the article. If it's gonna be kept then the first paragraph should be removed at least (with the possible exception of the last sentence). Overall it seems a little pedantic to have a whole section about second hand smoke, perhaps it could be integrated inti the rest of the article?Aamackie 12:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

An argument could definitely made that too much weight is being attributed to it. I was just arguing about why it was relevant at all. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought about trimming it, but it is very concise and well sourced. I would like to see some more opinions before feeling comfortable with a removal. Brusegadi 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, here it is. Brusegadi 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Read it and not impressed. The consensus seems to be that this stuff makes the article look bad. Colonel Warden 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In an article about a controversy, the fact that partisans of one side have made such strenuous efforts, over a lengthy period, to remove a particular piece of (factual, well-sourced and concise) information is pretty clear evidence that it is relevant. The links (intellectual, organizational, personal and financial) between the antiscience positions on global warming, CFCs and tobacco have been a major part of this controversy, and the article should reflect this. JQ 00:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that partisans of one side have made such strenous efforts, over a length period, to retain such information is pretty clear evidence of a biased POV. Me, I just looked at this piece and immediately decided that it was mudslinging about an issue which has no scientific relevance (unlike the ozone/CFC matter). I read the comments here and in the discussion cited by Brusegadi and it seems that most other editors don't like this too.

If you leave this stuff in then it will be a magnet from similar pieces from the other side, finding associations between global warming activism and other issues. Some of these might be relevant failed prognostications of doom (Club of Rome, say) while others might be totems of the left (Marxism, say). The other side then responds by finding associations with fundamentalism and neo-conservatism, say. All this would just be telling us that some sceptics tend to be sceptical about other things too while some alarmists tend to be alarmist about other issues. And that political extremists latch onto issues which they feel supports their general position. Colonel Warden 08:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 08:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair. Here's a list of the members of the Club of Rome [1]. Why don't you check how many of them are lead authors on the IPCC or otherwise prominent climate scientists holding the mainstream view. If there's a big overlap, you can probably find a source saying so. Similarly, I'm sure you can find a source saying that most members of the National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society and so on are Marxists. In fact, if you go to Global warming conspiracy theory you'll find plenty of such sources on the skeptical side of the debate.JQ 08:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• One doesn't need to find many/most people - just some prominent examples, as in the smoking smear. I just made a spot check on the Royal Society, to take one of your examples. This proved to be easy meat because its president is Martin Rees who recently published Our Final Hour in which he predicts that humanity will be extinct by 2100 with 50% probability. This makes him both an alarmist prophet of doom and gives him a financial interest in talking up the matter. One can easily spin some similar agitprop out of this. Colonel Warden 12:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

DDT is a good counter-example. But would not add in any way to the article, which is supposed to be about global warming. Iceage77 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Mr. Rees an IPCC author? I dont see that in his page. So, it is not really the same case, is it? Also, are the scientists in the IPCC involved with the DDT stuff? Many of the political activists for a ban on DDT may be the same guys for CO2 regulation. But not the scientists (so the lab guys are clean.) On the other hand, the gw skeptic scientists are the same guys who were skeptic of CFCs, second hand smoke, etc.... You see, many gw skeptic scientists behave like liberal politicians. Great finding. Brusegadi 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

DDT is an excellent example of how the same smoking industry hacks like Milloy (yet again!) and thinktanks (notably AEI) that push global warming delusionism have created a spurious controversy to attack environmentalists. [2]. So I guess we could include it if you like. But I think the existing examples make the point OK.JQ 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about global warming, it is about the controversy about global warming. If many leading climate scientists of today had a history of making statements about other issues in the past that later turned out to be an unwarranted alarmist attitude, then that would be highly relevant in the current global warming controversy. Count Iblis 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think y'all make a good point about the counter-examples. If there are noteworthy sources that make these points, they should be included, too, as they would be part of the controversy. Just make sure it's not WP:OR or WP:SYN. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

TV shows

Recently - on PBS or CSPAN - I saw a show with a young Danish guy ( he spoke excellent English )( don't remember his name but he must be will known. His show more than easily shots down most of the pro-global warming science. It was kind of embarrassing to listen to him - his mastery of the details - a regular trivia champion. Things like the fact ( unknown to me before ) that the sea has been rising for more than a century 1 foot in 150 years I believe he said. Cutting co2 will save 1 polar bear a year ( we hunt and shoot 1000 every year ). If we do all we could - no co2 etc etc etc the temperature will reach the same level very soon after the year 2100 that it would if we do nothing ( a few years 7? ). His point was that spending the money on preparing for what was going to happen anyway was a lot smarter than supporting your local climate scientist. It appears, as I thought, that the scientists jumped onto a wagon they already knew about in order to suck some money from the public - with Al Gore as their leader. Good job if you can get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.181.165 (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that "a recent show on PBS or CSPAN" is not really a verifiable source, and that it is very easy to raise scepticism about complex topics on TV, where you can throw around unsourced soundbites and out-of-context quotes with impunity, your statement is not even self-consistent. If the unknown Dane (I suspect it was Bjørn Lomborg - see the image in his article) "shot down most of the pro-global warming science" (amazing feat that, refuting just the thousands of pages of text in the IPCC reports in a single TV show, not to mention the thousands of papers these are based on), how would reducing CO2 (to what level?) delay the warming even a few years? Of course, if adaption or mitigation is a better course of action is a valdid discussion. But neither of the positions rejects anthropgenic global warming. --Stephan Schulz 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Antarctica

I will trim much. As it stands, its undue weight and it is not factual in the sense that I recall Crichton misrepresented the paper cited. Brusegadi 02:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone think this was way out of line? If so, speak up. I thought it was undue weight, and not properly sourced. It looked like an easy one to me. Brusegadi 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it still in? Some mention might be made of it, because it was an issue, and even sourced Crichton as a populariser of it could be fair. BTW, the sea ice section is currently weird - there is an "antarctic" section that is mostly about the arctic, and doesn't tell you what is actually happening William M. Connolley 09:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

fixed. I think it was a confused header. Brusegadi 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Q Science brought up a good National geographic link that actually calls the whole thing a controversy. This takes care of some of my WP:SYN concerns. I will try to build a subsection in this page around that source. Brusegadi 23:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

By "this", Brusegadi means that he deleted the entire section rather than edit it. Most of the information is now being discussed at Antarctica cooling controversy where Brusegadi is trying to have the entire page deleted because he claims that "There is no controversy". Q Science 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I claim the controversy is so small that it does not merit an article. Hell, I thought it did not merit a section here. If you think it merits a section here go for it. If someone had reverted my edit I would not have gone back without first getting opinions from others here. Finally, you are taking the AFD too seriously. Its not like I deleted the article. I know you probably put a lot of work into that article, but I have doubts it belongs and I want others to take a look. Well within my rights as an editor. Brusegadi 22:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added some stuff back in the least verbose way I could do it. I suggest expanding a bit more by: i) adding things I neglected (in my view, perhaps 4 or 5 thick lines, just for proper weighting) ii) once we have everything we want to say, expand the paragraphs by adding detail (eg, instead of saying "in 'State of Fear' we can say "in his novel 'State of Fear'" which adds volume without disrupting weight balances.) Brusegadi 00:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think reference 108 is wrong, is talking about ice not temperature cooling. The right reference is National Geographic, but the article of interest is [3]. Mariordo 02:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I used "108" to source the word 'controversy'. I thought it was important to show the reader that someone has referred to this in such terms given the researches have not really indicated that what is happening is rare, regarding Antarctica the consensus seems to be that better data would be awesome! (I thought this sounded cool, but I am a strange geek, so laugh with me or at me!) Brusegadi 02:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Food for Thought

I just watched What is Normal?. It makes some good points but I wonder if anyone has tried to refute this video yet? Is it accurate? Should some of the points be listed in the controversy article? I would appreciate a response. --Jayson Virissimo 20:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a video summary of this which deals with most of the main AGW issues. We would have to find other sources though to include in the article as this is self-published. There is another good video on youtube by Bob Carter Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?. Iceage77 13:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. The "theory" section is especially troubling. It would be helpful if they actually read some articles on the topic, instead of just making things up. Raymond Arritt 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Its point about diminishing returns is a good one. Colonel Warden 16:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

...except that the statement about the asymptotic effect is wrong, of course. Not supringly, since the quote a Motl.... --Stephan Schulz 18:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Urban Heat Island

From the article:

Stephen McIntyre analyzed Peterson's raw data. He claimed to find "actual cities have a very substantial trend of over 2 °C per century relative to the rural network - and this assumes that there are no problems with rural network - something that is obviously not true since there are undoubtedly microsite and other problems." [85] McIntyre has not published his results in a peer-reviewed journal.

The source cited (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859) is self-published (a blog). This appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources. Comments? Leehach 03:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case one could say that it is a primary source because Stephen McIntyre's opinions and ideas are a large part of what this controvery is about. What matters is if the source gives relevant information regarding the controversy, not whether the information is correct from a scientific point of view. Count Iblis 22:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Was the IPCC Summary really "approved line by line"?

Under "Political, economic, and social aspects of the controversy", the quote by Kevin E. Trenberth starts

The SPM was approved line by line by governments

Having recently reviewed IPCC AR4 WG1 Summary for Policymakers Second Order Draft Comments and Final Draft Comments, I agree that the summary was reviewed line by line, but there is no way to conclude that it was approved line by line. I suggest a modification to make this clear. Q Science 20:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't modify Trenberths quote, obviously. If you can find someone to disagree with him, you could put that in. What are you proposing? William M. Connolley 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The recent reply of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen to Lockwood and Fröhlich

The 2007 Proc. R. Soc. paper by Lockwood and Fröhlich is quoted in the Alternate Theories section as the definitive rejection of any solar variation influence during the last 20 years. A recent comprehensive reply has been brought out by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen and published as a preprint on the Danish National Space Center web pages, but so far not in a peer-reviewed journal. I had added a link to this paper and a description of its contents, duly pointing out that it's not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal, to the quotations of the LF paper in both the Global warming and the Global warming controversy articles. My contribution was simply deleted and there was some ensuing discussion on Talk:Global_warming, to which I'd like to refer those who have not participated, especially for why I think it is in accord with WP:SPS and WP:WEIGHT after all.

For one, Ben Hocking agreed that my contribution was at least "appropriate on the Global warming controversy page. ("Appropriate context" being that a very brief mention that the reply has not yet been peer-reviewed, and/or that the reply being used to indicate chiefly that they disagree with the assessment of their work, which this is clearly a reliable indication of.)"

As one can see from this diff from before and after its deletion, my addition explicitly mentioned the fact that this reply has not been published in a peer-review journal so far.

Ben Hocking then advocated "shortening it a bit, and altering the wording to make it slightly more neutral (an admittedly tricky task)" and to continue this discussion here.

I am therefore proposing to reinstate this deleted contribution of mine, and to work together to make it more appropriate if necessary, but without defacing or completely suppressing it. I think it would be interesting to readers of this page to learn that the much quoted L+F paper may not be the final word on the cosmic ray hypothesis. It would be worthwhile to also point out that S+F-C leave in particular a linear trend of 0.14 K/decade unaccounted for by their cosmic ray correlation, where they concede that it is reasonable to attribute that to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but they also present their reasons for scepticism. However, this could only be done by expanding my contribution, rather than shortening it. N.Nahber 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my recommended shortened version:

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen disputed this by arguing that tropospheric air temperature records, as opposed to the surface air temperature data used by Lockwood and Fröhlich, do show a significant negative correlation between cosmic-ray flux and air temperatures up to 2006. As of October 2007, this reply has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

I believe it hits their most important argument without giving undue weight. It mentions that it has not yet been peer-reviewed, but also alerts editors that this is dated information (I think most of us expect that this will be published in the same journal that published their original article). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, I see your point regarding the weight issue. With the link present, people can anyway read the rest of the arguments of S+F-C and form their own opinion. I would not be surprised if it takes a rather long time before this reply gets published, though. As far as I'm concerned please go ahead and add this to the article. N.Nahber 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait a little while to get Stephan's input. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

After havig read the paper, I'd strike the "yet" from "not yet been published". I don't know if any journal will accept it, at least in its present form. We probably should also point out that they are now esentially down to claiming that the 11-year sunspot cycle is tracked by the climate - they explicitely remove the long-term trend from the temperature. As far as I can make out, they also use a very much questionable ocean temperature time series, but I don't know enough about the topic to be certain (and that would be WP:OR anyways). A suggestion old be:

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen dispute this by arguing that after the removal of a long-term warming trend and disturbances like El Nino events, tropospheric air temperature records, as opposed to the surface air temperature data used by Lockwood and Fröhlich, do show a significant negative correlation between cosmic-ray flux and air temperatures up to 2006. As of October 2007, this reply has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

--Stephan Schulz 07:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say Benhocking's version is much better besides being shorter. S+F-C have a significant negative correlation of -0.31 before they apply their debatable removal of El Nino, North Atlantic oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend. The latter increases the negative correlation to impressive levels (-0.47), but already the uncorrected correlation is significant enough to rebut the sweeping conclusion of L&F that no link whatsoever existed. N.Nahber 10:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that it's yet more disinformational, crackpotty nonsense when you factor in the weight it's being given relative to its scientific merit relative to what the best evidence shows. It not only serves to distract from much more important science and research, but it also gives comfort and aid to the global warming skeptics/deniers who tend to sieze upon any crumb, however small or dubious, to support their views. -BC aka Callmebc 13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest, then, that you should communicate your concerns to the people who run the CERN accelerator - after all, having allocated a permanent atmospheric research unit based on Svensmark et al's work, they should really be told that it is 'crackpotty nonsense' - at least in your opinion. Sorry, I might just put my faith in CERN on this one ;-) BadCop666 11:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually prefer Stephan's version. Also, I'd note that not even -0.47 is an impressive correlation, as it is on the upper end (or lower end, if you want to be pedantic) of "medium correlation" (and -0.31 is on the other end of "medium correlation"). Whether it is statistically significant depends on the statistical power of the study. As for BC's comment, I'd like to argue that this article is about the controversy and not just the science. We need to address disinformational statements, but in as neutral a way as possible (which includes proper treatment of weight, of course). Ignoring them does not help. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned previously I'd prefer the shortest possible version; i.e., a simple "S&F-C dispute these findings" with a link to their web page for anyone who wants the details. That the appropriate level of attention for non-peer reviewed findings on what is -- let's face it -- a fringe hypothesis. Raymond Arritt 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it disinformational to try to denounce the few serious scientists in the skeptics camp as crackpots. Furthermore, total irradiance data from satellites however beautiful are not so relevant when the issue is the cosmic ray mechanism which is supposed to act through cloud formation. N.Nahber 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the longwinded discussion here and at Global Warming demonstrate my point: when you factor in the undue weight it's being given -- as is done on Wikipedia -- relative to its scientific merit when compared to what the best evidence and most recent research shows, it is disinformational, crackpotty nonsense for all the "good" it's doing, especially in the face of the relentless, cynical & dishonest politics and deliberate misinformation at play over the topic. -BC aka Callmebc 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fringe is not the same as "crackpot". The more we write about this, the more other sources and lines of investigations need to be mentioned, otherwise it will look like the solar variation issue is for a large part a discussion between Lockwood and Fröhlich vs. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen. E.g. this study looked at the problem from a different perspective. Count Iblis 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed an interesting and relevant paper. However, the reason why I think that the S+F-C reply deserves mention is that the Solar Variation sections of both the GW and GWC article present L+F as the final definitive dismissal of the cosmic ray hypothesis. It is only fair to note, briefly, that S+F-C, one of the main targets of L+F, dispute that. By the way, I don't see myself a member of the GW sceptics/deniers camp, even though I had to act as devil's advocate here. N.Nahber 18:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: I didn't protest against "fringe" but at the previous "crackpotty". I don't know why the enty by Raymond Arritt appears just before mine although being dated as later. N.Nahber 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think that the shortened version of my contribution by Ben Hocking is appropriate for the Controversy page. To just insert the link is a bit too terse for my taste given that L+F are quoted verbosely in the text. N.Nahber 19:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest at the least somebody pay more attention to the article page -- there are some weaselly edits collecting. -BC aka Callmebc 19:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: where? Can't see anything related to our discussion here. N.Nahber 08:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm trying to wrap up this discussion now. I can agree that in the Global Warming article, the recent as yet unpublished reply of S+F-C to L+F does not deserve more room until it too got published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, in the Global Warming Controversy article, it is rather misleading to quote L+F at length and to give the impression that the issue of solar activity is now definitely closed and that L+F have put the final nail in that coffin (as L+F described their work). There has been quite some criticism of L+F, which could be referred to, but I think that at least the recent S+F-C reply needs to be mentioned, since these authors have been the center of the criticism of L+F and they have now brought out a formal reply which is not just a blog contribution but a scientific preprint. WP:SPS says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." and so seems to me to justify a reference to this reply prior to publication, and WP:WEIGHT seems to me to make it even indispensable to do so, at least in the Controversy page, since otherwise the explicitly quoted conclusion of L+F receives an unjustified 100% weight. A good compromise seems to me a shortened version of my original contribution which I am going to include in the article. It's of course fine if other's find that its wording can be improved and they are invited to try. Simply deleting or completely defacing it would not be appropriate. N.Nahber 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been quite some criticism of L+F - if true, this should be included I guess, if its credible. What sort of things are you thinking of? William M. Connolley 14:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blog contributions such as Nir Shaviv's "Why is Lockwood and Fröhlich meaningless?" or the extensive posting at scienceandpublicpolicy.org, which I found only after having heard of the S+F-C reply. Nir Shaviv is an astrophysicist; I don't have any idea about the author of the latter "publication". Do you? N.Nahber 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's one perspective on the latter author.[4] Raymond Arritt 16:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I know about Motl, but he's not the author of the scienceandpublicpolicy.org thing, whatever that is. N.Nahber 18:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming and Environmental Catastrophe and Cataclysm as Public Moral Panic

I've suggested in Talk: Moral Panic that public perceptions of the science and predictions of AGW constitute a moral panic. In particular-

• sensitivity to and tendency to accept suggestions of risk
• diminished capacity to assess risk
• acceptance of the thesis of 'human hubris'
• Projection of indeterminate or unconscious fears onto external phenomena - eg., fears of the 'other' once focussed during the Cold War on anti-community ideas, now focussed on terrorism, islamic fundmentalism, illegal immigration, drugs and underclass, environmental disaster, epidemic etc

[Sorry, not sure how to cite: Culture of Fear Revisited, Furedi, Continuum Press, 1997] If this is accepted as a suitable example of moral panic I would like Global Warming Controversy or a more suitable Global Warming subsection to include a link to moral panic. As far as AGW is concerned, this is intended only to illustrate the perception framework already in place before, and developing during, the epoch of the AGW issue. Commentary on and analysis of the media's role in transmitting the substance of public perceptions will be examined. Are public perceptions accurate? If not, what mechanisms might operate in this case? Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:OR to me. --BozMo talk 10:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

negative. Without actually writing the whole thing what do I do, summarise? And so it looks like WP:OR because...you haven't heard of it before? Please illustrate your suspicions. Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This article by Benny Peiser seems relevant. Iceage77 (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't have a "Humor" section yet. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create one, as an antidote to the doom and gloom of the IPCC :) Iceage77 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! This article is a mess anyway, so a few good chuckles would help to redeem it. ;) Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

humor? chuckles? dismissivness is only slightly below sarcasm as a shallow veneer on ignorance, in my opinion. No, the suggestion of Moral Panic is quite separate from the debate(s) around the science of GW. If people are living in fear due only to perceptions rather than reality, then it is a blight on their enjoyment of life, and if their ability to assess risk objectively is reduced, then they can be prayed on and manipulated simply through the suggestion of risk. This is a serious suggestion. Serious suggestions only in this section please. Humor it is not. BadCop666 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's hard to take anything with the word 'Peiser' in it seriously in light of his track record on global warming-related work. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with his work, but a Social Anthropologist is more closely aligned with this topic (Morality, Social Psychology) than a climate researcher. Mainstream media coverage of GW comprises largely morality drenched, unspecific, Ad nauseam. Thanks for drawing my attention to him though. I struggle to find credible coverage of scientific debate around GW in mainstream media - and I contend that this is because the media is less interested in accuracy than the sales potential of sensationalism [cite: Robert Park, Voodoo Science, OUP, 2000]. This, of course, does no-one any good. Scientists, policy makers, the general public, are all swayed by sensation to some extent. Hence Moral Panic. BadCop666 (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You certainly won't get any disagreement from me with regard to the poor coverage of GW (or science generally) in the mainstream media. The issue may be worth discussing in the article but you'll need a more credible source than Peiser; there are plenty of people who have looked at the intersection of science, the media, and public attitudes. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, from a brief survey of Monsieur Peiser, his efforts re' Oreskes were clumsy to say the least. And it is hardly surprising that Oreskes found agreement amongst the papers she reviewed. In terms of the social mechanisms fueling the ascendancy of Climate Science currently, the science is less interesting and relevant than the social history of perceptions of risk, and the decline in rational thinking, and it's affect on society generally, not excluding the scientific community itself. Against an ideological background of doom and gloom, it is no surprise that AGW is intersecting so dynamically with the political needs of the western powers and the UN. Several million people will die of poverty, disease and US military barbarism while AGW researchers 'tune' their climate models over the next decade. Harsh, brutal realities much worse than those 'predicted' by the IPCC, have been the day to day reality for several billion people for decades, and, if you could get a few of them in a room and tried to tell them about how bad things are going to get, they'd look at you sideways and probably wonder if everyone in the west is mad. Didn't THAT turn into a wee diatribe! Later. BadCop666 (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reinstalling Link

I am reinstalling a link in the "evolving position" section that Stephan Schulz removed saying "Reference has nothing to do with the claims". The entire paragraph that the link was added to discuss the Bush Administration's push to eliminate discussion of mitigation in favor of simply adapting to future climate change. The link states that U.S. officials again "toned down" the language, this time for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report specifically with regards to this very issue. Sorry Steve, I'm not sure how it can be any more pertinent.

"In the course of negotiations over the report by the second working group of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, U.S. officials challenged the wording of a section suggesting that policymakers need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because countries will not be able to respond to climate change simply by using adaptive measures such as levees and dikes. In that instance, the original draft read: 'However, adaptation alone is not expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change, and especially not over the long run as most impacts increase in magnitude. Mitigation measures will therefore also be required.' That second sentence does not appear in the final version of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers".[5] 63.196.193.97 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe my edit summary should have been clearer. The paragraph is talking about the 2005 COP 8 climate talks in New Delhi. The WashPost article talks about negotiations about the 2007 IPCC synthesis report. I don't think this fits in. I can see the point of mentioning this source, but not in an off-hand comment in the middle of a different topic. Maybe you can expand it to a full sentence or two further on? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. The topic (section) is adaptation v mitigation and that particular paragraph discusses the Bush Administration's general stance on that. I think in that way it fits in nicely. I actually thought of including the entire quoted section above but not wanting to make the section too much bigger felt a link would be enough. But maybe you're right. Where did you have in mind putting it? 63.196.193.97 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The section 'attribution to greenhouse gases' states in its first bullet-point:

• ... Furthermore, if greenhouse gases were causing the climate warming then scientists would expect the troposphere to be warming faster than the surface, but observations do not bear this out [64]. Satellite temperature measurements show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with "rates similar to those of the surface temperature," leading the IPCC to conclude that this discrepancy is reconciled[65].

Isn't this a contradiction? How does the fact that 'tropospheric temperatures are increasing with "rates similar to those of the surface temperature,"' reconcile the discrepancy, when the whole point is that the troposphere should be warming faster than the surface? ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Partly its the long history of the subject. Mostly its that the trends in the upper air have a lot of uncertainty in them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Risks of Passive Smoking?

Er...is this section relevant? I find it hard to believe that you can link smoking in any way to global warming, save perhaps by air pollution - and by the looks of it, the section only gives a passing note to global warming at all. Should we be considering deleting it, or is there a legitimate reason for it to be there? The Last Melon (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not related to the science of GW but to the public aspects of it. Back in the day there were (are) a number of scientists who claimed that passive smoking was not risky. Some argued that such scientists were financed by the tobacco industry. It turns out that a number of the scientists who claimed passive smoking is not risky also have skeptical views on GW and many claim that they may be connected to the oil industry. Thus, the fact that this scientists belong to two small "skeptical" minorities is worth mentioning in the article since some use this to question their motives. Brusegadi (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, can this be made more obvious? The Last Melon (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious and to the point as it is now. Is there anything in particular that you find obscure? Brusegadi (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, actually, some skepticals of GW (included Michael Crichton, and this issue is also included in his novel State of Fear) have made the point that second-hand smoking restrictions issue in the early 90's were not based on sound science (as allegedly GW has the same defect) and that risk studies were performed only after the FDA has already decided to further restrict smoking, and this late studies did not show enough risk to issue any measure, as per FDA risk standards. I made some checking, and the story seems to be truth. I hope this info will help you to make a decision. Mariordo (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Essentially every point in that post is factually incorrect. Smoking restrictions were based on a wealth of existing data, though subsequent studies have confirmed the harmfulness of passive smoking. The debate died down largely because legal action against the tobacco industry disclosed the fact that virtually all "scientific" opposition was bankrolled and supervised by the industry's lawyers. Finally, the FDA does not regulate tobacco products, nor does it "decide to restrict smoking" or have any regulatory oversight of tobacco. I'd suggest a bit more fact-checking. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!, I just wrote what I remembered to give a tip (it was EPA and/or the United States Surgeon General). I was just trying to give background to the question asked. Please read the wiki article Passive smoking, and check the sections regarding controversy. I provided the info only for you guys to decide if it is adequate to have such section in this article about GW. I am not interested in defending any position nor in entering in that old controversy. Mariordo (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi: It's just hard to see how it relates to the controversy. Perhaps a brief summary of your explanation to me above at the end of the section? The Last Melon (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some people have noted that the set of GW skeptics has a non-trivial intersection with the set of 'tobacco skeptics'. Thus, they consider these people sell outs. Granted it is not related to the science but it is controversial because these fields are different and the skeptics have been skeptical on both. This along with the money involved makes them vulnerable to being perceived as bounty hunters and not scientists. Brusegadi (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, if this is true, then we must have a section about the Oil for food programme since it was also sponsored by the UN along with the IPCC. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you can find sources on the oil for food programme and for the IPCC reports, but finding a reliable source discussing the connection might be hard, and if there is non then there might be a WP:SYN problem. Brusegadi (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In this context it's obviously used as an 'ad hominem' against the stance of the sceptics. Their arguments in this matter have nothing to do with their arguments against the current man made GW 'consensus' (read: 'ad populum', the presence of consensus is NOT an argument). The fact that they are overlapping might have to do with the with the group's attitude towards the use uncertain theories for the purpose of advancing policies that serve a broader cause (read: propaganda). In the case of global warming, this 'cause' is the preservation of the environment (nothing wrong with the latter an sich). Either nuance the passage or remove it. The perceived 'link' with GW is by the way a clearly partisan political book (reliable source? hmmm) which implies that all of them are biased Republicans (which they are not). The whole section ought to be removed.Vidstimac (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A little Perspective!
For goodness sake! Don't get bogged down in this nonesense. Nothing could be more irrelevant. There is already more than enough rubbish spouted in these columns without this happening. Stick to the point. If you want to discuss the history of politicised, bank-rolled science then do so generally. Passive smoking is moderately interesting, well documented. How about a discussion of passive starving in children? or respiratory illness caused by the use of stone-age cooking and heating facilities in third world countries ? Would it be controversial to point out that while the wikipediites energetically debate fine details of this outstanding summary of human knowledge, tens of thousands of people are starving and dying around the world? And that only 16% of the world has ever used the internet? Please bring a little perspective to this exercise. Global Warming could be the biggest distraction in history. The US has, in the past two decades, invaded and completely destroyed TWO COUNTRIES. Now THAT should be controversial! Remember, it's the most privileged, well educated, well fed people with time on their hands, who are mostly involved in the public debate over AGW. Global warming simply won't affect them, if it has any affect at all. Why is it, that, so often, it is the comfortable and privileged telling the poor and impoverished about how terrible reality is? Hmmmm...sorry! please go back to your Wikipedia editing...  ;-) BadCop666 (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lastmelon and Badcop are right, it is completely irrelevant. I suspect it is only there as part of the campaign to discredit the skeptic viewpoint. Also some of the cites don't back up the claims and some are unreliable sources. Paul Matthews (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

While this particular section isn't my cup of tea - its a notable part of the political controversy. And is backed by a rather large amount of reliable sources. Amongst others the Union of concerned scientists article "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I'd be happy to tell you why you're wrong BadCop666, it's not relevant to the editing of this article. Let's please contain this conversation to the actual improvement of this article, and I fail to see how talking other priorities is relevant unless you're wanting to include that in this article. If you are wanting to do so, then please state that clearly, but make sure it's backed up by reliable sources. Paul Matthews, if you'd like to suggest reliable sources to back up your assertion, please do so. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this part on passive smoking is relevent enough to be its own paragraph. It should be deleted and maybe mention somewhere else in the article. User:Duder999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.250.12 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The story here is that both sides try to patholgise the other's opion. I can't reference it but the Canadian Broadcasting System has a story December 07 were they referenced a newly defined social pathologly that is basically characterised by ignoring peril (GW). The man-caused GW skeptics view that Europeans have effectively turned this into a religion. I would suggest that the second hand smoking analog is really secondary to this story. Asmith909 (talk) 00:32, January 6, 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over paleoclimate studies

Dr. Craig Loehle has come out with a new 2,000 year temperature reconstruction. It does not use any of the problematic tree ring data such as the strip bark bristlecone pine series the NAS panel said should not be used. His reconstructions is here. [6] His reconstruction is starting to get media attention. [7]RonCram (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed the paper here. The paper was rejected by GRL and published in E&E, hence its very dubious as a reliable source on the science. But if it gets some traction in the popular press, it would be reasonable to cite it here. Since it's only been out a few days, I would wait a bit, though.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ron, at a minimum you'll need straight news reporting and not partisan editorials. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes get the sense that this talk page is more or less a global-warming-skeptic blog, since every low-impact dissenting study is immediately presented for comment (particularly if critical of Michael Mann) without context. As far as the media attention, it appears that the first word in the linked URL is "blogs", which suggests that we're not quite at the WP:V/WP:RS/WP:N level yet. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

MastCell , with all due respect, while you might be right about the talk pages related to the topic seem to serve as a skeptic's blog, the actual wiki entries actually read as a proponent blog. See my comment on the inclusion of the whole 'related controversies' entry, where the 'link' used for an elaborate 'ad hominem' is established through an obviously partisan publication Vidstimac (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Valid Image

The image Antarctic temperature trend shown in the article while dramatic shows a range from -0.1 to 0.1 ^oC/year, however the uncertainty (from the image's description) is between 2 and 3 ^oC. Are any conclusions from this image actually valid considering that the maximum difference is less than the uncertainty by and entire order of magnitude?65.75.110.90 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The color shows the trend per year over 26 years, not a total range of 0.1 degrees. The uncertainty, on the other hand, is an absolute value. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Funding for Scientists

On the section "Funding for scientist", it list the two subcategories as scientists who don't acknowledge man-made global warming & those who do. Now, as Global Warming, contrary to what it may appear, is still under heavy debate, I suggest we change the word "acknowledge" to some other term, perhaps "beleive in"Revengeofthenerds (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're getting cleverer, Obedium. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit to opening paragragh

This is my first Wikipedia discussion\edit so please excuse any protocol lapses or errors.

The global warming controversy is a dispute regarding the nature, validity and (if true) consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century; whether the increase is real or partially an artifact of poor measurements; whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity; predictions of additional warming; what the consequences are; whether the cause of any change is natural or man-caused (anthroprogenic) and what action should be taken (if any). Individuals, corporations, and political organizations are involved, so the debate is vigorous in the popular media and on a policy level. Asmith909 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Politicization of science

Our section on "pressure" speaks only of scientists allegedly pressured to support the (current US administration's) anti-manmade position. Where are all the reports of scientists pressured to support the manmade position on GW? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a similar concern to quantify what is at stake here. I think the anthropogenic side says that their pressure is by way of forfeiture of grants and that the pros motivation is by way of the easy access to grants. Therefore in the partisan sections there should be an attempt at the quantification on both sides of the issue. Also the whole flavour of this article is that it is easier being a non-believer in GW at least in North America. I believe that the tide has changed. My personal experience is that I am not paid by anyone to have an opinion and am not convinced in Anthropogenic GW and have an extraordinarily difficult time if I choose to share my view in a social setting (politics, religion .. add Anthropogenic GW) Asmith909 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Any reliable sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

New Government Online Resource

I hope I'm not drawing attention to a link that someone else has already kindly included on these pages somewhere? Anyway here it is; [8]. This would be a worthy article to include somewhere in the main article. If anyone agrees, then let me know. --Cantsi Wontsi (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed. It is only useful to look for possible additions to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Other than that, it is too partisan to serve as a reliable source. Before jumping on this, please read some of the discussion here. Brusegadi (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This section has a problem

At least one survey of the scientific community has found the opposite problem -- New Scientist notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities [16] or risk losing funding.

There are serious problems here. First of all, it is just that- one survey. Where does the "New Scientist notes that" wording come from? Imagine if another article had the sentence "Der Spiegel notes that the Iraq surge is working."

Why all the weasel wording? Why not just say:

On January 2007, the magazine New Scientist published a statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists saying that over a hundred U.S. climate scientists report recieving to de-emphasise the role of human activities in global warming."

24.32.208.58 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The new sentence seems fine, although it should include a "However," or similar start to make it obvious that it is offering evidence in opposition to the previous sentence.

Epiphaross (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Add

... the following to the first section, just ahead of "Petitions"

or to the near universal belief in a luminiferous ether (even the scientists who are today given the credit for disproving it, Michelson and Morely, actually set out to "prove" it, and in their original report claimed to have seen a "slight effect" and concluded that they had made some fundamental error). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normxxx (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if you are right, it would be undue weight and POV . You are trying to discredit the idea of consensus with one example, when there are many more when consensus was right or was in the "right direction". Brusegadi (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Forecast verifications and the failure of global warming predictions

The article needs to address the fact the media is beginning to look at scientists efforts at forecast verification. Earlier predictions about global warming (Hansen in 1988 and the IPCC in 1990) have not done well. They dramatically overpredicted temperatures, indicating they really do not understand how much of recent warming is natural and how much is from rising atmospheric CO2. Forecast verification is an important part of science and an important part of this scientific controversy. Gavin Schmidt seems to be particularly upset that people would dare to attempt a verification - "What? Don't you trust us???" Hardly a scientific attitude. [9] [10] [11] [12]

Ron, first of all this article should only represent what is actually a controversy. And this isn't. Climate is not determined by inter-year variations - as you should know. Lots of blogs - nothing substantial. Certainly not enough for a complete section. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pielke is embarassing himself William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Urban heat island; citation resource

In Regards to "Citation Needed" in: "Skeptics contend that stations located in more populated areas could show warming due to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise.[citation needed]"

Perhaps this site could be used as a reference? Specifically the NASA GISS data at the bottom.

http://www.surfacestations.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Snyder (talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SPS. It would be better to have something from a good newspaper or a scientific journal, or at least the website of a published scientist. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And, are they admitting to be skeptics? I thought they were at least pretending to be neutral William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

userbox

is there any userboxes relatedto this topic? --FW07 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Passive smoking section

This section reads like original research WP:SYN, but the problem I have is that the sources are unverifiable, and are actually personal attacks on news articles, and not serious studies on the real situation on the denial of passive smoking risks.

ref #207 (for Steve Milloy) [13] "Later that spring, he authored another smoking-related piece for FoxNews.com. In that one, he cast aside two decades of research on the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke and concluded, [cites Milloy's assertion] You might chalk it up to Milloy’s contrarian nature. Or to his libertarian tendencies.

An example of WP:OR and non-WP:RS. The text claims that TASCC is an astroturf group by joining an article by Monbiot [14] and a list of donations from Exxon [15]. Turns out that Monbiot's article is especulation based on the list of donations, and that the donations that he gives sources to verify amount to 30.000$ on 2001,2002 and 2003, and an unknown amount on 1995 or 1996. For all we know, TASCC may have an anual budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that donation would amount to a very small percentage of its budget. The way the citation is done is also OR, since it says "[TASCC], an astrotruf group [reference on donations by Exxon]" since it's a source for the fact that TASCC received certain amounts from Exxon at given times, and not at all a proof of astroturfing. Monbiot's article claims TASCC got bigger donations from Phillips Morris ($200,000), but provides no source for its statement, thus making it unverifiable (I could find sources about it somewhere else, but the Monbiot's article is unverifiable by itself as it stands).

While the statements may be right, please find better and more verifiable sources and make a redaction that relies more on what the secondary sources instead of sounding as reaching conclusions from primary sources and linking tofether secondary sources. Also don't use primary sources to illustrate points, find a secondary source instead

I suggest starting by sources like this [16], which refers this article [17] on a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed (as oppossed to an opinion article on the Guardian, as Monbiot's article is) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions, which I've implemented.JQ (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuweather

An editor has deleted the following reference which he claims was not peer reviewed and "ranting and raving."

Accuweather columnist

While the website is hardly an academic journal, the column has been reviewed by the publishers of accuweather. So it is not exactly a blog either. The columnist is a meteorologist, a weather scientist. While this might not cut as much ice as a political scientist, it should have some value. I realize that meteorologists have been somewhat slow to accept the "truth." On the other hand, I can remember the 80s and the prediction of incipient global freezing which in one famous Newsweek issue (since dissavowed - no longer party line) was devoted to that cause and insisted that anyone who wasn't a true believer was crazy. Maybe back to that again if this columnist is correct. Student7 (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "Accuweather columnist questions global warming. Suggests that global cooling might be the next threat". But for this to be relavant for the Global Warming Controversy, it must be a more wideheld opinion than just this columnist. Another thing is that you could include some claimed fact by a single person, provided that it is written down in some scientific peer reviewed journal. Count Iblis (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the old touchstone of global cooling. Wrong decade, though William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Case of the orange groves

New to this article. Do the theories take into account local phenomena like having to grow oranges in Florida further and further south with time? Before 1900, farmers were able to grow oranges in south Georgia, USA. Frosts stopped that and have moved the "line" further and further south each decade, most prominently in 1985-6 when groves were killed in Lake County (central Florida). Growing was prominently "moved" to counties south of there where they are today. Student7 (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Global" warming means, er, global. Local changes can differ substantially from global ones. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a "global" condition should be evident everywhere.

  glob·al  - [gloh-buhl] 
  –adjective 
      1. pertaining to the whole world; worldwide; universal 

Hence the usage of the term "global." If parts of the world are behaving very differently than this theory suggests that they would, that seems pertinent to me. 198.203.192.166 (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I nominate this for the second-worst anti-global warming argument ever, after Louis Hissink's claim that climate is determined primarily by Earth's internal heating.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be quite right about the "Hissink claim," the specifics of which I am unfamiliar, but isn't climate regulated in part by the Southern Oscillation, which I understood resulted from the release of heat (underwater volcanoes?) under the Pacific near Chile? I assume you concur but disagree that this is "primary." Student7 (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Please see El Niño. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh! Its "the logic"! Brusegadi (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Global Warming and Global Warming Controversy

Shouldn't these be merged? Other controversy sections are merged with their related topic, not seperate. Saksjn (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject of this article is too far removed from that of the global warming article. The reason is that the criticisms are mostly not based on valid peer reviewed science, while the global warming article is about the science of global warming and is almost 100% based on the peer reviewed literature.

What would happen if one were to merge the two articles is that there would be no room to write anything about what you read on the right wing blogs, because such sources are then not reliable sources as far as the science is concerned. However, we can include those sources here. Count Iblis (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep them separate so the non-scientific aspects of the controversy can be discussed without damaging the integrity of the global warming article. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we add some of the scientific critisms to the global warming article and leave the political issues here. Saksjn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The published alternative models, mainly solar variation, is already mentioned in the main article. However, most of the so-called "scientific criticism" you read in the newspapers and in blogs is not based on research published in peer reviewed journals and is therefore unacceptable for a wiki article that gives the scientific perspective. Count Iblis (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman? Saksjn (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What about him? Are you of the opinion that founders of TV channels have more knowledge about the subject of their channels than experts? Is Murdoch a specifically renowned, proficient and expert journalist? Coleman is no expert, and not a scientist either - but it makes for a good sound-bite to say "founder of the Weather Channel". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Coleman is a respected meteorologist. He was a meteorologist before he founded the weather channel.Saksjn (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A meteorologist doesn't necessarily know climate science, in the same way that a midwife doesn't necessarily know molecular genetics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, Coleman is not a meteorologist, he's a TV infotainer.JQ (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm of the mindset that, while there is a scientific consensus about the anthropogenic origins of GW, that there is also a significant (albeit small) portion of the scientific community that vehemently (and rationally) disagrees. Only time will tell if this minority will fall into the same scrapheap as alchemists of yore, or whether they will be vindicated, as occasionally has happened to history's dissenters.

Nonetheless, I agree that these articles should not be merged. The controversy involves politics far removed from the scientific consensus, it involves some obvious cranks, and it's really an issue unto itself. When and if the naysayers on AGW prevail, then this article will no longer be needed. But for now, keep 'em separate. 68.17.232.72 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This is great place to channel the crazies, apologists, fools and fellow travellers so they wont disrupt or damage a scientific article.--Theo Pardilla 08:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo Pardilla (talk • contribs)

Funding for scientists who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming (source correction)

A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory. Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson said in June 2007 that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"[139] Similar claims have been advanced by climatologist Marcel Leroux,[140] NASA's Roy Spencer, climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy, University of London biogeographer Philip Stott[141], and Accuracy in Media.[142]

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, makes the specific claim that "[in] the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at [MIT], lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century." Lindzen also suggests four other scientists "apparently" lost their funding or positions after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming.[143] Lindzen himself, however, has been the recipient of money from energy interests such as OPEC and the Western Fuels Association, including "$2,500 a day for his consulting services",[144], (this link does not even lead to an article, only a rather bias environmentalist home site, the content is also false) as well as funding from federal sources including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and NASA.[145](this one is actually a reputable .gov/.edu site) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.93.162 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The link has been corrected - i have no idea how the Sierra Club link crept into the article - i very much doubt if it can be considered a WP:RS. Unfortunately the content isn't incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the content is correct, it's not relevant to this section. It boils down to "Lindzen, a skeptic, gets money from both sides". If anything, that info would belong in the prior section - it adds nothing to the topic "Funding for scientists who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming". --Blogjack (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Existence of a scientific consensus

I believe that the contraversy is misstated. It is a fact that the average temperature has risen (global warming). The consensus contraversy is directly related to disagreement regarding the extent to which the rise is attributable to human activity and what's going to happen in the future. Quite logically, contraversy over what there is or isn't agreed matches exactly the key disagreements. I reviewed citations 18,19, and 20 and found that their message does not match the summary text of the Wikipedia article. Rogerfgay (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation 18 matches the text. This is completely standard information. I didn't bother to check 19 and 20.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Echoing what Rogerfgay was saying, the sentence says in part, 'Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether'. My understanding is like Rogerfgay, that the article assumes, presumably with footnotes early on (haven't checked) that global warming is a fact. The arguments therefore, for and against, should be merely on the cause, not the fact. That, too, would need to be made clear early on.

(Thinking out loud) I suppose that, given the vague compass of the article, there is nothing wrong with providing space for people who don't think global warming is occuring. And, let's face it, even with a clear article title like "Evolution" you know darn well that there a space someplace for disagreement with "theory" of evolution. Student7 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

CNN reported yesterday that skeptics at a conference held at the Heartland Institute accept that global warming is happening, just that man is not to blame. So, it seems that there is a "consensus" among skeptics about this. Count Iblis (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The arguments are over what effect it will have, and what the process will be. Saksjn (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Related controversies: nuclear winter?

I've removed Blogjack's added "related controversy" section for nuclear winter because it's mostly unsourced, pasted below:

For a time in the 1980s through the early 1990s there was a scientific consensus that full-scale nuclear war was likely to cause a "nuclear winter" which would cool the globe sufficiently to risk ending all human life on the planet. The consensus included the support of a National Academy of Sciences study and statements from many of the major scientific organizations, while Fred Singer and some other skeptics featured above consistently argued the consensus position was unsupportable and had been exaggerated for political purposes. In this instance the skeptics have prevailed; the original nuclear winter hypothesis is no longer taken seriously."Nuclear Winter: Science and Politics".

There's not enough here to warrant inclusion yet in my opinion. To include this, we'd need:

• Sources for the statement that nuclear winter was a consensus supported by NAS, etc.
• Sources for the statement that the premise is now debunked.
• Sources that Singer, etc were skeptics.
• To avoid a synthesis argument, we probably need sources that link this controversy to global warming.

Also, one source isn't enough here. Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The "related controversies" section seemed rather lopsided without it. If you're going to have a "related controversies" section at all, this one is far more closely related to global warming than is passive smoking. The similarity is well described in the link I gave, as is Singer's role. I could give more refs but that paper seemed like a good start - it includes lots of non-web references one could follow up on - and does cover most of the points you list. I realize my text was rough; I didn't have time to flesh it out more fully but figured the spirit of wikipedia was to just stick something in there and let others clean it up.

The chief similarity between the two topics is that some groups of people (Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore, Carl Sagan...) tend to think of the global environment as fragile, easily damaged, prone to positive-feedback loops that produce "tipping points". Others (Fred Singer, Freeman Dyson...) tend to think of it as more robust and prone to stabilizing negative feedbacks. A group of people on the "it's fragile" side came up with some computerized large-scale climate simulations to support their view that dangerous status-quo technology X (nuclear bombs) could cause doom and gloom for humanity unless we stop what we're doing right now. The papers they wrote exaggerated the worst-case scenarios and incorporated assumptions deliberately designed to make those scenarios look plausible. Some of the argument was based on rhetoric more than rigor; a paper's "conclusions" section might include statements that weren't supported in the main text. The "it's not fragile" people pointed out various weaknesses in the arguments being made and were criticized for being outside of the mainstream scientific community and - when they were attacking computer models - for not putting up models of their own in response. Sound familiar yet? --Blogjack (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to flesh things out. Let's start with References on the claim that Singer was also a skeptic of nuclear winter: S. Fred Singer, "Is the 'nuclear winter' real?", Nature, 310, 23 August 1984, page 625; S. Fred Singer, "On a 'nuclear winter'" (letter), Science, 227, 25 January 1985, page 356; and this webbed interview: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/singer_interview.htm (quote: "I always considered "nuclear winter" to be a hoax and scientifically incorrect -- and have said so in my Nightline debate with Carl Sagan. The data from the Kuwait oil fires support this view. Actually, nuclear explosions would create a strong greenhouse effect and cause warming rather than cooling. Let's hope we never have to find out.")--Blogjack (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this section (and the rest of the article) is lopsided against the skeptics. I'm all for evening that out. But there was a big fight when this section was added in the first place (you can dig it up in the archives) and we came to the conclusion that reliable sources needed to link the controversies in question to GW before we could. Therefore, the same criterion needs to be here as well. I'm all for adding this section once we get the references in order. It's also worth noting that if nuclear winter has been "debunked" as you claim, that fact is not reflected in the nuclear winter article at all. I don't know anything about the subject so I can't comment, but I'd work on getting this information there as well if it's indeed accurate. Oren0 (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to mention of NW as related; but clearly anything said must reflect the NW article. The idea that the concept is discredited is simply wrong. As far as I can tell, the ref given (http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html) is studiously social-sciencey and avoids taking any side on the science. Besides which, its well out of date; the NW article has refs from 2006 and 7 William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Alan Robock and Gera Stenchikov have published several papers on NW in the past couple of years. The concept isn't discredited by any means. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Erasure of referenced remark

The following was immediately erased after being inserted by someone. The edit line said "rv sock" apparently saying that since it was a sock puppet this cast aspersions on the national academy of science reference? Huh?

• Research by NASA climate scientist James Hansen indicates the 0.75 degree rise in average global temperatures over the last 100 years has been driven mainly by greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide.http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/18/9875

I've edited out the footnote part to avoid confusion. My question is, why was this erased? Student7 (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

First, because it's been inserted by a sock of a banned user. Secondly, because it is wrong, even in asserting that it is a statement from the National Academy. It goes back to a paper by James Hansen et al, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a respected scientific journal, with independent editorial oversight and peer review process. It is not a statement by the NAS, or even endorsed by it. As for the factual issue, the claim completely misrepresents Hansen et al. They point out that the negative anthropogenic forcing, in particular due to sulfate aerosols, is of about the same magnitude as the positive forcing from CO2 alone, so the remaining net warming corresponds to about the effect of the (anthropogenic) non-CO2 greenhouse gases and black soot. This does not deny the warming due to CO2, nor does it assign the blame elsewhere. It also is only a momentary snapshot, as aerosols are a strong negative forcing, but have a short lifetime, while CO2 is a moderate positive forcing, but has a very long lifetime. Thus the initial cooling after about 1945 (aerosol effects dominate) followed by the later increase (aerosols essentially plateau, but CO2 continues to accumulate). If you want more details, I suggest you read the full paper, which is available in full and nicely written.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Jones et al.

Use this section to make a valid case for deleting the paragraph. 86.160.35.152 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the one arguing for inclusion, bears the burden of convincing others. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing contestations

I came to this article hoping to get some skeptics arguements evualated, but they are simply abesent from the article.

To begin with, if CO2 is only in the hundreds of parts per million in the atmosphere, how can it produce such massive effects?

Isn't water vapor a green house gas? If so, why isn't it being portrayed as a big factor?

Is it possible that the historical correlation between CO2 and global temperature could be explained as being a consequence of global temperature changing CO2 levels, as opposed to visa versa?

These are just few of the arguements forwarded by semi-sophisticated critics, and it would be nice if we got some replies to these allegations. The internet, media, and other main information ways, have not done a good job of explaining science. Frankly, this article should be twice its size. The human mind is more creative than you give it credit for.-Jared

For answers to most of the questions, see Talk:Global warming/FAQ. The CO2/temperature link is also discussed in Global warming controversy#Attribution_to_greenhouse_gases. The other arguments are extremely stupid ("how can a few ounces of lead have such a massive effect on the life of an Elephant"?), and I have not seen them outside internet blogs and similar unreliable sources. That's why we don't have them in the main article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See also here Count Iblis (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of good resources here and here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Global warming wager merged here

I went ahead and merged global warming wager to this page per the talk there. I also tried to remove the use of the neologism "global warming wager" entirely. I don't think the text as-is is great and I wouldn't be opposed to stripping or rewriting some of it. Oren0 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that Pascal died more than a century before Marx was born. How then can Pascal's wager be based on Marxist economics? Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I didn't write it. I just didn't like it having its own article so I copied it here. Pick it apart for all I care. Oren0 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I was just wondering if there was something that I missed. Appropriately cleaned up, this material will be useful in the present article. The merge was good -- there are way too many global warming articles floating around here, and a lot of them are of mediocre quality at best. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of long-term climate forecasting is unproven

The section on "Controversy concerning the science" should include a subsection on scientific forecasting and the work of Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong. Most recently a study has been web published by National Center for Policy Analysis by Green and Armstrong claiming "it has yet to be demonstrated that long-term forecasting of climate is possible." [18] Wikipedia readers certainly deserve to have access to the audit on global warming performed by Green and Armstrong. RonCram (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Publications by think thanks funded by ExxonMobile do not meet our requirements for reliable sources. Raul654 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but why are publications from the National Center for Policy Analysis less reliable than postings on RealClimate? I missed the part of WP:RS where it said that reliability is determined by the vested interests of the entities funding publication. And it's a bit deceptive to say that a think tank receiving $40k/year from ExxonMobil is really "funded" by them anyway. Oren0 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because RealClimate is written by renown climate scientist and has received positive coverage from reliable scientific sources, while the NCPA is a partisan political organization not known for any reliable scientific statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Armstrong has published these same findings in a peer-reviewed journal, Energy and Environment. [19] I used the link to National Center for Policy Analysis because it was more readable and would be accessible to more Wikipedia readers. Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong are leading experts in scientific forecasting, as much or more so than the people at RealClimate are experts in climate science. RonCram (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, we have gone over that over and over again. E&E is not considered a reliable source. It's review process, if any, is "eccentric", to say the least, as even acknowledged by the less fringe sceptics. --Stephan Schulz (talk)

Stephan, yes, we have gone over it before. There is at least as much editorial oversight of E&E as there is for NY Times or Washington Post. There is no question regarding the fact both E&E and NCPA are reliably expressing the views of Green and Armstrong, acknowledged experts in scientific forecasting. This is an article about the controversy. There is no reasonable explanation for withholding from Wikipedia readers this aspect of the controversy. RonCram (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever on earth said that Green and Armstrong are "acknowledged experts in scientific forecasting"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I said it. Armstrong is one of the original founders of two scientific journals on forecasting. His book is a textbook on the subject. Surely you do not doubt their expertise, do you? RonCram (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, when describing why you reverted my edit you wrote: "Whatever Armstrong claims, the IPCC is not forecasting, it is modeling." You make Armstrong's point. The IPCC makes "projections" based on computer models. The word "projections" occurs 33 times in the IPCC report. [20] Armstrong says that computer modeling may inform expert opinion, but it is not the same as a scientific forecast. Armstrong also writes that expert opinion informed by computer models is no better than non-expert opinion. Your comment shows you are beginning to understand the controversy on this issue. Regarding the fact NCPA received funding from ExxonMobil, that is a non-issue. This is an article about the controversy around global warming. Why would anyone raise the issue of WP:RS to keep information out of the article about the controversy around "projections" vs. "scientific forecasts?" Do you really think E&E has misrepresented the views of Green and Armstrong? Do you think NCPA has misrepresented the views of Green and Armstrong? There is no good reason to keep their views on this important issue out of an article on the controversy around global warming. RonCram (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence that Green and Armstrong have any idea how climate models work. They seem to think that they're analogous in some way to econometric models and can be similarly evaluated, but the two types of models have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The guy of whom I speak below would mostly disagree with you... --Childhood's End (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

David Orrell has debunked climate forecasting. The problem is not with "computer power", as you would imagine... The book is all available for quotes. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. A popsci book by that hallmark of academic publishing, HarperCollins. I'm impressed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, you would not have focused your attention on the author rather than on the publisher. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. Even a good scientist can write a coffee table book. This looks like it is aimed at scientifically illiterates, with a lot of comforting stories how "those scientists" also get things wrong (and ignoring that on every step you make a scientific prediction comes true...). Nothing wrong with that, its just not a reliable source. I don't want to malign the author in general, but his publication record is not very stellar, most of his papers are in unrelated field, and the most cited relevant paper has a grand total of three citations - one of which is a self-citation, and one is by an unpublished preprint.[21]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The book has nine chapters and whereas it would be legitimate to say that the first three are more pop than science (they're really a good candy though), the rest of the book is about modelling. This guy is an expert in complex systems (a concept that strangely seems to elude most of the editors hangning around here) and obviously knows more about climate models than you and me. Your condescension makes little sense imo.

Climate, economics and health are not independant systems, and to make a long-term forecast of one, you need to integrate all three. Models for each try to reproduce non-linear, dynamical systems with innumerable positive and negative feedback loops. Initial conditions are subject to uncertainty, and so are measurements. Parametrization comes into play for the processes that are less understood or that lack equations. Then model error at the initial time grows in a cumulative and dynamic manner for all these models. Now that's my short summary, but please either read what the author says and refute it, or do not address it at all. Opinions about the publisher or about publication records really are sophisms, beside the fact that they're... opinions. --Childhood's End (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Climate is still far simpler to describe starting from fundamental laws of physics than economics or health. Now, I'm not an expert in climate science, but I've read that climate is not chaotic on time scales of decades. Then the fact that some phenomena have to be desribed using effective equations that cannot be derived from first principles is not anything different from what engineers who design aircraft, powerplants, etc. do every day. The flow of water inside pipes of heat exchangers in powerplants is chaotic. A first principles computation of the heat transfer coefficient would necessarily involve simulating how the water flows throught the heat exchangers. But the engineers do not need to perform such computations. And, needless to say, the powerplants do not behave chaotically. Count Iblis (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this input. I'd be willing to read more about this, but just to touch on a few points you make, climate, health and economics all are complex systems, and that's what make them unpredictable through modelling. The explanation is scientific really, only it has not reached these specific fields so far, notably because there's a market for forecasts in each (they still make economic predictions for a reason...). Powerplant parts are quite different. Once they work and are set, they're consistent. Initial error (if there is any) does not add up over a time scale. I would also suppose that for such parts, there are no significant unknown unknowns. --Childhood's End (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find it a bit strange the criteria that you guys use to evaluate inclusion. So far the arguments are: 1. The NCPA is funded by oil (dubious and irrelevant), 2. E&E isn't reliable (which is true, but irrelevant since the same info is also published by the NCPA), 3. "I've seen no evidence that Green and Armstrong have any idea how climate models work" (as if the standard for inclusion is convincing editors of their expertise), and 4. You're unimpressed by the publisher. These arguments about reliability are meaningless because it's clear that these articles represent the opinions of these individuals, which is what they're presented as. The only real discussion to be had here is one of WP:WEIGHT, which is a reasonable discussion to be had. However, there seems to be a large portion of the climate community who doesn't believe strongly in these models (I read a study recently, I could dig it up, saying that something like 35% of climate scientists agree that models can accurately predict climate, while some 47% disagree). So it's not clear to me that these guys are presenting such a fringe view when they say these models are unproven or unreliable. Oren0 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue against the inclusion of A+G on the grounds that they don't know what they are talking about. Nor is their self-promotion sufficiently notable to be included, nor published in a useful venue. This article isn't here to reproduce the opinions of clueless individuals William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

William, whether you understand A&G or not, they do make sense. They clearly known exactly what they are talking about. It is the climate scientists who do not know anything about scientific forecasting. Just as Michael Mann tried to innovate new statistical methods without checking with statisticians, the climate modelers have tried to innovate "projections" without checking with the scientists who do scientific forecasts. The work of these climate modelers is downright shoddy. We have already talked about Orrin Pilkey's book "Useless Arithmetic" in which he discusses how the computer models for the coastline are never accurate. Besides, William, arguing to exclude an argument from one side of the controversy because "they don't know what they are talking about" is purely POV. It is the policy of Wikipedia to allow both sides of a controversy to present their case. There is no reasonable excuse to preclude A&G from the controversy. RonCram (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is. They have no expertise whatsoever in the field at hand, as is plainly apparent from reading their work. Raymond Arritt (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, the field at hand is scientific forecasting and they are experts in it. I was just reading from the website of David Orrell on other books on the science of prediction. [22] Orell approvingly quotes from "Useless Arithmetic" this passage: "The problem is not the math itself, but the blind acceptance and even idolatry we have applied to the quantitative models." It appears David Orrell, Orrin Pilkey and A&G all have similar views that the models are not trustworthy. I cannot see any reason to keep this out of the article. RonCram (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, Orrell lists another book on the science of prediction, "Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature," and one of the editors and contributors is Roger A. Pielke. It appears Pielke agrees that the science of prediction can be applied to climate forecasts. Perhaps we can find some usable quotes from this text as well. RonCram (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A+G aren't competent to make remarks on climate prediction simply because you insist that they are (see "proof by repeated assertion"). Orrell and Pilkey are more worthy of being taken seriously. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, your claim A&G are not competent is unsupported. Scientific forecasting is not limited to any one field, like economics. A&G study economics, marketing, politics and other fields. They conduct audits of projections by other experts to determine if these people followed proper protocols. When they audited the projections of climate scientists, they were found wanting. Their research into the problems with IPCC projections deserves a place in this article. Your repeating the claim they are not competent is not valid and you know it. RonCram (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Retract your inexcusable accusation of bad faith, and I will respond. Otherwise I don't see the point. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, what accusation of bad faith? You have not demonstrated the incompetence of A&G, nor have you attempted to do so. If I have said something to offend you, let me know what it is... or justify your claim A&G are not competent. RonCram (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, I appreciate that you shared with me your concern with me on my Talk page. My "accusing" of double-think is not an act of bad faith. All of us fall victim to our own double thinks at times. By inviting you to provide evidence of the incompetence of A&G, I was encouraging you to confront your double-think. That is all. Please do not be so easily offended. Regarding an apology, I would certainly apologize if I thought I had done anything wrong. To show my good faith, I invite you to point out any of my "double-thinks" you happen to notice. RonCram (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, I find it interesting that you accuse Ron of the fallacy of proof by repeated assertion in repeating that they're experts and then you turn around and repeat again and again that these authors "don't know what they're talking about" without justification or evidence. Surely you can explain why their backgrounds are irrelevant, or point to fundamental flaws in their methodology and assumptions. Not that it matters anyway, because we can't judge their competence. We have to assume that publications in reliable venues are appropriate, and we can provide rebuttals as they are published as well. Oren0 (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Be it Orrell, Pilkey, Pielke, Tennekes, Armstrong/Green, Zichichi, Christy, or whoever else worthy of note, a section about this issue is legitimate. I would also echo OrenO and add that William's and Raymond's opinions about who understands or not the field are completely irrelevant (especially when one of them thinks that climate models and economic models have nothing to do whatsoever with each other). Wikipedia has inclusion rules, and editors' pov are no part of it. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And which opinion would that be from Pilkey? I'm currently reading the book - and so far Ron's description of Pilkey has been severely lacking (as judged by the many comments he has had on Pilkey). So i'm asking: what exactly is Pilkey's opinion? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I have not read Pilkey's book, although it is on my list. I have read reviews and comments about it and what Ron says above seems to be fairly in accordance with them about what the book says (models are unreliable; or "worse than useless" to quote Naomi Oreskes' review of the book). See for instance [23] [24], [25]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Childhoodsend (talk • contribs)

Childhoodsend is correct. Pilkey basically says the coastline forecasts are wrong, mainly because nature is chaotic. Pilkey also shows a great deal of respect for the IPCC's TAR discussion of the uncertainty of their projections. He then bemoans the fact the public and the policymakers are never told the level of uncertainty and so they think global warming is absolutely going to be catastrophic. 69.63.201.178 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually from my read the claim isn't that the public and policymakers aren't informed - but rather that they do not heed or read the very detailed discussions about uncertainty. In effect they say that the models are used (by both sides) to say something that they do not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Armstrong has complained the IPCC has completely ignored the scientific literature on forecasting. Here is a quote from his paper:

We also examined the 535 references in Chapter 9. Of these, 17 had titles that suggested the article might be concerned at least in part with forecasting methods. When we inspected the 17 articles, we found that none of them referred to the scientific literature on forecasting methods.

It is difficult to understand how scientific forecasting could be conducted without reference to the research literature on how to make forecasts. One would expect to see empirical justification for the forecasting methods that were used. We concluded that climate forecasts are informed by the modelers’ experience and by their models—but that they are unaided by the application of forecasting principles. (page 1015) [26]

There is no reason Wikipedia readers should be shielded from this information. RonCram (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a very good reason Ron: reliable sources (which E&E is not). Heres another: The metric used in the "paper" is defined by Armstrong himself. Heres a third: weight in literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, you are not thinking clearly. E&E is a reliable source regarding the views of Armstrong and Green. Do you honestly think their views have been misstated? Of course not. What do you mean "Heres another: The metric used in the "paper" is defined by Armstrong himself." What does that refer to? The A&G paper refers to principles of scientific forecasting. Armstrong writes that the IPCC does not cite any literature from any of the scientific forecasting journals or even a scientific forecasting paper in a more general journal. The IPCC is completely ignorant of the literature. What is your point about undue weight? Currently the article does not have anything on the issue of scientific forecasting.RonCram (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The views of A are not interesting. A complains that everyone is ignoring him. Why is this notable, or interesting? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Armstrong is working on forecasting - looking at time series with at best simple models, and trying to predict them. This is a completely different technique from scientific modeling, where you have a detailed physical model and determine its reaction to certain changes in parameters. What then IPCC does is no more "forecasting" in Armstrong's sense than predicting the time of the next lunar eclipse is "forecasting", or using the ballistic curve of a shell to predict time and place of impact. If Armstrong is not aware of this, he is indeed incompetent. If he is, he is at best an attention grabber with a political axe to grind, and at worst dishonest. Ron does have a point in claiming that this is the controversy page, and Armstrong tries to be part of the controversy. However, so far he has gotten about zero scientific support for his claims - in fact, as far as I can tell he is entirely ignored outside the political arena. Thus, WP:WEIGHT comes into play when trying to describe Armstrong's claims as part of the scientific debate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Ron, I agree there should be a section about model forecasting. We are not here to judge wether all these persons are right or wrong, but to report that there exists a notable and verifiable controversy about climate models' reliability. Imo, there are more prominent critics than A/G, but perhaps their view can legitimately be mentioned in a short way. Depends on how long the section would get with the more prominent critics. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

William, try to stay up. Armstrong is not complaining that people are ignoring him. Armstrong is complaining the IPCC has ignored the entire body of literature on scientific forecasting. The fact Armstrong is the co-founder of two of the four leading scientific journals on the subject shows he is a recognized leader in the field, but hundreds of scientists have published on this topic and the IPCC has ignored all of it. RonCram (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, you are mischaracterizing Armstrong's work. Armstrong's work deals with the principles of scientific forecasting, principles that are important without regard to the scientific field. The IPCC has completely ignored the literature, even where it is applicable. Many of these principles were developed and described by others and compiled by Armstrong. Have you read the references on A&G's paper? He is not just citing his own works, like William would like you to believe. One of the key points the paper makes is that the IPCC has not demonstrated that any meaningful long-term climate projection is even possible. You have no evidence regarding your claim that Armstrong has not picked up any scientific support for his paper. In fact, Pilkey, Orren and others have also published many of the same criticisms. I am not saying they were following Armstrong, but their views certainly support Armstrong in many places. RonCram (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, you know nothing of A's work, other than his own puff about it. A is miffed because people ignore his stuff; people ignore his stuff because it isn't useful. But his being miffed is NN, which is why it isn't in the article. Its pretty obvious by now that this discussion is going nowhere William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

William, you are not correct and your insulting comments about Armstrong may be actionable. What evidence do you have that A is miffed because people are ignoring his work? He has not written on that and no responsible journalist has. Armstrong has written on is the fact the IPCC has completely ignored ALL of the literature on scientific forecasting. Keep in mind as you read the quote below that there are four scientific journals dedicated to forecasting and hundreds of articles have been published on the topic. This is the literature Armstrong is referring to here:

We also examined the 535 references in Chapter 9. Of these, 17 had titles that suggested the article might be concerned at least in part with forecasting methods. When we inspected the 17 articles, we found that none of them referred to the scientific literature on forecasting methods.

It is difficult to understand how scientific forecasting could be conducted without reference to the research literature on how to make forecasts. One would expect to see empirical justification for the forecasting methods that were used. We concluded that climate forecasts are informed by the modelers’ experience and by their models—but that they are unaided by the application of forecasting principles. (page 1015) [27]

Now that you have seen what Armstrong has written, will you kindly stop insulting Armstrong by saying it is his own work he wants cited? If the IPCC had cited ANY of the scientific literature on forecasting and Armstrong was still complaining, then you might have a point. But the IPCC has not. The work the IPCC has done is shoddy. It is akin to Michael Mann trying to innovate new statistical methods without being a statistician or checking with any. Why would the IPCC do projections without checking with the scientists in the field? Shoddy work if you ask me. RonCram (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you're just repeating yourself pointlessly, I suppose I will to: Its pretty obvious by now that this discussion is going nowhere and WP:SOAP. However as long as you're just spamming the talk page no great harm is done William M. Connolley (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

William, I am not spamming the article. This is the process of gaining consensus. Childhoodsend and Oren already support the inclusion of the controversy around scientific forecasting. You, Stephan and Count seem to be the holdouts. Stephan and Count may be converts by now because all of the reasons put forward to exclude A&G have been shot down. A&G's writings are notable as can be seen from all of the press coverage and the fact they have published two peer-reviewed audits of global warming related (the IPCC audit and the polar bear audit) issues. The polar bear audit was commissioned by the State of Alaska and is discussed below. It seems to me the only argument you have left to exclude A&G is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RonCram (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How reliable is expert opinion on the future?

This is a big part of the controversy, as framed by J. Scott Armstrong. Scientific forecasting is evidence-based forecasting. Armstrong claims the "projections" of experts are no better than the projections of non-experts. Armstrong refers readers to the research of Phil Tetlock and his book "Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?" Tetlock looked at thousands of projections made by experts and non-experts over a twenty year period. One reviewer of Tetlock's book writes:

"Before anyone turns an ear to the panels of pundits, they might do well to obtain a copy of Phillip Tetlock's new book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? The Berkeley psychiatrist has apparently made a 20-year study of predictions by the sorts who appear as experts on TV and get quoted in newspapers and found that they are no better than the rest of us at prognostication."--Jim Coyle, Toronto Star [28]

When Armstrong writes that experts are no better at predicting the future than non-experts, he has good research to back up his claim. There is no reason to prevent Wikipedia readers from having access to this information. RonCram (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the first part of this is correct (lots of things like the oil price are notorious for experts always being worse than tealeaf readers) and probably belongs in some WP article on the philosophy of science. However I think what goes here should be stuff which WP policy says goes in which should (to prevent the article being 500000 pages) be specific not general scientific process stuff. However flawed expert opinion is, that is more or less what WP says it gives. --BozMo talk 07:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be called Expert Political Judgment. I suggest you take this to the Politics page and see if they like your spam over there William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

William, the fact experts are no better at predicting the future than non-experts is true in every field. Politicians must deal with experts in many scientific fields, including earth sciences. Politicians are certainly involved in assessing the claims of climate scientists. Perhaps you should read the book before criticizing the relevance of the book to this article.RonCram (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is A&G part of the controversy?

Not in the scientific community, because as pointed out above they are not taken seriously there. If there are many skeptics who use their arguments, then we could still write about it. But I think that the controversy is limited to this wiki page  :) Count Iblis (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. A&G are taken very seriously in the scientific community. A has co-founded two journals on scientific forecasting and the International Institute of Forecasting. Forecasting should be evidence-based, the science way. Climate scientists are conducting computer models which have absolutely no predictive power. RonCram (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Armstrong has done work in economics. There is no sign at all that anybody takes his claims about physical sciences serious.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should say that, Stephan. The State of Alaska takes them seriously. Alaska commissioned A&G to audit research done to support the US Department of Interior's decision to list polar bears on the endangered species list. A&G audited the research and found it to be wanting. [29] A&G's paper has been accepted for publication in the management science journal Interfaces. It is the only peer-reviewed paper on polar bear population forecasting that has been accepted for publication in an academic journal. If there is something wrong with A&G's research, you are free to post in the article any published criticism of their approach to scientific forecasting. What you cannot do is decide who can criticize climate researchers. RonCram (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What's A&G?--BozMo talk 05:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

J. Scott Armstrong and Ksomething Green[e]. See the above sections. And Ron, quite apart from the qualification of the state of Alaska on scientific issues, analyzing the population of polar bears is not exactly a physical science... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, I understand that but the reason the policymakers in Alaska asked them to audit the polar bear issue is because it is related to global warming and they knew A&G had audited global warming. In fact, the polar bear paper depends in large part on the conclusions drawn from the global warming paper. If you have not read the polar bear paper, you should.[30] I was also pleased to see that one of the named reviewers on the polar bear paper was Orrin Pilkey. A&G have now published two papers in peer-reviewed journals using the principles of scientific forecasting to criticize global warming. Your claim they have not picked up any scientific support is simply not true. RonCram (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, the study you have cited by A&G cites another study for the claim that many climate scientists do not believe models can accurate predict future climates. The study cited in the paper is a survey done by Bast and Taylor and published by the Heartland Institute. One look at it makes it clear that it's full of unclear, loaded questions, similar to what Milloy tried to do recently [31]. There are many ways the statement "Climate models can accurately predict future climates." can be taken. Based on this, I am reverting this part of your addition. (Looks like WMC already took care of your entire addition.) Jason Patton (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jason, I did not know about the polling issue. I am willing to take your word for it for the time being. A future entry will use a different interesting bit from the same paper. At least you were reasonable. RonCram (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

New section: "Expert opinion versus scientific forecasting"

Now that many issues have been hashed out here, I have rewritten a section on this part of the controversy. As discussed above, the points raised by A&G are notable and come from reliable sources. You may, of course, include any published comments critical of the work of Tetlock or Armstrong and Green - but please do not delete this important section without having an unassailable reason. Some of the editors here are climate scientists. They especially must remember that they do not get to decide who gets to criticize them or their colleagues. RonCram (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, you are funny sometimes William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a revert was warranted, but the section definitely needed to be NPOV-ified. — Werdna talk 23:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Werdna, you are correct when you say a revert was not warranted. I certainly welcome any changes you might make to make it better. I was inviting people to answer the criticisms of Tetlock and A&G. This is, after all, an article on the controversy and so only giving one side would be wrong. But I am not personally aware of any published criticisms. I am certain that William will go along eventually. He always does. RonCram (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we summarize your original text and add a sentence or two to the section "Controversy concerning the science" just above the "petitions" subsection, saying e.g. that A&G claim that many climate scientists do not think that climate models make accurate predictions. Also we can write that according to A&G it has not been shown that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would lead to warmer or colder climate.

I'm not in favor of giving the detailed reasons why A&G think this way. Their criticism has simlar value to the criticisms of the other persons mentioned in that section. Count Iblis (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Count, thank you for moving in the right direction. Actually, just above Jason pointed out that certain problems may exist regarding the poll of climate scientists. So I would suggest we not use that. Readers of an article titled "Global warming controversy" want to know the what aspects of the science are controversial and why. The fact long-term "projections" are made for the climate without any reference to the scientific principles of forecasting is an important part of the controversy. RonCram (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Retitled New Section

Thanks to the comments by Jason, Werdna and Count who have all joined the voices of Childhoodsend, Oren0 and myself calling for the inclusion of a section on scientific forecasting, I have re-added the section with changes (thanks Jason). I understand that everyone may not agree with the exact wording here but we can work together to make it better. Readers want to know where the scientific controversy exists and why. Let's focus on giving them that.

Computer models vs. Evidence-based forecasting

Skeptics of catastrophic global warming are critical of the way the IPCC forecasts future climate. The IPCC seeks to find a consensus among computer modeling experts about future climate. However, the research shows “experts are often wrong in their forecasts of the future.”

Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong conducted an audit of the IPCC forecasting method and found a number of violations of scientific forecasting principles. They state:

The forecasts in the (IPCC) Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

According to Green and Armstrong, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report violated some basic forecasting principles, including:

• Consider whether the events or series can be forecasted.
• Keep forecasting methods simple.
• Do not use fit to develop the model.

Green and Armstrong argue that the possibility of accurate long-term climate forecasts has never been proven. They also argue that the research shows that simple methods always outperform more complex forecasting methods. RonCram (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't the current revision even cite G&A anymore? Oren0 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed that but G&A have been completely misrepresented by these changes. They do not say that physical laws are worthless. They say the models are not based purely on physical laws or they would all produce the same results. Whoever is rewriting this portion has not read G&A or is purposely misrepresenting them. RonCram (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what G&A actually write concerning physical laws:

Computer Modeling versus Scientific Forecasting. Over the past few decades, the methodology used in climate forecasting has shifted so that expert opinions are informed by computer models. Advocates of complex climate models claim that they are based on well-established laws of physics. But there is clearly much more to the models than physical laws, otherwise the models would all produce the same output, which they do not, and there would be no need for confidence estimates for model forecasts, which there certainly is. Climate models are, in effect, mathematical ways for experts to express their opinions.8

There is no empirical evidence that presenting opinions in mathematical terms rather than in words improves the accuracy of forecasts. In the 1800s, Thomas Malthus forecast mass starvation. Expressing his opinions in a mathematical model, he predicted that the food supply would increase arithmetically while the human population would grow at a geometric rate and go hungry. Mathematical models have not become much more accurate since. RonCram (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no empirical evidence that presenting opinions in mathematical terms rather than in words improves the accuracy of forecasts.

Clearly, A&G completely ignore that climate science is based on physics and that you cannot compare this with similar situations in economics. Also, one could easily make the oposite case: Physicists have made valuable contributions to economics recently by applying mathematical techniques that economists are not familiar with :) Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasnt aware of that! Pretty funny stuff, thanks! So are these physicists all making millions with this? :-) --Childhood's End (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Count, I think you are reading too much into the statement you put in blockquotes. G&A understand that physics plays a role in people's calculations but the GCMs do not all get the same results. Therefore, the GCMs are not built solely from physical laws. James Annan and I are discussing the physical laws and back-of-the-envelope calculations that are possible.[32] Recent science, papers published in 2007 by Schwartz and Chylek, indicate the traditional view of climate sensitivity is significantly overstated. Of course, James does not want to admit he is wrong, but the temp record (overstated as it is) indicates Chylek and Schwartz are closer to reality than Annan. The point you make about physicists making contributions to economics is not surprising to me. Neither should it be surprising to you that scientific forecasters can make a contribution to climate forecasts.RonCram (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, your condescension is becoming insufferable. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you are unable to grasp even the most elementary physical and quantitative concepts, yet you quite comfortably talk down to people like James Annan who develop models for a living. When they disagree with your 2+2=22 interpretations you lecture them that they "don't want to admit they're wrong." Enough. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Geez Raymond, you are a little touchy tonight. Did I say anything wrong? Does anyone really want to admit they are wrong? Does the fact James develops models mean the models have any predictive value at all? Of course not. RonCram (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so much for pushing the inclusion of the A+G information as much as I've just wanted to make sure the information presented is fair. While I wouldn't consider E+E a reliable source given the criticism presented, I hold the credibilities of the Heartland Institute and general "polls of scientists" at even lower values. I haven't yet studied what/who's behind E+E enough to develop a presentable opinion about it here. Jason Patton (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The only issue with E&E's credibility is "Are they accurately presenting the position of Green and Armstrong?" These two men are recognized experts in scientific forecasting. There is really no question the paper is written by Green and Armstrong and represents their views. RonCram (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is frustrating. I've used Multivariable Linear Regression Methods and Neural Networks. It is still statistics. I have not seen any 'physical models' used to date. Some statistical models are forced with physical relationships but that is an unreliable practice because in tuning your model you would tend to fudge it to the right answer. Physical Models require 'first principle' relationships to be expressed in equations. Any model whose output is surface temperatures is a statistical model at this point. There are a couple physical models out there but Wiki Admin's call them opinion. However, despite the fact that calling anything in use like NOAA's composite multivariable linear regression model based on hindcasting (their words ;)) a physical model is an un-truth. But you guys are right and what really matters is DID THESE GUYS SAY THIS STUFF and there is no evidence they did. It should be wiped. I actually found a tabulation of physical vs statistical and combination models used to forecast Solar Cycle 24 but I dare you to find anything like that for Climate Models (because there is no point they are predominantly statistical with some forcing) (Itsonlysteam (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

I should add that there is some discussion about 'predictive models'. Are we talking about revelation or Nostradomas? Is this how the IPCC really does things? I don't think they intentionally condone turning opinions into models however if you force a statistical model with a dubious physical relationship that is later proven wrong but you like the answers so leave it buried in the code ... I know that has happened. Some of it was released on the net for everybody to poke at with a stick and make fun of it. Any discussion related to this should not be included here. You can't use 'rules based' fuzzy logic models on the climate and I haven't seen anyone advertising they do that. Oh, and 'evidence based forecasting' is statistics as well. Think about it, you look in the past (hindcast as NOAA says), then you produce some hindcastings (draw graphs) so you can look into the future ... still statistics.

Please, folks, the atmosphere-ocean models used for climate change projection are not statistical. They work by performing numerical integration of the coupled nonlinear partial differential equations that describe atmospheric dynamics and thermodynamics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, if we understood aerodynamics and the laws of thermodynamics that well, somebody should be able to, say, use a temperature difference to generate motive power (so you cold use a fire or something on a moving vehicle to make it self-moving! Call it science fiction if you dare!) , or maybe even construct a windcatcher device that would use the force of moving air to proper ships, or (ok, I'm reaching now) even have a machine that someone can crank to make the inside cooler than the outside...just imagine what that would do for the availability of Caipirinhas in warm countries! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Show me the algorithm and how it was derived and I will tell you they used a Statistical Tool like one I used to use called Fact Net (I didn't like neural networks). On top of that most of the relationships used to force the statistical models are 'empirical relationships simply derived from measurements taken in certain experimental conditions. If you are fairly confident in those 'empirical relationships' you can use Reynold's Numbers or some other technique to scale up or down but that requires some tweaking. This is not the 'first principles' understanding you are suggesting. You can make some 'first principles' measurements when you deal with laminar flow but as soon as turbulence is involved at best you can do little experiments and finite element analysis if the boundary conditions are rock solid. So without going on and on ... your wrong, they are statistical models in large part and to force them with emprically derived relationships is PURE FUDGE. In other words, write down the result you want and call it a conclusion.(Itsonlysteam (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Erm... no. Here's the link to the code for the NCAR Community Climate System Model, which is the GCM with which I have the most personal experience.[33] I've not run the NASA GISS model, but documentation and code are available here.[34] Find the statistical tools along the lines of Fact Net and show them to me please, because I'd be very interested to see them. I'm familiar with the radiative transfer calculations, and the PBL schemes, and the moist physics, and the dynamical solvers, but somehow I overlooked the statistical bits. So I'd be most grateful if you could repair that gap in my education. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, but if your telling me you use simple empirical relationships (some of them not well understood) like vapor pressure or the insulating effects of Carbon Dioxide and ad hoc patching them together into a model that is supposed to represent the Earth's climate then I guess I'd have to acknowledge that you have a form of a physical model, but I would argue in that case a statistical analysis would be more valid over a short period of time like in NOAA's latest La Nina prediction. Or they suggest its statistical because they invent this term 'hindcasting'. Anyway there is a proposed physical model for the earth's climate but according to the Wiki Admin's, it's is opinion (but we are presently entering a phase predicted by this physical model). I will look at your code however. If there are equations with more than a couple input variables, I will be suspicious it is of statistical because there is no thermodynamic method (dealing with stuff like the climate) that you can put lets say the composition of the atmosphere in and get the insulating and radiative effect. Unless you are speaking to me from beyond or have finished and proven string theory ;) I guess if you used multiple empirical relationships between different facets like heat inputs, composition of atmosphere, conductivity of the ocean water at its given composition, then it will be easy to see the individual elements and how they are weighted et cetera ... whatever, I will look.(Itsonlysteam (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

OK, it appears on the surface that this is a physical model of a vast number of nested emprical relationships, some relationships might be questioned in their validity because of the 'scale' (other factors could be interfering). I still think I would find statistical algorithms in here if I dug for a while but from its structure it does look like a physical model like you say. On the other hand it is not something that shows an advanced understanding of physics and thermodynamics. I have to disagree there. These kinds of techniques are valid and worthwhile but only point the way to understanding. I wouldn't doubt many of the 'physical' models used to predict Solar Cycle 24 were of this character and that is why they will be grossly in error. There is one paper by a NASA scientist that uses a 'first principle' model of solar activity and that is the type of 'knowledge' I think the techniques you illustrate should lead to ( Hung, Ching-Cheh (2007) Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets (NASA/TM—2007-214817) Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio July 2007 ). This paper is posted in several places but you can find it on a NASA site. The reason it is popular is it predicts Solar Cycle 24 will be 'very low' and uses the same general 'physical model' that is the sole reason I jointed Wiki a couple of days ago but this model is considered opinion by Wiki Admins (who generally are a vassal of that 'political movement' which claims to have science on its side). That physical model extends the effect described to the Earth's Climate and also talks of a 'causal mechanism', 'torque on the Sun's core' by the planets causing changes in its internal circulation and therefore activity. Anyway, this was fun but I have to post a video on my blog of some discussion of 'climate modeling'. Later I will scour the code you directed me to for algorithms derived statistically ;)

If you want to properly use statistical tools and modeling techniques you need to have a fairly good understanding of your subject matter and a general understanding of the relationships or you will get wild results. It is especially useful if you have a fairly timely feed back of output so you can regularily tune your model as well. A friend of mine built a composite statistical model for an industrial system that is vastly simpler than the Earth's Climate and stumped many pHD's for 30 years. I was the process expert in that case and was the guru that waved the magic wand and declared it valid. I sure hope climate models based on 'some guys' opinion aren't being used anymore ;) (Itsonlysteam (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

I'll let this knowledgable older person speak for me ;) ... 2008 Bahama Climate Conference(Itsonlysteam (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Criticism of Green and Armstrong

Stephan, thank you for adding something constructive to the article. I had completely forgotten about this piece written by Trenberth. Obviously, I knew about it at the time because my comment on the page is dated July 27, 2007. But this piece did slip my mind or I would have added it myself. RonCram (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just read Gavin Schmidt's take on G&A for the first time. It was the best writing I've seen from Gavin, which is not saying much. Apparently, Gavin is trying out for Saturday Night Live. Calling Bob Carter a "rejectionist rump" is funny mainly because of the alliteration, but it is still an ad hominem attack. He also attacks G&A using "guilt by association." If Carter is an RR, then G&A must be too. It is too bad Gavin did not attempt to deal with any of the criticisms raised by G&A. That would have been more interesting to readers. Can anyone find some better bit of criticism of G&A than this tripe? RonCram (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the actual info Gavin included about Carter's apparent disbelief in anthropogenic CO2. I believe Carter was recently peddling long-refuted satellite data as well. More generally, this seems like another "no such thing as average temperature" canard, a pseudo-scientific show trotted out so people can continue to believe what they want to believe.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have invited James Annan to explain why certain principles of scientific forecasting do not apply to physical sciences. If he decides to post something on his blog, we can use that as an answer to G&A. RonCram (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does not look like James is going to post on this subject in his blog. After I issued the challenge, he basically picked up his marbles and went home. It was almost comical. [35]RonCram (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

On recent additions to the "Models vs Forecasting" section

I see Sagredo has made a number of contributions supporting computer models. That's fine but I want to make certain the facts are properly presented. Under the new graphic I read:

Climate models are systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. To “run” a model, scientists divide the planet into a 3-dimensional grid, apply the basic equations, and evaluate the results. Atmospheric models calculate winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface hydrology within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points. Different models vary in such basics as grid size and therefore do not give the same results.

I do not believe this is quite accurate. As it currently stands, a reader would come to the false conclusion that all of the models use exactly the same inputs. I am quite certain this is not true or at least it should not be true. Someone using James Annan's inputs would get quite different results than someone using Petr Chylek's inputs. Chylek has been doing a lot of work on aerosols and has concluded they do not have nearly the cooling impact formerly thought.

Also, readers may get the false idea that climate models do a good job of representing the climate. Not true. Quoting G&A: "As physicist Freeman Dyson concluded, climate models "do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans," but "they do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests."[36] [37] And of course, the point Freeman Dyson leaves out, we are still learning about new negative feedbacks. In 2007, Roy Spencer published a peer-reviewed paper on a negative feedback his team observed over the tropics. [38] None of the climate models had this feedback as one of their inputs and additional negative feedbacks may exist. I suggest Sagredo or someone else with a similar viewpoint try to clean this up. Otherwise, I will have to do it. RonCram (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea that climate models do a good job is not false. "We consider coupled models, as a class, to be suitable tools to provide useful projections of future climates." IPCC TAR 2001 [39]

"There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases." IPCC FAR - Frequently Asked Question 8.1- How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change? (2007) [40]

Are we not still learning about "new" positive feedbacks as well as negative? The existence of additional positive feedbacks is just as likely as the existence of negative ones.

Perhaps a better description/explanation of climate modeling can be better written by one of the climate modelers who frequent this place. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 07:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sagredo, the statements written by the IPCC in 2001 do not have the evidence from the 2007 Schwartz, Chylek or Spencer papers available. No, we are not learning about new positive feedbacks. The scientists are trying to learn why the Earth has not warmed as much as the physical laws indicate it should have warmed, so the unknown feedbacks are a net negative. Now that the PDO has turned to its cool phase, the discrepancy will only grow larger. Plus, the work being done by Anthony Watts may tell us the Earth has not even warmed as much as we currently estimate. It seems to me the statements you have written fits better in a section debating how well the computer models fit reality. That is also an important subject of debate.RonCram (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Peiser's Stance

Peiser certainly didn't retract any of his claims. He stated that "a few" of the abstracts he cited were ambiguous, but in any and all subsequent interviews, stated his criticisms remained. I have modified the text accordingly...this issue has been well-discussed on Peiser's own talk page. If someone has a source that states otherwise, please discuss it here, but I want to stress that acknowleding his analysis was not 100% perfect is not the same thing as retracting a claim. FellGleaming (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We have 2 reliable sources that both say this. And we have some self published sources that both contradict and confirm. The parity of sources show something different than your claim. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the source in the article doesn't say this at all. It says Peiser agrees his analysis had problems, not that he retracted any of his criticisms. If you disagree, why not paste in the relevant section here? FellGleaming (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop deleting reliable sources from the references. You may have your own interpretation of the events. But what WP has to go from is what sources say. For instance what Peiser is saying about new papers, is irrelevant since that isn't what Oreskes paper is about. Pure WP:OR and WP:SYN. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Peiser: ""my critique of Oreskes' flawed study was later found to be partially flawed itself". Thats in one reliable source, here is from another: In fact over the last year and half since Benny Peiser wrote up his results, he's backed away from those claims. Peiser now admits he didn't check the same articles that Naomi Oreskes used.

Try addressing the parity of the sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Add Date?

In the section Changing position of some skeptics could someone add the year for Ronald Bailey's book, Global Warming and other Eco Myths? I think it could be done as: "Ronald Bailey, author of a 2002 book called Global Warming and Other Eco Myths, now says..." this would help to make clear that there was a time period from the publication of that book to "now", and, depending on when someone is reading the Global warming controversy article, what that time period is. 4.246.205.162 (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee no debate or anything? I feel cheated!  :-) 4.246.201.61 (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but if it helps: I self-debated intensively for nearly 5 hours. I'd send you my brain-recordings, but I suspect you don't have an ACME Brain-O-Buster 880 Exa yet - they will only go on sale early next century in this reality plane. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

5 hours??? LIAR! From my post to yours was only 12 minutes! And I'll bet that Brain-O-Buster thing was made up as well. I didn't find it on Google and if I don't find it on Google it doesn't exist bud. Just can't trust you climate scientists. -Alright, alright, back to subject, and not to be ungrateful, but man, it just doesn't flow now. What I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure that the 2005 and 2007 dates are necessary since none of the other quotes proceeding are dated. That's what the "now" was for. But if you want to keep them maybe we can begin a new sentence after reference (163) since it's now one long run-on sentence. Got my debate after all. 4.246.201.61 (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I self-debated between your first post and the implementation, of course. I had to ask Altavista to find anything about Google. Hmmm, seems to be a mono-continuum archaic web database thing. Well, yes, you won't find transdimensional equipment there. As for the issue: "Now" is deprecated, as it is correct only, well, now. See Wikipedia:MOS#Precise_language. I'll try to smoothen things out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh, I don't think Google is going to be happy about that. Anyway, thanks. 4.246.205.59 (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Pew Global's 2006 - 15-nation poll

The info in the History of public opinion section about the 15-nation poll conducted in 2006 by Pew Global could be misleading. The proportion of people who "worry a great deal" about climate change is reported as a proportion of people who have heard about the issue. It does not say whether the opposite answer is a proportion of the total number surveyed or the number who had heard about the issue. This should be clarified. Also the other options in the question should at least be made known if not the proportions involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.103.251 (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Heartland's 5 May statement on "Heartland 500" list

Regarding Heartland Institute's list of 500 scientists, I'm amused to see that User:Oren0 tried to replace my quote-unquote "out-of-context" quote from Heartland Institute's 5 May statement, with an out-of-galaxy quote from an earlier, different statement. Bi (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that it amused you that I used a quote that is quoted in the statement you're talking about (third paragraph). All I did was trace that quote back to its original source. I don't mind the current revision, however, since their position is actually explained, rather than the previous rv that contained only a quote that did nothing to illuminate HI's position. Oren0 (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Passive Smoking?

I do not understand what that's doing here. DavidOaks (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, join the crowd. It's loony to be placed in this article72.134.41.242 (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Climate Scientists' Consensus

Can someone explain why the statement "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation" is supported by three links that do not support the contention, and one of which actually says "Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date"?

Sure, one says "a worldwide network of 2,500 scientists sponsored by the United Nations, said there is 'new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.'", and another refers to "a document drafted by hundreds of scientists representing 113 governments"; but none of them speak to what percentage of climate scientists agree.

It seems to me citations are still needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.90.251 (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics page

This is a "skeptics" page? It seems to have been edited by those who believe in global warming. I think if this page is to detail the skeptics arguments, than it fails miserably. signed by Chiefsalsa 03:00, 13 May 2008

This is an article about the controversy about global warming, not a propaganda article arguing against AGW. Count Iblis (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki article that deals with both sides of the controversial issue. For skeptic propaganda goto http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html, and for alarmist global warming propaganda goto Global warming. 72.134.41.242 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing old information about Green and Armstrong

I had removed some old information about Green and Armstrong and cited their latest paper as the reason. Apparently this was not enough information for Raymond, who requested additional citation. It is difficult to put a citation into the text of the article when something is being removed. Here is a quote from the latest Green and Armstrong paper:

Climate Forecasters’ Use of the Scientific Literature on Forecasting Methods.24 There is little use of forecasting principles in environmental research generally; apparently they are not used at all in climate research.25 An Internet search found no Web sites or papers on climate change that referenced forecasting methodology.26 Neither the IPCC Report’s Chapter 8, “Climate models and their evaluation,” nor any of the 788 referenced works therein, refer to forecasting methodology or established forecasting principles.27; The same was true of Chapter 9, “Understanding and attributing climate change,” and its 535 references. A survey of climate scientists (described below) did not yield references to any relevant papers on forecasting.28 [41]

Now as you can see, they audited chapters 8 and 9. Also, the most recent report cites additional chapters in the IPCC report, so they are familiar with the AR4. In addition, they surveyed IPCC authors - although the IPCC authors were not much help. Note 41 says:

As noted, the ratings in a forecasting audit involve some judgment. As a check on the auditors’ judgments, the detailed ratings were sent to 240 of the scientists and policymakers surveyed earlier for information on the use of forecasting principles. They were asked to review the paper and to identify any inaccuracies. They were also invited to make their own ratings for publication at publicpolicyforecasting.com. As of this writing, none have done so. [42]

Any criticism of Green and Armstrong should be true of their latest report. I am removing the old criticism, which is no longer true. RonCram (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

First, your argument is a clear example of WP:OR. Criticism of their work has not gone away. As for the quality of your argument: As you can see, Armstrong is completely ignored. That is not "consult with", but rather "considered irrelevant". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, actually the criticism was never true. I just looked at the acknowledgements on the first paper. It says:

We thank P. Geoffrey Allen, Robert Carter, Alfred Cuzán, Robert Fildes, Paul Goodwin, David Henderson, Jos de Laat, Ross McKitrick, Kevin Trenberth, Timo van Druten, Willie Soon, and Tom Yokum for helpful suggestions on various drafts of the paper. We are also grateful for the suggestions of three anonymous reviewers. Our acknowledgement does not imply that all of the reviewers agreed with all of our findings. Rachel Zibelman and Hester Green provided editorial support. [43]

Several climatologists are named here, including Kevin Trenberth. I know Trenberth was not as helpful as he could have been because Green and Armstrong complain elsewhere that Trenberth refused to provide his data and methods at one point - very unscientific of him not to share data. The fact climate scientists have not been more helpful says more about them than it does about the thoroughness of Green and Armstrong. I do not see the point of leaving in criticism which is clearly untrue. RonCram (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite apart from the trust I put into your interpretation of G&A, as you well know, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Otherwise we could scrap much of this article... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that aside from their own vigorous self-promotion, G&A are utterly non-notable to the field. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, you are living in Fantasyland. Climate scientists would like to think Green and Armstrong are not notable, but it is not true. RealClimate argued against the G&A paper but they never discussed why climate science was above scientific forecasting. Richard Lindzen supports these principles and they will become used more. G&A have talked with climate scientists from both camps. My most recent edit sets the record straight. RonCram (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Checking the ISI Web of Knowledge, Green and Armstrong have two publications (both in 2007) in journals ISI indexes which have a combined total of 1 citation. This single citation was from the second paper they published. I'm not sure about you, but I would consider this highly not notable. Jason Patton (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Jason, your test is a poor one. The field of scientific forecasting is only about 25 or 30 years old. In that period of time, four academic journals have been launched. It takes some time for ISI to recognize a new field of study, but that is not the major test. A better test is are these principles being used in forecasting? The answer is yes. The field has gained ground tremendously in the last five years and scientific forecasters are now being consulted by governments. The media has noticed the work. More importantly, no one (from climate science or anywhere else) has shown why these principles do not apply to forecasting in their field. It is true that not every principle applies to every discipline, but deciding which principles apply and which do not is the first step. RonCram (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Only 25-30 years old"? The Journal of Automated Reasoning is 23 years old and of course in ISI. The Journal of Symbolic Computation is 23 years old, and of course in ISI. How slow do you think science is? But you miss the main point Jason makes. G&A's publication on these topics have been completely ignored by the scientific community so far. That clearly shows the value they are accorded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, you are not comparing apples to apples. These are new journals branching off of established fields. Computers have been around for a long time, ya know? Scientific forecasting is a new field. Historically, people would just proclaim themselves experts in a certain field and issued forecasts. But about 25 years ago people came together to attempt a scientific approach to forecasting and measuring the results of different methods and procedures. Academics from lots of different fields: politics and marketing, economics and business all began working together to standardize best practices. For some reason, climate scientists did not get involved. It is high time they did. When asked why this principles do not apply to climate science, they are unable to issue an intelligible answer. By the time the dust settles, you can believe ISI will list these journals. RonCram (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

politics and marketing, economics, business, psychology, etc etc. are all fundamentally different from the physical sciences. "Scientific forecasting" in its literal meaning is a very old field that all the scientists who work in the physical sciences are well versed in since the 17-th century.

What has happened since the 1980s is that the social sciences have become more quantitative. This is for a large part due to the avalaible computer power and software. It is now very easy for, say, a psychologist who typically has only a minimal amount of mathematical training to formulate very complicated models and work with them on his computer.

So, there is now a need for these scientists to learn about the potential pitfalls. But these are completely obvious for the people who work in the physical sciences. Therefore, A&G will have 0.0 impact in the physical sciences. Also note that people who choose to study social sciences are often precisely those people who are not very strong in math and physics. What is very obvious to a first year physics student may not be obvious at all to a business professor.... Count Iblis (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, stop reverting without reading the citation to see if the entry is correct or not. This is not OR. I have supplied a citation for the statement. Read the Acknowledgement section of the paper published on E&E. Read the section above where I cited the survey of climate scientists. And do not delete my entire on the Talk page where I explain my edits. If you relaly think I have violated WP:SOAP, delete that portion and we can talk about it. But deleting the whole thing is really irritating! RonCram (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ron, Energy and Environment is not a reliable source. You know that - so why are you still using it? You were doing WP:SYN by combining two different sources, to state something that the sources didn't. And I have read the citations, i'm a compulsive reader - i read most everything if i even have an inkling of a reason to do so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, explain yourself. E&E is peer-reviewed and it is a reliable source. Even if it was not, E&E is a reliable source for the views of the scientists who publish there. That is even true of a blog. What was WP:SYN? I did not twist anything. You are making wild charges you cannot back up. RonCram (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYN is you looking a G&A's unreliably published paper, taking them at face value, taking the previous criticism, and making the synthesis that they no longer apply. Not even G&A state that explicitly, it's purely your conjecture. And no, E&E is not a reliable source, for reasons repeated over and over again... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, I am simply pointing out that RC claimed G&A "apparently" did not consult with any IPCC authors. Hogwash. G&A thanked Kevin Trenberth in the Acknowledgement section. So, "apparently" they did talk to IPCC authors. The criticism is not valid. Also, they have attempted to consult with a great many more but these guys do not want their projections to be audited. This kind of stiff arming does not promote science. Regarding E&E, it is peer-reviewed, as has been established, and is a reliable source regardless of your personal opinion on the matter. The standard of reliable source is whether or not the author is subject to any fact checking or editorial oversight. Peer-review is a greater level of oversight than a standard news magazine that is considered RS. You may or may not agree with the science they publish, but that is true of any scientific publication. Peer-review does not guarantee the science is correct. I think you are confusing the two issues.RonCram (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. From WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". E&E has no such reputation. On the contrary, it has a reputation for publishing almost any piece of crap furthering the agenda of its editor in chief. And WP:RS even describes this kind of journal: "Peer-reviewed scientific journals differ in their standards. Some court controversy, and some have even been created for the specific purpose of promoting fringe theories that depart significantly from the mainstream views in their field. Many of these have been created or sponsored by advocacy groups. Such journals are not reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they are associated with." You can bet that LaRouche journals have strict editorial control, but that does not make them reliable sources. Similarly, China Daily has strict editorial control. But I would not expect it to be a reliable source on Tibet. And your jump from being mentioned in an Acknowledgment section to "have been consulted" is another example of WP:SYN, or perhaps WP:IMAGINATION. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Such journals are not reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they are associated with" - WP:V. "E&E is a reliable source for the views of the scientists who publish there" - RonCram. These both seem mutually consistent. Ron only wants to use E&E to quote the positions of G&A, which WP:V seems to specifically allow. Oren0 (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, would you thank someone you did not consult with? I wouldn't. What would be the point? E&E was not created or sponsored by an advocacy group. The editor has some strong opinions, but I believe the journal was founded in about 1980 - before global warming theory had much of a following. I do not believe E&E is just an anti-global warming journal. Trying to equate E&E with LaRouche or China Daily is pretty low. Some pretty famous people have published in E&E and articles published there have spawned other journal articles, such as happened with McIntyre and McKitrick. RonCram (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Big winds come from small caves. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Too long?

This page has had a toolong template on it for a while. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like cleanup templates on the tops of pages I watch. Let's see if we can get rid of it. The relevant questions would be:

1. Do we think that the article is too long? If not, let's remove the template. Oren0 (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
2. If the article is too long, is there a split or content removal we can perform to fix it? Does it make sense to fork the "Scientific aspects" and/or "Economic/political aspects" sections into their own pages? Does it make sense to create a global warming skeptic page and move some of this page's content there? Oren0 (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oren, I agree it is too long. Wikipedia already has an article on Politics of global warming. Much of the material here could be merged into that article. This one should focus on the controversy around the science. RonCram (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree I think is a very important topic and worthy of a long discussion. As a reader, doing some research after reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear this week, and just watching Inconvenient Truth. I the team did an impressive job of maintaining balance. I'd hate to see it split among a variety of web pages. (CGP)

External Links section out of control

On the subject of the article being too long, the external links section has spun out of control. What types of links do we believe actually belong here? I think that about 90% of what's there (material from both sides) should go. Oren0 (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't say that i disagree completely. Start by cutting the whole section on Printed Media - i can't see any of those resulting in improving the article (ie. by turning into a reference there). There are some of the references that might end up in the article though, if it wasn't already bloated. But since it is - its mostly a link-farm. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What Printed Media section :-)? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't keep up with this article too much, given that it has always been a dumping ground for POV assertions. But cleaning up the refs couldn't hurt. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

New section on scientific controversy around the GCMs

For ease of discussion, I have decided to place the entry here as well. I have no misconceptions about what I've written being acceptable to all, but there is no question the article needs to address this very important controversy around the science. Please keep comments civil and remember to put the interests for readers first.

Confidence in GCM forecasts

The IPCC states it has increased confidence in forecasts coming from General Circulation Models or GCMs. Chapter 8 of AR4 reads:

There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of signifi cant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.[44]

Skeptics believe this confidence in the models’ ability to predict future climate is not earned. Roger Pielke points out a mistake common among climatologists:

This is a typical mistake they are making; a model is itself a hypothesis and cannot be used to prove anything! The multi-decadal global model simulations only provide insight into processes and interactions, but we must use real world data to test the models. [45]

Pielke also writes:

As a necessary condition for global climate models to even be claimed to have predictive skill, they must have each of the first-order climate forcings and feedbacks that are overviewd in the Summary. At present (2005) none of the models do. If a global model claims predictive skill yet does not have all of the important direct and indirect radiative, and non-radiative forcings, as summarized in the Report, the model results must be interpreted as a process study, and not be communicated to policymakers as predictions (projections). They can be used to express concern that each of the first-order climate forcings are altering our climate, but to transmit results from the models as forecasts in planning is overselling the capability of the models. [46]

Strike this whole section as cherry-picking quotes and generate orginal research and synthesis. The first Pielke quote is specifically about Realclimate - and not about AR4 or climate scientists in general. #2 quote is a blog comment from Pielke in answer to a question from Kiminori Itoh - taken completely out of context.

The whole section is based on Pielke Sr's blog, and is undue weight as well as original research and synthesis. (as well as severe cherry picking). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, wow. You pulled out all of your favorite Wikipedia policies on that one! Your statement is completely nonsensical. Roger's blog is RS regarding his views. It is not undue weight because it is the only opposition to the IPCC on this point. It is not original research because I provided a citation from a RS. You can click on it to verify it. It is not cherry picking because I am not misrepresenting Roger Pielke's views. RonCram (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 8 of the AR4 is not mentioned by Pielke in any of the references. So the SYN is rather obvious. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pielke does not mention chapter 8 of AR4 but he is talking about the same GCMs the AR4 discusses in chapter 8. WP:SYN is when editors put two facts together which are not related to try to make them say something they do not say. Pielke's comments are completely relevant to the claims the IPCC made in chapter 8. RonCram (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, the first Pielke quote is about RealClimate but it also applies to the majority of climate scientists who support AR4. The second Pielke quote is not about RealClimate at all and should not be stricken even under your viewpoint.RonCram (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does Pielke (or anyone else) say that it applies to the majority of climate scientists? (Hint: he doesn't - its *your* opinion).

The second quote is not from a blog article - its from a blog comment, as a reply to another blog comment. That is very very far from anything that could even reasonably be said to be a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hogwash. Blogs are WP:RS regarding the opinions of the authors, as long as there is no question the quote belongs to the scientist in question. There is no question Roger Pielke's comment on Roger Pielke's blog actually came from Roger Pielke.RonCram (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all - you are using this as quite a bit more than just the opinion of Pielke Sr. (for instance your interpolation: "Sceptics believe" - thats quite a bit more than Pielke).. Secondly you are cherry-picking arguments by not only quoting articles - but taking comments to articles out of context. You are interpreting - and not only that - you are assuming that your interpretation is gospel. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, if you think my wording is not the best, you are free to edit the wording. But that is not what you are doing. You just delete the whole thing. You are not showing a good faith effort to collaborate on something Wikipedia readers will find helpful and informative. I quoted a great deal, probably more than is good for an encyclopedia, because I always get these complaints from you. You make charges like I'm "taking comments to articles out of context" without showing how my quotes have distorted the views of the author. I am not distorting Roger's views. For you to claim I am violating policies without providing any evidence is just ridiculous. Interpretation is necessary for understanding. Anytime you read, you have to interpret what is read. You also, have to interpret what I have read. So, I do not understand what you are talking about here. If you think I have interpreted something wrong, let's discuss it. Show me where my interpretation is incorrect. Perhaps it is your interpretation that is incorrect. RonCram (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Do the models used by AR4 include all of the forcings and feedbacks?

No. Working Group 1 placed a deadline on scientific papers. For inclusion in the AR4, papers must be in by May, 2006. Conclusions from papers published after May, 2006 are not included in the AR4.

In 2007, Roy Spencer and co-authors published a report on their observation of a new negative feedback over the tropics. They identified this feedback as the “Infrared Iris”effect hypothesized by Richard Lindzen. Spencer concludes:

Since these intraseasonal oscillations represent a dominant mode of convective variability in the tropical troposphere, their behavior should be considered when testing the convective and cloud parameterizations in climate models that are used to predict global warming.[47]

Since the GCMs did not include the Infrared Iris negative feedback, it is possible other forcings and feedbacks may also be missing.

Completely original research. Spencer et al. does not identify it as the Iris effect. And the connection to the WG1 is again a synthesis. Strike 2. Try to at least reflect secondary sources. This is once more not your personal playground for venting your personal views and original research. Other papers have come out since the AR4 deadline - and cherry-picking a specific paper, is undue weight (as usual). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, read Spencer's abstract (at least) where he specifically identifies this negative feedback as the Infrared Iris effect. How is the relationship to WG1 WP:SYN? I am showing readers the IPCC has a clear reason why Spencer's feedback is not taken into account. Do the dates not mean anything to you? Yes, other papers have come out. What is your point? This paper is notable and speaks to the scientific controversy. Why not try WP:IDONTLIKEIT next? RonCram (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ron - i suggest instead that you read Spencer's abstract again - until you finally grasp what is written. He does not identify it as the Iris effect. Hint: He does mention the Iris effect, he also mentions that it could potentially support this effect. Try to actually read things - and not interpret it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Another hint: in the paper Spencer states: "The decrease in ice cloud coverage is conceptually consistent with the ‘‘infrared iris’’ hypothesized by Lindzen et al. [2001]" - he then continues on to caution that the effects measured are on a too short timescale. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, you are expert at identifying distinctions without a difference. Science is always subject to new information, confirmation or revision and so publications are necessarily conservative in wording. There is no question Spencer has identified his observations as supporting Lindzen's hypothesis. This semantic argument is meaningless anyway as it does nothing to support your charge of OR and SYN. I really think you have a Random Objection Generator so that when you push a button some Wikipedia policy pops out like {WP:OR]]. You are never able to prove your charges. To prove your charges, you have to point to specific statements and explain how the statement violates the policy. Just making assertions does not make them true. RonCram (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ron, its very simple... If you actually try to understand the paper. What Spencer has discovered, is consistent with the Iris Effect - but he also writes very specifically why it cannot be identified with it.... Spencers paper is about very short term variations, while Lindzen's is about long term climate ones. All it can ever be is a result that might indicate that there is an iris-effect. Its like rolling a die, and getting a 6. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that the die has 6's on all sides. But that simple test, can neither identify or show it. All it can do is potentially support the hypothesis. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ie. you are putting meaning into Spencer's paper that isn't there. You may believe that Spencer' has made the first detection of the Iris-effect - and you may even be correct. But belief is not relevant here, we need to reflect what the sources actually say - and not speculate on it. That is something that you can do on blogs - but not in an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, even if I were to grant your point, and I am looking for ways to compromise here, I cannot see how deleting the entire entry is helpful to readers who want to know about the scientific controversy around global warming. How can you justify that? Why not change a few words and leave what is unassailable? RonCram (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Do models match important aspects of current climate?

The IPCC claims that confidence is high that GCM projections are accurate because the GCMs are able to simulate many features of climate. The AR4 states:

A second source of confidence comes from the ability of models to simulate important aspects of the current climate. Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation have taken place over the last decade in the form of organized multi-model ‘intercomparisons’. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover.

Skeptics have published peer-reviewed research indicating the GCMs do not model key observations well. For example, one key component of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is that as atmospheric CO2 increases, the troposphere will warm more quickly than the surface and this will be most pronounced in the tropics. David Douglass and co-authors compared the ensemble of GCMs to observations and found the GCMs were consistent with the theory but did not match observations. [48]

Do model projections match observations over the last two decades?

Computer models have been making projections for 18-20 years. Do those projections match with observations? The IPCC says yes:

Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period (Chapter 1).

Some scientists answer No. Demetris Koutsoyiannis compared climate models to historical climate, looking largely to the hydrological cycle (which also affects temperature). Here are select conclusions from his presentation:

:

• GCMs generally reproduce the broad climatic behaviours at different geographical locations and the sequence of wet/dry or warm/cold periods on a mean monthly scale.

• However, model outputs at annual and climatic (30 year) scales are irrelevant with reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the models proves to be systematically better than the others.

• The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average.

• This makes future climate projections not credible.

• The GCM outputs of AR4, as compared to those of TAR, are a regression in terms of the elements of falsifiability they provide, because most of the AR4 scenarios refer only to the future, whereas TAR scenarios also included historical periods. [49]

Other scientists and statisticians have blogged on the issue of validation and verification of GCMs looking mainly at temperature. Roger Pielke Jr. [50] [51][52] William Biggs [53] and Lucia Liljegren [54] have all reached similar conclusions about the GCMs ability to match observations over the last 20 years.RonCram (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice Ron. Now where are the secondary sources that makes your above conclusions? Or is it the usual WP:OR/WP:SYN, by cherry picking various papers and comments? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, there is nothing different about this than any other part of this article. Read the article. It is full of citations of scientific papers and blogs. This is an article about the scientific controversy. It has to represent the views of scientists. This not WP:OR/WP:SYN or cherry picking. I have not distorted anyone's views. RonCram (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on two sections. Try to at least read what original research and synthesis is. I have to say that i've given up on you ever understanding those. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ron, if you want this to be anything other than an unfunny joke, you're going ot have to learn to take out things like Lucias blog as a bare minimum William M. Connolley (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

William, Lucia is very bright. She has been praised by climatologists better than you. RonCram (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this section (ignoring some other parts for now) is far from being includable with a minor rewrite. I think the section should flow like this: "Some GW skeptics have questioned the predictive ability of climate models...The IPCC says X about this. Person A says Y about prediction. Person B says Z about validation and verification. Etc." I don't see a WP:SYN issue if it's written in that way. Oren0 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oren0, I am having a hard time seeing any of Kim's points. Perhaps I am not giving him a fair chance. I would like to compromise where it would make the article better. Can you point out any objection of Kim's with which you agree? If so, I will take another look at it. RonCram (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. My big complaint about the other sections is that they're not written encyclopedically. It's written like an FAQ in parts. A section header that's a question and then "No." as the beginning of the section? Where else on Wikipedia main space have you ever seen this? That's why I suggested the refactoring as I mentioned above. There's nothing wrong with presenting both sides of an issue provided that each is well sourced. In fact, I'd agree that the accuracy and principles of GCMs could use more discussion in the article. However, you're synthesizing your own conclusions from the points both sides make to form your own conclusions. For example, you claim that because Spencer's Iris effect (which hasn't really gained traction as far as I know) isn't included in the GCM, that they don't "include all of the forcings and feedbacks" and that "it is possible other forcings and feedbacks may also be missing." Did you make this up or is there a source for it? This is the kind of thing that Kim and others are objecting to. But that's not to say that there isn't savable material here. Oren0 (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Any improvements you can make to the wording would be much appreciated. I agree that the FAQ format is not good. I was trying to finish up in a hurry and that is sloppy. I was not trying to synthesize my "own conclusions from the points both sides make." I am not sure what I wrote that made you write that. I may be doing without realizing it, but if you could point to something specifically it would be helpful. What I was trying to do is let both sides speak for themselves, so readers could understand exactly where the controversy lies. I thought quoting the IPCC and then quoting scientists who disagree (skeptics or not) would be the best way to do this. My statement that "other forcings and feedbacks may also be missing" is a weaker statement than the one by Pielke who stated they were missing. Pielke did not identify which forcings or feedbacks. RonCram (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oren0, to make it easy I put the original entry into a Sandbox. You can play with it there, make it better. Perhaps we can improve it to the point it will be accepted by everyone. The Sandbox is here. [55] Other editors can join this effort as well. RonCram (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Skeptics believe this confidence in the models’ ability to predict future climate is not earned. Roger Pielke points out a mistake common among climatologists: (etc)" Roger isn't a skeptic. Generally I refrain from commenting on threads involving him because of personal COI, but I can't let this stand. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, feel free to change the wording. Roger was formerly listed on the "Lists of scientists who disagree..." page because he had agreed to be so listed. For some reason, his name has been removed. Roger has a nuanced position on climate change. He feels humans are partially responsible for warming but disagrees with the IPCC that rising CO2 is the main problem or will be catastrophic. It is never my intent to mischaracterize anyone's position. RonCram (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, I don't think you doubt that skeptics believe the confidence is not earned. Perhaps the best correction is to say "Skeptics and some climatologists believe the confidence is not earned. For example, Roger Pielke..." Is that okay? RonCram (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not good on many levels. It combines the two groups, while contrasting "skeptics" with "climatologists." (By the way you needn't explain Roger's perspective to me; I'm very familiar with Roger's position across a range of issues related to the topic.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to set the record straight on Roger. Other editors may read your comment that he "isn't a skeptic" and think he agrees with the IPCC right down the line. Roger has been very outspoken and lucid in his criticism of the IPCC. How about this then: "Certain scientists, both skeptical and otherwise, do not feel the IPCC's confidence in the GCMs has been earned. For example, Roger Pielke..." How is that? RonCram (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like its going anywhere; but I'll point out that Rons source for DK is no good [56]; its just a conference presentation. Anyone can do one; there is no oversight or review. If the best Ron (or anyone) can find is a conference abstract from an unknown, then the entire section should jus die William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realized what a dodgy source he was using (though I should have expected as much). No, conference papers won't do. I did read it, and all I can say is "ouch"... verifying AOGCM projections against point data??? Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

William, this is an article about the controversy. The article is full of blog citations. A poster is at least as good a source as a blog posting. Raymond, I just put an entry on your Talk page about the Douglass paper. I think you will be interested in reading it. I assume you have already read Douglass paper itself. RonCram (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of WP:WEIGHT? We are not here to record every instance of someone saying or presenting something that you feel is controversial. What we present, are the notable controversies, that have received an impact. And that decision is left to secondary sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, this is a notable controversy. You really should know that by now. This article is full of peer-reviewed articles and blogs by scientists. You might want to read the recent article by Pat Frank published in Skeptic magazine. Pat is a regular contributor to ClimateAudit and is a researcher at Stanford. Find it here. [57] RonCram (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If its notable, you should be able to find something better than a conference pre-print as your main source William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

William, perhaps you can bring Ron with you when you go to a conference. He may learn something :) Count Iblis (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

William, DK is not the main source but one of many. Pielke and the Douglass paper, the validation and verification work by Pielke Jr, Briggs and Lucia are also important. I haven't added the article by Pat Frank, yet but I think it is notable as well. And Count, I have been to a conference before. I know exactly what they are like. Again, a poster presentation at a conference has to be as good as any blog posting. RonCram (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ron, you use DK for more than 50% of your text. All that has to go. Lucia is a joke, albeit not a very funny one, as is anyone relying on her. Pielke Jr has done no validation work on GCMs - he is a political scientist, not a physical one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

William, it gets a little confusing because Kim commented in the midst of my entry here but Pielke Sr. is about 30% of the text, Spencer about 20%, David Douglass about 20% and DK (along with Pielke Jr, Briggs and Lucia) about 30%. You can see it here more clearly. [58]RonCram (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's take this one section at a time

I added this section. I'm certain the section can be improved, but I'm also certain it is valid part of the controversy that readers would like to know about. If you think I have misquoted someone, please correct it. I want to maintain good faith but it is difficult to do so when people throw out a series of Wikipedia policies without describing why the entry violates any of them. Please edit in good faith.RonCram (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Confidence in GCM forecasts

The IPCC states it has increased confidence in forecasts coming from General Circulation Models or GCMs. Chapter 8 of AR4 reads:

There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of signifi cant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.[59]

Skeptics believe this confidence in the models’ ability to predict future climate is not earned. Roger Pielke points out a mistake common among climatologists:

This is a typical mistake they are making; a model is itself a hypothesis and cannot be used to prove anything! The multi-decadal global model simulations only provide insight into processes and interactions, but we must use real world data to test the models. [60]

Pielke also writes:

As a necessary condition for global climate models to even be claimed to have predictive skill, they must have each of the first-order climate forcings and feedbacks that are overviewd in the Summary. At present (2005) none of the models do. If a global model claims predictive skill yet does not have all of the important direct and indirect radiative, and non-radiative forcings, as summarized in the Report, the model results must be interpreted as a process study, and not be communicated to policymakers as predictions (projections). They can be used to express concern that each of the first-order climate forcings are altering our climate, but to transmit results from the models as forecasts in planning is overselling the capability of the models. [61]

RonCram (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is already discussed above.
— Apis (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above was not adequate to delete the entry. And you added nothing to the discussion. If you think the entry should not be a part of the article, please state why. Because you did not state a reason, I am restoring the entry.RonCram (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Weird, I thought I did... yup here it is: "Please continue the discussion instead. You are giving a single blog post to much space". I even replied here as well. And, no, I didn't take part in the discussion because I see no point in repeating what others have already said. Starting a new thread about the same subject doesn't mean we have to discuss it all over again.
— Apis (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics believe this confidence in the models’ ability to predict future climate is not earned. Roger Pielke points out a mistake common among climatologists: This is a typical mistake they are making; a model is itself a hypothesis and cannot be used to prove anything! is gobbledegook. In this instance RP doesn't know what he is talking about. We don't report him just cos you know his name William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you seem to fairly often claim that climatologists more notable than yourself "don't know what they're talking about." Not that your opinion of what he says means anything until and unless it's attributable outside of Wikipedia anyway. And not to mention that he's right about models in general, especially those with as poor a predictive track record as the IPCC's climate models (how many of them from TAR are even in the ball park for the last decade, or in the ball park of the "cooling until 2015" that we're now told to expect?). But I digress: Pielke's opinion is notable and relevant and "he doesn't know what he's talking about" isn't a reason for excluding it. Oren0 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There's just one trouble with that.... Pielke doesn't say this. As i pointed out in the above discussion, Pielke is specifically talking about realclimate and not climatologist in general. And the second quote is cherry picked from the comments part of a blog article. Combined with the "Sceptics believe" part (which is purely invented by Ron - and not supported by any references). Its about as pure WP:SYN as one can get. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, hogwash. The fact Pielke was talking about RealClimate does not change the fact he writes: "a model is itself a hypothesis and cannot be used to prove anything!" Don't you see how both IPCC and RealClimate have that mistake in common? Everyone else can see it. I am not twisting Pielke's words at all. Regarding the use of "skeptics," I do not see this as WP:SYN at all. Pielke wrote in his blog that he wanted to be listed on Wikipedia article on "List of scientists who disagree..." And he was listed for a time. I do not know why he is off now. But just to please you, I would be happen to change the wording to "Certain scientists, skeptics and otherwise, do not believe this confidence is earned." Kim, also for an entry to be WP:SYN, the entry has to promote some opinion that is not found in the published sources. I quoted from IPCC and Pielke directly and not to make a point they were not trying to make themselves. And William, of course Roger knows what he is talking about. Scientists line up to co-author articles with him. RonCram (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger knows what he's talking about, but you don't know what Roger's talking about. Are you at all familiar with his publication record? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, there you go showing how interested you are in what I know. I am somewhat familiar with Roger's publication record. What's your point? Oh, BTW, did you ever visit the t test calculator I showed you? RonCram (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I fear that in this case, I'm going to have to disagree with RA. RP doesn't know hat he's talking about in this context. OrenO: you don't defer to my authority on modelling, why do you expect me to defer to what you consider RP's? William M. Connolley (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of the Section

While I did not see anything wrong with the previous version, I have decided to rewrite the section attempting to address the issues raised. However, I do not think I can address WP:IDONTLIKEIT]. Here it is:

Confidence in GCM forecasts

The IPCC states it has increased confidence in forecasts coming from General Circulation Models or GCMs. Chapter 8 of AR4 reads:

There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of signifi cant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.[62]

Certain scientists, skeptics and otherwise, believe this confidence in the models’ ability to predict future climate is not earned. Pat Frank writes:

The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable. [63]

Roger Pielke believes computer models do not have predictive power:

A model is itself a hypothesis and cannot be used to prove anything! The multi-decadal global model simulations only provide insight into processes and interactions, but we must use real world data to test the models.[64] RonCram (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest revert

(1) We don't need a blog post by a chemist working far outside his sphere of expertise (e.g., he makes it clear he doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate). (2) Roger's quote was made in the context of a somewhat nuanced discussion of nonlinear dynamics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, you are wrong on three points. First, Pat Frank's quote is not from a blog post but from the highly respected magazine Skeptic. You can learn more about the magazine here. [65] It would help if you would actually read the links before you delete a well-sourced entry. Second, chemists are involved in the atmospheric studies. The highly respected Senior Scientist of Brookhaven National Labs' Atmospheric Science Lab, Stephen Schwartz, began his career as a Assistant Professor of Chemistry.[66] Third, the context of Roger's quote does not change the meaning of his words. Your somewhat obtuse statement might lead readers to think the context makes a difference in this case. It does not. RonCram (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean "sensitivity" Schwartz, he's wrong and has admitted as much [67]. Not that will stop you quoting him William M. Connolley (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

William, you don't need to assume. I provided a link to his webpage. I glanced at Schwartz's paper and noticed that his numbers are still far below the IPCC. Thank you for the link, however your comment has nothing to do with this discussion. Raymond was trying to make the claim chemists are far afield the arena of climate. It simply is not true. Atmospheric chemists play an important role in understanding climate. Whether Pat Frank is involved in atmospheric chemistry or not, I don't know. It does not matter. The thesis of Pat Frank's paper is that the physical uncertainty accumulates year after year. When calculated in the right way, the rapid growth of uncertainty means the GCMs cannot predict either warming or cooling. The author of such a paper does not need to be an expert in atmosphere or climate. He only needs to understand how science is done. Pat Frank points out the IPCC is not doing it right.RonCram (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond was trying to make the claim chemists are far afield the arena of climate. Do you seriously think that I'm that stupid??? I never said any such thing. I made a specific remark about the views of a specific person. Please stop doing this. I've always thought that your errors arose simply from an absence of scientific background rather than willful misrepresentation, but I'm becoming less and less certain. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, do you really know that much about Pat's area of expertise? I doubt it. You didn't even read the article he wrote. You thought the link went to a blog posting. Pat's views on uncertainty accumulation in the models, as published in Skeptic magazine, are notable. There was no reason to revert the entry about this important controversy. I am restoring it.RonCram (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are leaping to unjustified conclusions. I did read the article, and that was the basis of my comment. Yes, I misstated that it with a blog, though I am familiar with Skeptic (presumably you have never made such a casual error yourself). And I googled Pat Frank to read up on his background. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I make mistakes all the time, but I've never referred to a magazine article I just read as a blog posting nor tried to convince people it was not RS for that reason. If you had read Pat's article, then you would know his argument does not depend on his expertise in climate or atmosphere. It has to do with how science properly deals with uncertainty. Nothing you wrote indicates you had any familiarity with the subject matter of his article. My conclusion was hardly unjustified. It may have been wrong, but it was certainly justified as none of your reasons for reverting have held up under scrutiny.RonCram (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pat Franks opinion

Alright, I was trying to figure out where to post this, which is hard since someone has split up the discussion in 3 different threads. Anyway, I fail to see why the fact that "Certain scientists (...) believe this confidence in the models ability to predict future climate is not earned" is notable. That is hardly a surprising fact, one would assume, given enough scientists, that there would always be a few who didn't agree with the majority. I am very curious what makes this particular chemists views so interesting that it should be included in the encylopedia?
— Apis (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Apis, this is an article about global warming controversy. Readers want to know what aspects of the science around global warming are controversial and why. Lots of scientists are of the opinion the IPCC's confidence in the GCMs is not earned, but most have not published their views. Pat Frank's opinion is notable because he is an established researcher at an elite institution (Stanford) and his views were published in a notable magazine. Your viewpoint that it is not surprising that some scientists would feel this way is reasonable, but not particularly common. Let's say you were a student who read this article for a paper, would you be satisfied with the article if it did not discuss Pat Frank's views and you learned about his views later? I don't think so. I think you would be very dissatisfied with the article. If this were not an article about the controversy, Pat's views would not be notable. Since the article is about the controversy, why pretend there is no controversy around the GCMs? Is reverting the entry really providing a service to readers who want information about the controversy? How does that help or inform readers?RonCram (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Apis, I just looked at the article to see what the entry looks like now. I see that you had deleted everything but the IPCC view. That is hardly NPOV in an article about the controversy. Then you allowed in the bare statement that some people disagree, but you left the statement without any citation to either Pat Frank's view or Roger Pielke's view. I am restoring the citations, at the very least. I am willing to wait to see what Oren0 or other editors may think about the necessity of the quotes. RonCram (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously quoting the IPCC only was unacceptable, and I suspect that Apis realized this which is why he reinserted all but the quote. Obviously we can't provide every quote and link every article that comments on this issue. Our goal should be to try to reflect the most common arguments on both sides. The problem is that some of the editors of this page will call OR/SYN if we try to draw any conclusions from anything, so all we can really do is quote people. I think the reasonable thing to do is to quote the IPCC and then try to find one or two quotes from dissenters that summarize the general points we're seeing. I'd like to point out in terms of weight concerns that the previous revision had a much longer quote from the IPCC than from the skeptic side. Oren0 (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you noticed that I put that section back in, If you check carefully you will see that I didn't remove the other items you mentioned either. I only removed the reference to the text by Pat Frank that was inside the block quote, since it was a reference to the quote. I'm not sure the references indicate fully what the sentence is saying though. I have only had time to check the article by pat frank, but I presume the other source also refer to a reliable source by a credited scientist who express concern about the validity of the IPCCs confidence in the GCMs. As you suggest, lets say I was a student who read this article for a paper, would I be upset if it didn't mention Pat Frank? Well that depends. Lets say I read an article about the Earth, would I be upset if it didn't mention the flat earth society's opinion on the shape of the earth? No, most likely not. I would however be very upset if it did indicate that some scientists believed the earth was flat, and I later found out that the flat earth society's opinion only reflect a tiny minority view. What I am concerned about here is that we invent a controversy that don't really exist (except for a tiny minority). That would be very misleading, don't you agree?
— Apis (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the other reference in the article, and it appears my assumption was incorrect. It looks like it refer to a blog about climate science discussing a website called "RealClimate". I don't think that is relevant at all in this case. I think it would be appropriate to have a reference that somehow show that the IPCCs confidence in GCM is indeed a notable controversy, and not the opinion of one (or a small minority) of scientists.
— Apis (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Lets say I read an article about the Earth, would I be upset if it didn't mention the flat earth society's opinion on the shape of the earth? No, most likely not." - This isn't the global warming page. Just try adding anything there that diverts even 1% from the consensus and see what happens to your edit. This is a page about the controversy, and as such controversy belongs. If you were a student who wanted to read about global warming, you'd check out global warming or scientific opinion on climate change. If you wanted to read about the controversy, I think that leaving out controversy regarding models would be a noticeable omission. I would also say that there is no evidence that doubting the accuracy of GCMs is a "tiny minority" view. Especially, again, given the rather awful predictive performance of these models to date. Oren0 (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Its about the controversy... yes. But its about the part of the controversy that is notable - its not just a page collecting quotes from individuals. I have nothing against a section on Models and the public controversy about it - in fact i agree that there must be meat to be found here. What i am against is cherry-picking primary sources to generate a completely original take on it. The correct way to do it, is to find some reliable secondary sources, and then flesh it out with primary sources. (as for the IPCC quote - i frankly don't see what it does on the page - except as the only part of Ron's addition that survived.... get rid of it (imho). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically I agree with what Kim is saying here. I'm not convinced there is any "meat" to be found though. To me it seems rather ridiculous to question the IPCCs faith in models, "because they are only models". I mean, there might be some argument on what should go in to the model and what not, but the use of models should not be an issue (i would have thought). Whats important in this case though is getting some reliable sources for the claim that there is controversy about this (if there is, it shouldn't be hard to find), and then we can discuss exactly what it should say. I agree that only having the IPCC quote is rather silly and pointless which is why I put back some of what I originally removed. It would probably be better to simply remove the entire section but I didn't want to be overly confrontational about it since it is constantly being reinserted. (It is generally better to discuss changes on the talk page instead of reverting back and forth). (As for what Ron originally put into the article, that was obviously wp:syn as was said to begin with.)
— Apis (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well 5 minutes of Googling points me to David Douglass's paper in the International Journal of Climatology: "Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean" [68]. This was also picked up in other sources/media: [69] [70] [71] [72]. I could also point to other stories/articles: [73] [74] but I think this is "meaty" enough to start. Oren0 (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are basically rewrites of the same press-release (some are even verbatim). I was looking for something a bit more substantial. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) How do we feel about the most recent attempted addition over at global warming? This seems to fit into what we're talking about here.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, indicates that the "current climate models exaggerate the impact of carbon dioxide on temperature because of a poor understanding and representation of the feedback effects due to clouds and water vapor.” Professor Lindzen further states "Attributing global warming to the rise in greenhouse gases has been reduced to an issue of religious faith modulated by policy relevance." [75]

How much of this is usable? Oren0 (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

New research on upper troposphere warming

Blow for the skeptics  :)

Upper troposphere is warming after all, research shows

Research performed in the US has helped lay to rest one of the lasting controversies surrounding climate models: whether or not the upper troposphere is warming.

Climate models have long predicted that the upper troposphere — a region of the Earth’s atmosphere that lies beneath the stratosphere at an altitude of 10–12 km — should be warming at least as fast as the surface. However, since the 1970s temperature measurements carried out by weather balloons have found the lower-troposphere temperature to be fairly constant. This conclusion was backed up in 1990, when researchers used data taken from satellites to measure temperature changes in the troposphere.

For a while climate scientists have known that weather-balloon instruments are affected by the warming effect of the Sun’s light. They have also struggled to interpret the extent to which the satellite data of the troposphere could be influenced by the stratosphere. But the awareness of these uncertainties has not made it any clearer as to what temperature changes, if any, are taking place in the upper troposphere.

Now, Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University have used wind data taken from weather balloons as a proxy for direct temperature measurements to give the first conclusive evidence that the upper troposphere has been warming after all. Although they are an indirect measure of temperature, these wind records can be backed up by satellite and ground instruments, making them more reliable than existing direct temperature measurements (Nature Geoscience doi: 10.1038/ngeo208).

‘Put the controversy to rest’ Allen and Sherwood took wind data from 341 weather-balloon stations — 303 in the northern hemisphere and 38 in the southern hemisphere — covering a period from 1970 to 2005. To covert the data to temperature measurements, they employed a relationship known as the thermal-wind equation, which describes how vertical gradients in wind speed change with horizontally varying temperature. They found that the maximum warming has occurred in the upper troposphere above the tropics at 0.65 ± 0.47 °C per decade, a rate consistent with climate models.

“This research really does show the tropical troposphere has been warming over the past three decades,” says Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “And it will, I hope, put this controversy of weather balloon and satellite data to rest.” Santer, who was one of the lead authors of the 1995 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, thinks the next step is to confirm Allen and Sherwood’s findings with direct temperature records. These, he explains, must be taken with advanced weather-balloon instruments that can be calibrated against older models to remove biases.

“The approach by Allen and Sherwood is a promising start,” says John Lanzante of Princeton University. “But more confidence can be established as other investigations further scrutinize the wind data and method used to translate winds into temperature-equivalent measures.”

Count Iblis (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible Bias

I have never edited an article on wikipedia, so I feel I should post my 2 cents on the talk page. The chart concerning percents agreeing with statements is, from a statistical standpoint, very biased. I have not read the original chart that the data is taken from, but it is a fallacy to present the view sought in the information requested. It's of my opinion that someone who knows a bit more about the subject matter on this page either find a slightly less onesided chart to post on a secular page concerning an ongoing debate, or at least go over the original survey (assuming the information was changed to be placed on this site)to ensure that wikipedia remains secular on this subject.

An alternate solution would be to make sure that there is a note at the bottom of the chart stating that there may be bias in the survey. All of this may seem anal retentive, but then again, it's an encyclopedia. 2:12, June 8, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.89.52 (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your concern. I assume you speak about the table in the "History of public opinion" section? The data is taken from published polls, as far as I can tell without further analysis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit hard for me to explain, but asking a question that essentially includes the answer is virtually guaranteed to garner the answer "yes". Each question seems to fit that bill, not presenting the person with the option of "Is global warming occuring?" but with "Do you agree that global that global warming is probably occuring?". That "probably" qualifier presents bias in the polls. Again, I'm probably just going a bit overboard with this, but I still think there should be a little note at the bottom stating that the poll data could be in favor of one side.

Aha! Yes, but then the table is only the summary of the polls in the cited sources. The original polls gave multiple (and hopefully exhaustive) options. Check e.g. [76] and [77], two of the sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The polls from ABC seem pretty much the same, but has another chart on there that might be a little bit better. I'll go ahead and add that one and put in a footnote on the other chart that there may have been some issues in the polling, since they don't really site there charts very well in it. Tomorrow, of course, since I don't have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.89.52 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Be careful of not adding your own analysis thought, since it might be WP:OR. I feel that as long as the questions are equivalent, as suggestive as they may be, when ask over time they serve a purpose (again, as long as the poll asks essentially the same thing.) More to the point, the "probably" in the question does not affect what this table shows since the word was contained in both questions. The percentage in each case is not important, the change in percentage over time is. Brusegadi (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. A little caption below the chart would probably solve all problems, but it's not going to let me make the change on a new profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueguy90 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You can paste your change here (what you would want) and if people agree I can do it for you. Or, wait a few days (make a few edits) and you should be able to edit semi-protected articles. Brusegadi (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 52

The link to the Scientific American article "Skeptisizm about Sceptics" appears to be a dead link. Can someone please fix this? I can't seem to find the article. Maybe one needs to subscribe to Sci. Am. Mag to get it.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead link, but still on web.archive. --Van helsing (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no controversy

In science it is normal for people to put forward different hypotheses and debate their merit back and forth - often for a long time - this is not a controversy, this is how it works. That thousands, possibly tens of thousands of uneducated idiots who spout ill informed opinion based on emotion still doesn't mean there is a controversy. To keep this article with this name is like having a "evolution controversy" - which doesn't exist either. --IceHunter (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree if you interpret "controversy" as "scientific controversy". I think we should make this clear in the lead of the article. We should mention that in the scientific community global warming is not controversial, that the controversy is political in nature. Count Iblis (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.
—Apis (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't meant sound rude, but I do mean to sound blunt- don't you all read? There is plenty of controversy, even among scientists (and reputable scientists). It's merely discounted because it isn't alarmist and because many people simply don't want to hear it.

I would give you links, but I'm not sure you all would take them seriously. - Pop6 (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Give the links to peer reviewed publications in the top journals like Science or Nature. Also back up your statement that "It's merely discounted because it isn't alarmist". I.e. give links to statemnts of scientists who claim that their articles have been unfairly rejected, preferably with links to the Referee reports. Count Iblis (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN

It appears we have an issue with reverts and opinions on what is a scientific link or not. I have no problem placing a POV tag on this article if the vandalism of edits doesn't cease. You don't like someone's opinion, then discuss it here not with your delete key. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you have implied I might have a WP:OWN issue with the article I have checked my edits. As far as I can see I have edited it twice in the last ten months... BUT I did FIVE EDITS in July 2007 so obviously it is my personal property. --BozMo talk 13:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then give equal examination to the other links, and don't single out one that is obviously at least as good as some of those. You want to place a standard on links, fine by all means. But don't selectively apply the standard, because it came from an "advocacy" group (OMG evil). PhDs at advocacy group = evil liars; PhDs at university or eco-news group = honest brokers. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You've said that twice now, and I am listening. Which other links do you have a problem with? --BozMo talk 14:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that peer review is important in science, not the title of the author. I have published many papers before I was a Ph.D. in peer reviewed journals. That's all valid science. I may write some opinion in some paper and sign with "Prof. Dr. Count Iblis", but that signature adds nothing to the scientific value of the paper. Count Iblis (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, understood. So please explain to us how the peer review process is applicable to these links from the existing list, but not the NIPCC one:

• Debate on March 15, 2007 sponsored by Intelligence Squared involving Richard Lindzen, Philip Stott, Michael Crichton, Gavin Schmidt, Brenda Ekwurzel, and Richard C. J. Somerville
• The Global Warming Debate: Fundamental differences in opinion about climate change.
• Friends of Science: Providing Insight into Climate Science
• CO₂ or Solar? A discussion about the evidence for anthropogenic warming and the possible role of solar activity increase.
• ClimateAudit: statistical criticism of "hockey stick" climate history reconstructions
• False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction: Contains links to several sources disputing the McIntyre and McKitrick critique of Michael Mann's famous graph.
• TCS Daily Article by Roy Spencer: principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville and previous Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama questions cloud model accuracy.
• Climate Debate Daily
• http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Note that some of these are broken links. It seems that the majority of the links in this list are not from peer reviewed sources as far as I can tell. --GoRight (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The NIPCC is a global warming denial group funded indirectly by ExxonMobile via SEPP. (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65) Their purpose is denial and obfuscation of science, not advancing it. SEPP, which is currently mentioned in the "Petitions" section, should probably be named in the "Funding for partisans" section too. Ditto the NIPCC. Raul654 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see we'll get real impartiality from you. There's nothing like having the power of administration and being able to swing the big bat to get your way. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if I take your characterization at face value, unless you can come up with a WP:RS to back that position up it is nothing more than WP:OR on your part. The standard is WP:V NOT our judgment call on who is right vs. wrong. And even if you DO come up with a WP:RS to back up your statement, the fact that they are a denial group (1) does not disqualify them from having their views included here, or (2) change the fact that the report represents the views of legitimate scientists with applicable publications in peer reviewed journals. --GoRight (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry GoRight, that's not how it works. Your job is to convince us that SEPP/NIPCC is a reliable source worth citing (which it is not - funding from ExxonMobile is prima facia evidence they are neither reliable nor scientific); it is not, as you seem to imagine it is, our job to prove using reliable sources that SEPP/NIPCC is not reliable. I suggest you thoroughly re-read the applicable policies, instead of ignoring them (again). Raul654 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1. OK, well, on the issue of it being WP:RS the material in question was published by the Heartland Institute which is already accepted as being WP:RS in a variety of articles across wikipedia. This is easily verified, [78]. In addition this same material has already been accepted as WP:RS by virtue of its reference, [79], on a page heavily monitored by many of the editors here, yourself included. This should be sufficient evidence of the article's acceptability.
2. On the issue of "funding from ExxonMobile is prima facia evidence they are neither reliable nor scientific" this is merely your opinion based on the your acceptance of an Association_fallacy, whether wittingly or unwittingly so.
3. On the issue of "I suggest you thoroughly re-read the applicable policies, instead of ignoring them (again)" I consider this to be yet another example in an ongoing attack on my integrity in your personal crusade against me, [80], and I would respectfully ask that you to WP:AGF and remain WP:CIV. --GoRight (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not, we got some climate audit in there ;) Jokes aside, I'll see if I can come up with something to make everyone happy. Perhaps a new subsection. Do let me state from now, thought, that I think NIPCC has more value at the page on denial; just by the name they took: its politics. Brusegadi (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul, please prove to me that Coby Beck is scientific or a reliable source. How to talk to a climate skeptic blog page? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I noted the climate audit references as well and figured that it would not escape others. So I should get "brownie points" for not scrubbing the list in a WP:POINT-y way, no? --GoRight (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of Obama's father day speech. You know, about not celebrating when one does things one is supposed to do... ;) I will see if I can re-categorize the remaining links. Brusegadi (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I got rid of the word "Science" in the ELs since much of what was dumped in it was not science. Concerning the NIPCC, I will take a closer look at it but from what I have seen, my opinion is that it may serve the denial article better (already said this above.) Brusegadi (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the new organization. Since the material is published by the Heartland Institute, we should preferentially rely on their link for the material, [81] or directly [82], rather than the SEPP mirror. I am not sure which sub-category you want put this under. I suggest "Climate-specialized media". I will trust you to follow-up when you have time. Thanks for your assistance. --GoRight (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thats what I meant to do. Now: "Related to debates" includes debates and reports about them. The "hockey stick..." section is self explanatory. Then we have the media sections: "Climate-specialized media" is any outlet of information whose raison d'etre is climate science or policy. So I left in the 'friends of science' who make a big deal about Kyoto and GW science in their 'about us' page; I left NOAA. Finally "Other media" is media that publishes on a broader range of issues and whose raison d'etre is not climate per say. Because heartland publishes stuff on a broad range of issues, I would place their report under "other media." Similar placement for sciencebits, which claims giving the reader "a random walk in science"; the BBC; etc. I think this is better than what we had before, because it avoids the fighting over what is science and what is not. Note that it is in no way a criteria for inclusion in any of the sections, inclusion is determined by policy. It is simply a way to organize them without looking into the science aspects (which creates heated arguments), and that should be fine in the context of this article. Brusegadi (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is Coby Beck? I want my link returned to the page. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I dont know. I googled him and the first article said he is a Gemini. I'll wait for more people to talk. I am tired. Bye, Brusegadi (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on GoRight's behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for Comments/GoRight. Raul654 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Litigation

Since the WP:OWNers of these pages seem to be sensitive to someone being WP:BOLD I thought I would ask here first. Is there some (legitimate) reason not to add something along the lines of:

In Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills Stewart Dimmock sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth within the UK on the grounds that schools are legally required to provide a balanced presentation of political issues. The judge in this case ruled that the global warming research presented in the film was used to make a political statement and to support a political program.

in the litigation section? I have tried to condense the summary material found at Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills and An Inconvenient Truth to make this as short as possible while still providing a reasonable overview. --GoRight (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an owner - does that mean you do not care for my opinion? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dang, you didn't fall into my little "trap"!  :) (Disclaimer: That was a joke.) Sure, even as an acknowledged non-owner please feel free to weigh in here. I feel it is a fair summary. I have tried to make it as small as possible but have it be self-contained. --GoRight (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In the event that you are not generally opposed to including it, but have problems with this specific wording, please feel free to propose an alternative. --GoRight (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Somehow you fail to miss some other observations of the judge: The movie "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" and "Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate'". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You have my permission. Just make sure that didn't come from an advocacy group. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)