Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 7

an appeal to the majority is a logical fallacy for either side of the issue

Surely there is room in the article for a simple, factual statement about logic and a logical fallacy. One should be made aware that there is an appeal to the majority being used. It does not matter which sides of the debate anyone is on, this logical fallacy still applies and is a neutral statement. Some on both sides seem to attempt to make lists of a major amount of scientists, instead of just giving evidence, facts, and data about the problem. --Joseph Prymak (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, pointing out the logical fallacy of an appeal to the majority in this situation is implying the majority is always wrong. Dayewalker (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly no appeal to majority being used, simply an observation about majority view. This is a fairly basic difference. --BozMo talk 12:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What is consensus exactly, in this context? Surely consensus is difficult with hundreds of scientists, especially in regards to some long term climate predictions. I am amazed at how one tries to defend an appeal to the majority argument by saying it is only an observation. Wrong. It is a claim, by some, that attempts to add more truth to a claim by the sheer numbers of supporters, and not by the data, evidence, and proof. If global warming is really bad, then an appeal to the majority argument harms the argument that is proven by science based on observable data, and the conclusions are not proven by the fact of large majorities of scientists. There may be some need to appeal to very qualified authorities, but no need to appeal to the majority. What percentage would be needed? The general public, leaders, and good citizens need to have access to the data and facts, and not some appeal to a majority. Why bother stating that there is a majority of scientists if it is not relevant in any way?--Joseph Prymak (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You may be out of your depth here. The word consensus is used because there are reliable sources using the word consensus which weigh more than your personal view of the word. And of course anyone is free to dispute consensus: history is littered with overturned consensus, especially when the consensus is limited as here. Here the inclusion is on the basis that the consensus is notable as a cold fact. This is the kind of cold fact which the general public needs. No implications or implicit conclusions are drawn. I think the phrase "proven by good science" is a warning sign that perhaps you need to read a little more philosophy of science? It doesn't quite work like that. Karl Popper, Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn, René Descartes, Logical positivism would be a good start. --BozMo talk 07:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to Bozo: What do you mean by depth? That is a very vague and general term. Since when is a fact "cold" as opposed to hot or any other temperature? Your choice of words on this topic are far too vague. You should stick to the details of the specific argument instead of making petty personal attacks.

To sum up the argument about the logical fallacy of an appeal to the majority: It is not relevant to the argument for or against human caused global warming (and the consequences) by appealing to some percentage or "consensus" of scientists. Again, what exactly is consensus in detail? --Joseph Prymak (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Begin Sarcasm) Operationally, consensus on this topic appears to be anything over 45% = overwhelming consensus in favor of the IPCC view, see [7] for details. As for editing GW wiki pages, minority GW views are generally required to attain 99.9bar% agreement to claim consensus. (End Sarcasm) I'll let the others here give you a "real" answer. --GoRight (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cabal rides again

• Murphy's blog complaining that The Cabal is maintaining a bad page.
• This looks to me like Peiser actually admitting to being rather off the mark.

--Slashme (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Global Warming: Experts’ Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts -NCPA" :
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/st308b.html|title=Scientific forecasting versus opinion |accessdate=2008-04-19 |last=Green |first=Kesten |coauthors=J. Scott Armstrong |date=2008-2 |work= |publisher=National Center for Policy Analysis}}
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/|title=Global Warming: Experts’ Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts - NCPA |accessdate=2008-04-11 |last=Green |first=Kesten |coauthors=J. Scott Armstrong |date=2008-2 |work= |publisher=National Center for Policy Analysis}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Debates on IPCC Position

Propose setting up a subsection on Scientific Debates in contrast to just for/against, as follows:

---

In July 2008, the American Physical Society's quarterly Forum on Physics and Society began a scientific debate for and aginst the IPCC's conclusions noting:

". . .There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred. . ."

---

What is significant here is a formal scientific debate with articles both pro/con in the publications of a major scientific association. This is likely the first of more to come.DLH (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this? The "anti" side was Monckton; thats not the start of a sci debate, but a poor joke William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No we have not, and your response is a logically invalid basis for dismissing it. Do you realize that the Editor invited Monckton to submit the paper "Climate Sensitivity Revisited"? Have you read it? Do you understand it? Can you scientifically critique its strengths and weaknesses? Monckton's extraction of the parameters on climate sensitivity and the thinness of the support for those key parameters is likely to cause deeper examination of those foundations of the IPCC's case. This may be Monckton's enduring scientific legacy. Furthermore, do you realize that Monckton's paper was peer reviewed? Do you realize that the APS has violated its own ethics standards by claiming that it was NOT peer reviewed. See Monckton's letter demanding redress, accountability and an apology with discussion at: American Physical Society and Monckton at odds over paper. This is likely to provide ongoing response in the next issue and thus continue the debate, and thus justifies the separate category.DLH (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

M's enduring sci legacy will be to be ignored. The rest looks like std M trubble making and legal threats. Where does it say it was PR? Where does it say it was not? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're letting on that you've not even skimmed Monckton's paper. The claim that it was not peer reviewed is highlighted in red right above the paper on the APS website. Monckton is demanding an apology and correction and his letter to the APS president can be found here. If Monckton's not flat out lying about the process he went through, the APS seems to have egg on its face. TMLutas (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. So we have APS saying it wasn't PR, and Monckton saying it was. Even Moncktons bio admits to porkies, so I don't think I'll be trusting his unsupported word. In return, I offer you [8], [9] and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/ William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this [10] is not a PR by anyone competent in the subject William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it regarding the edits and peer review. But since the APS supposedly hasn't peer reviewed anything in that publication and only Monckton's stuff seems to have gotten the red letter treatment there does seem to be a bias issue still. TMLutas (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would expect that the reason for both the red-letters and the response on APS's frontpage came because various media and blogs completely failed to understand the issue - and conflated the APS position with an editor's position and the article with a peer-reviewed paper. Had this been the case with others - then they probably would have received the same treatment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole point was to kick off a discussion by first presenting two sides of the argument, regardless of the merits, and then inviting people send in their scientific papers that will argue in favor/against the two positions. This is how you can measure the scientific consensus. Only the latter papers will undergo the usual rigorous scientific peer review. The two initial papers that will kick off the discussion won't be reviewed for the scientific positions they take as that would defeat the whole point of this exercise. But I guess they were reviewed to make sure they are well written, present the points they make in a clear way etc. etc.

So, we'll have to wait until the process comes to an end and then count how many accepted papers support Moncton's position. Count Iblis (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting with two papers presented without consideration of merit is a way to generate media controversy and magazine circulation but not scientific debate William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but then the scientific debate is already pretty much settled. This could be a way to settle the public controversy, but I guess that the sceptics will just complain about the procedures when they lose (they already are complaining, it seems). Count Iblis (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The science is not settled and will not be settled until IPCC scientists turn over all of their data, methods, results and code. Skeptical scientists will remain skeptical until they see the proof. The fact these items have not been shared and FOI requests have been denied makes it look like the IPCC scientists are hiding something. I just added a new criticism section to the article on the IPCC. The New York University Law School blog says the IPCC has failed to uphold standards of global administrative law because of the lack of transparency. See the IPCC Talk page. RonCram (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about the science becoming settled in the minds of the hard core sceptics. But they can't be convinced by scientific arguments. Presumably we'll have to wait until CO_2 levels increase by a factor of 8 and global temperatures increase by 10 °C, turning most regions of the Earth into a desert wasteland. Some people can only be convinced when directly confronted with the hard facts.... Count Iblis (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RonCram, the IPCC has no data of their own. They summarize what has been published in scientific journals and agree on a joint conclusions from the published data. As such, your demands are simply a testimony of not having an idea how either the IPCC or science in general works, and, for that matter, of never having actually looked into the IPCC reports, since they have the references in there. The New Yoek University Law School is about as relevant here as the plumber next door, since the IPCC is addressing issues of science. The mere fact that their folks lack the qualifications to read a scientific journal paper in a pertinent field doesn't constitute a "lack of transparency" any more than they can accuse Erwin Schrödinger of a lack of transparency because they can't graps his equations. --OliverH (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oliver, I am talking about the IPCC enforcing their own standards of transparency, i.e. requiring authors to have their data archived before a paper can be a contributor to an IPCC report or at least sharing the data after the fact. A collusion of sorts currently exists among climate science journals and the IPCC to not enforce the policies they have published. If you are unfamiliar with the facts here, I am sorry. I can point you to a few URLs which you may find helpful. [[11]] [12]] [13]] When the IPCC was asked to enforce their policies, they replied that it "would be inappropriate" for the IPCC to get involved. RonCram (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute not Controversy

Surely this article should have the title of 'Global Warming Dispute'. The opening lines state that the 'global warming controversy is a dispute'. Should it not be the other way round? The global warming dispute contains many controversies.

Bob Bobman999 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bob, certainly many different points are being disputed. But I am not certain the definitions you suggest for dispute and controversy are correct. Dictionary.com defines controversy as "a prolonged public dispute." I think current usage is correct. RonCram (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Included reference does not support statement about USA being more affected than other countries

The following statement : Furthermore, it has also been argued that it would cause more damage to the economy of the U.S. than to those of other countries, thus providing an unfair economic advantage to some countries.

Is supported by the following text : [[14]]

However, I can't find where exactly in the article it is said that Kyoto would affect the USA more than other countries. I claim that this is false since

• 1. the USA is emitting something like twice more per capita than other industrialized countries such as Germany or Japan (which means the USA have more room for improvement)
• 2. The Kyoto target for the USA is lower than most other industrialized countries (so it should hurt the German economy even more)

I agree that Kyoto could hurt the US economy more than developing nations (since they have no target), but so it is the case for all industrialized countries. There is nothing US-specific in this case. So we should either

• 1. change the statement to something like "would cause more damage to the economy of industrialized nations(especially low-emitting nations such as Japan and European Union members) than to those of other countries"
• 2. Remove it completely

--zorxd (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving the political sections to Politics of global warming

Per the discussion above, I am moving the politic sections to a more relevant article. RonCram (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I noticed that you reverted this move. Whether you know it or not, the move was discussed here on the Talk page. You were not a party to those discussions and you have given no reason for your reversion now. If you would like to defend the political portion of a page devoted to the scientific controversy, you may do so. However, acts of random drive by reverting are not acceptable. RonCram (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I just now noticed you also reverted a new entry on the scientific controversy without comment. If it was your intention to revert this as well, please say so. If you remain silent, I will assume it was an unintentional. RonCram (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What new entry on the "Scientific controversy"? You mean the one-sided hit-piece about the hockey stick that I reverted along with your move? No, sorry, that was not acceptable either. Raul654 (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please state why it is not acceptable. Or are you relying on WP:IDONTLIKEIT? RonCram (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not acceptable because, as I have already said, it was a one-sided hit-piece. It contained nothing but critiicsm of Mann et al, but curiously omitted the fact that essentially they have been exonerated by all subsequent reconstructions. It mentions the Wegman report, but doesn't mention the numerous criticisms thereof. And I could go on and on... Raul654 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What discussion are you referring to? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be coy, Kim. You were a party to the discussion. Silence is implicit agreement. RonCram (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kim, when RonCram talks about "discussions" on this talk page, he's referring to his discussions with himself. Namely, in the "Statistical skill and validation in climate research" section of this talk page, where Roncram announced he would be making the move and nobody noticed. Raul654 (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Raul, wrong again. I was talking about the section above where we were discussing the length of the article. Instead of trimming portions dealing with the scientific controversy, I suggested deleting the political sections because we already have a page Politics of global warming which is better suited for this material. A significant period of time lapsed and no one objected. RonCram (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Raul is exactly right. And you just confirmed it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I did not announce it in the above section. I suggested it. You could have objected. When no one objected, I announced I had made the move in this section. RonCram (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was no discussion, just a side-remark. Your "significant amount of time" was <3 days. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ron, I suggest you rewrite this entire article, offline or on a directory of your user page. You seem to be very interested in this topic. The problem is that when you add in material about the sceptic's side of the argument, the article becomes unbalanced and then we have to respond, which takes time. This can work for small additions, but if you edit in large sections, then it is not going to work well, because our attitide will be more or less that it is up to you to be balanced.

If you attempt to rewrite the whole article, you are forced to consider both sides of the arguments. When you are done, we can take a look and perhaps suggest some changes. From my experience at wikipedia, rewriting entire articles when you want to make is in many cases the best way to proceed. A few months ago I noted that many thermodynamics articles contained big mistakes. I rewrote large parts of the affected articles: Helmholtz free energy, Fundamental thermodynamic relation, Internal energy and a few more, I also created the article Relations between heat capacities. All this to correct errors and to bring more rigor in the thermodynamics articles.

Of course, thermodynamics is not a controversial subject, but I could easily have initiated edit wars merely by making small edits, changing just a few equations and sentences while not comprehensively rewriting the entire article. The only resistance I've encoutered for my efforts was on this page. I wrote the appendix but some editor (an engineer) complained that I changed the article into a "thermodynamics thesis" :) . Count Iblis (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Count, I appreciate the suggestion. Unfortunately, I have already tried it. It is difficult to do with a controversial subject. Everyone wants to debate every minor change. I have found that by making small changes, I am able to effect some change in the article. It is tedious, but it takes people a long time to read all of the citations I provide. Unfortunately, even when making small changes, I sometimes get editors who delete the entry before they have read the citations or really understand the issue. But such is life. RonCram (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

New entry on peer-reviewed paper by Demetris Koutsoyiannis

A recent peer-reviewed article has assessed the reliability of computer-modelled climate predictions by comparing them to historical time series. The authors concluded "At the annual and the climatic (30-year) scales, GCM interpolated series are irrelevant to reality." [[15]] The paper is titled "On the credibility of climate predictions."RonCram (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Local/Regional != global --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kim, did you bother to read any of the paper? The abstract? The conclusion? Contrary to your statement, the authors are using regional data to assess global models. They are not assessing regional models. The authors specifically state the AR4 models do not perform any better than the TAR models. They also write "An argument that the poor performance applies merely to the point basis of our comparison, whereas aggregation at large spatial scales would show that GCM outputs are credible, is an unproved conjecture and, in our opinion, a false one." This article is about the controversy. Such an unproven argument is hardly a reason to keep Wikipedia readers in the dark about this paper. This article certainly addresses the controversy, is relevant and has completed the peer-review process. I'm restoring the entry. RonCram (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have read the paper and I agree with you that global is not the issue here. The paper is peer reviewed and probably should go in to this article, since I think it just about makes WP:UNDUE and is relevant. The problem with the paper is that it tries to score silly points about hydrologists versus climate scientists. I find that rather puerile. It went through only a fast track review in a hydrology journal. The credible thing to do would have been to fight it out and get it into a climate journal and then the peer review bit might have had more teeth. There are also issues about what models really are but that's my OR. So my view is list here and wait for reaction before it gets anywhere else. --BozMo talk 13:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The pertinent question here is: At what level of resolution (spatial and temporal) are GCM's considered to be accurate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. I keep hoping some GCM designer will publish that. Without that, their forecasts aren't really testable. --Llewdor (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence of the abstract says: "local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported". I think this is the best summary of the article. In the article they explain that they've looked at the performance of the GCM on the local level and they find that they don't perform well. They don't study the performance of the models on the global level for which they are intended. But they then simply say that in their opinion the usual argument that at larger spatial scales the models perform better has not been properly tested. Count Iblis (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at a compromise wording by highlighting CI's issue in the lead in to the quote. I believe that Ron's choice of a quote better reflects the main point made in the paper, though, and so have used that as the quote. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The paper is junk; but there is so much junk on this page that a little more can't much discredit it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On what basis is the paper junk? I've read the reviews and none classify it as junk. Showman60 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Which reviews would those be? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WC, your response may be perceived as argumentum ignorati elenchi, more commonly called "bobbing and weaving". In other words, likely not appropriate for an academic discussion. Are you able to respond to Showman60's reply to you ("On what basis is the paper junk?") in a respectful manner? Bushcutter (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New Entry

It seems strange to me that an article on global warming controversy does not mention the Hockey Stick controversy or the many other disputes involving climate science and statistics. I have written a short entry to introduce the subject. I am aware that some people will consider this entry one-sided and it no doubt is. Unfortunately, I do not know how the other side would respond and so I am not the best person to write for the other side. Please attempt to make this entry better. RonCram (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Statistical skill and validation in climate research

See also Hockey stick controversy

Charges of poor statistical methodologies and lack of statistical validation in climate research were first leveled at "Hockey Stick" graph produced by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes. Congressional committee chairman Joe Barton requested the paper be examined by a statistician. In response Edward Wegman and co-authors produced The Wegman Report which concluded: "As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used."

Stephen McIntyre writes a blog Climate Audit which details his charges of additional statistical missteps by climate scientists and their refusal to archive or share data so their papers can be fully audited. [16] [17]

David Stockwell has evaluated the modeling of the CSIRO Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report and the R code used to produce it. Stockwell concluded: "In a statistical re-analysis of the data from the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report, all climate models failed standard internal validation tests for regional droughted area in Australia over the last century."

Significantly POV section. Its one-sided, and the addition of Stockwell is from a blog. The hockeystick already has its own article, and on top its undue weight in an article that is already too long. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, since the hockey stick is such an important part of the controversy, it may be worthwhile to write more about it here and to curb back on some other things in this article. I would suggest that we remove the things about "scientific forecasting" recently added by Ron. There is quite a bit of text devoted to that, even though it is not really such a prominent part of the controversy. In many cases, "the latest news" is not very notable... Count Iblis (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I mentioned the fact the entry was one-sided but the Hockey Stick Controversy is obviously relevant to this article. It is common practice to provide a link to other relevant articles, as I did here. The fact climate scientists are commonly caught using poor statistical methods is part of the controversy. Poor statistics are not limited just to the Hockey Stick. The fact Stockwell published in a blog is not a problem. We link to blogs written by Mann, McIntyre, Pielke and others all the time. If we are going to trim the article, we should start by trimming the political sections. We have an article on Politics of global warming. Most of the political stuff should be merged to that article and only the high points mentioned here. Instead of deleting this section, let's write it so it is not so one-sided. RonCram (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that Andrew Bolt from the Herald Sun picked up on Stockwell's assessment. [18]RonCram (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The entry may appear to be one-sided but the facts are not set aside just because climate scientists cannot muster a response. I note that Count agrees with me that this article should address the Hockey Stick and have restored the entry. So, if anyone has any relevant information that may balance this entry, please add it. But we cannot deny readers the facts just because it may harm the reputation of climate science. That is not what WP:POV is about.RonCram (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kim, please stop your senseless deletions. RonCram (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ron, It is still one-sided (POV), and that is not because "climate scientists cannot muster a response", but rather because you have chosen not to describe any responses. Your selection of statics is simply not a major part of the debate - and thus is a WEIGHT issue. (and yep, a hockey stick summary would be good, but yours is not a summary). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I do not know of any responses. I have invited you to respond to the particular charges laid out by Wegman, McIntyre and Stockwell. If you think my selection of issues are not major, you do not understand the dispute. You are only looking at it from your POV. Surely you realize that a person with a strong POV, such as yourself, cannot decide for the other side what they see as the major issues. Poor statistical methodologies and the ability to get the data, methods, results and code necessary to evaluate these methods is a major part of the controversy. If you want to muster a response for your POV, feel free to do so. Just make certain it is relevant and I will have no problem. But deleting this major issue from the article is not possible.RonCram (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is a major issue - then you will have no problem finding notable reliable sources that describe it, and you'd not need to rely on blogs. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're seriously suggesting that the hockey stick controversy isn't notable enough to be included in this article (beyond see also of course)?? You're claiming there aren't sources. What about the 60 refs at hockey stick controversy? Oren0 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And these sources are all about statistical methodology and skill outside the hockey stick controversy? Hint: Ron's section was not about the HS - but rather a claim about statistical skill being a major issue in the controversy in general. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So then you agree that the HS controversy should be in the article (it isn't now)? Oren0 (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should probably have a summary here of it. But the major issue, is not inclusion - but rather to cut down so that we get to a manageable size. This article has been used as a dumping place for every minor issue that has been in the media. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New Entry on Unwarranted Changes to GISTEMP

Previously, the article mentioned the charges of unwarranted changes to the instrumental record but it did not really support the charge with any citations. I have provided a citation of guest blog by John Goetz on Climate Audit and how this was picked up on Roger Pielke's website in a guest blog by Joe D'Aleo. For those who do not know, D'Aleo is a Fellow of AMS and a very respected researcher. His charge of unwarranted changes to the record will carry more weight with some people than Goetz, but it was Goetz who did the work originally and so D'Aleo credits him with it. Here is the entry:

John Goetz wrote a guest blog for ClimateAudit in which he detailed the number of changes to the instrumental record kept by NASA GISS. Regarding this report, Joseph D'Aleo writes: " John Goetz in February 2008 found on average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the prior 2 1/2 years. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomaly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%." RonCram (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I also changed the position of the dispute regarding data archiving and data sharing. This change in position improves readability and introduces the subject of changes to the instrumental record. RonCram (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I noticed you deleted the entry without any comment here on the Talk page. You did make a comment in the edit summary but it did not make any sense. The you mentioned was in the text I relocated. But nothing in my text was speculative OR. Everything was was well-sourced. What exactly is your problem with the entry? RonCram (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove APEGGA survey?

I'm thinking the survey isn't of climate scientists and therefore doesn't belong here. Only 3% were geophysicists and only 23.5% ever dealt professionally with climate change (and dealing professionally doesn't qualify them - I've dealt professionally with climate change and that doesn't make me a scientific expert). Basically it tells us what engineers and some geologists in Alberta think, which may be relevant to subsidiary issues like peak oil and carbon sequestration, but not whether climatologists know what they're talking about.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why this was punted from scientific opinion on climate change to here. This page is about controversy in all venues that are not directly scientific. For example, if a national poll was released indicating that a high percentage of Americans don't believe in global warming (and such a poll was covered in reliable sources) that would belong on this page as well. The head of APEGGA is quoted in saying that "We're not surprised at all [because] there is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of" and this is covered in sources. If you can find sources that detract from this study directly that's fine but I think it's OR to say that "only X% of these people are climate scientists so we must exclude this despite a news article calling them 'experts' and 'professionals'". Oren0 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not OR, the info is in the survey that Wiki links to. I don't question whether the respondents, nearly 70% of them engineers, are "experts" in something but whether they're experts in climate. And I assume the point isn't to include random polls, unless we want to create a section, "Polls of non-experts on climate change." I guess we could do that. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

They're experts and professionals in petrochemical engineering and geology. That doesn't make them experts on all things. It might be worth having a paragraph in the social aspects section of this article noting that petrochemical engineers/geologists, whose industry is causing global warming, have been reluctant to accept the science behind it. The AAPG platform statement issues and the current survey would certainly support this. Raul654 (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Several other problems with this survey: it wasn't a random survey - all the members were asked to respond and so the ones who did were self-selected; the survey report doesn't say what response rate it had in percentage terms; the survey could be completed online or faxed in, and the report doesn't describe any security methods (a past online survey of "climatologists" by Dennis Bray had been crashed by denialists who gained password access, and this survey says identifying information is "optional"). It's not even that great an indicator of the petro industry, since any Albertan engineer could respond (and apparently even "trainees" who might not even have undergrad degrees).Brian A Schmidt (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Appears that 6,000 of the 52,000 members are trainees - they do have degrees but aren't professionally certified. Members in Training Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If they aren't scientists, and the survey hasn't been widely covered by media. Then what is the notability criteria that argues for inclusion here? Why pick a stray survey of engineers in Alberta, and focus on that? It falls under WP:UNDUE, as a cherry-picked survey, which happens to say what some wants to hear. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

External Link to Climate Debate Daily

This is an article about the scientific debate and contains peer-reviewed papers on both sides. I added a new external link that should have been completely non-controversial.

• Climate Debate Daily A regularly updated website with news from both sides of the debate.

It has been deleted a few times now, most recently by someone claiming the link does not meet the style guideline of WP:EL. This is completely absurd. There is nothing in the guideline that makes the link suspect. The link is directly relevant because it contains information and links to both sides of the scientific debate and it is regularly updated, providing Wikipedia readers with recent information. RonCram (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take the time to read WP:EL (WP:ELNO #13, #16)? And finally: Wikipedia is a linkfarm. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I read them and I still think it more than meets the requirement. It is at least equal to the the other links and has a direct relation to this article. My goodness we have a reference section longer than the article itself (258 entries) while a link to this website seems to enhance the article. Most of the overlinkage complaints on wiki hover around 30 links and we have not approached that number. Cut out another link if you think there are now too many. This one deserves to be here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Include the link. Bushcutter (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried again Bushcutter but the establishment has reverted it. The EL and ELNO sections listed above support its addition but you'll have to get more backers willing to express their opinion that it should be included. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find much about this website to make it worth mentioning except that the Times refers to it as a "top 5 Eco News BLOG". It does look rather blog-ish. Why do we think it should be included? It isn't a source or anything, it isn't a peer reviewed site, it is personal to a couple of philosophers and it doesn't look like it meets WP:EL to me? --BozMo talk 08:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely does not meet WP:EL, it's just a list of news articles. If you can track down the article and find the underlying research link, that may work for inclusion, if notable. --Skyemoor (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not so clear to me that a link farm as a single EL is a problem (as opposed to lots of links in the article itself). I posted a question in the WP:EL talk section, maybe that will clarify.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See my comment there. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the discussion there seems to have stalled out. I don't think climatedebate counts as an aggregator but as a directory (kind of guessing on that, though). It's not meant to be a RS about the various arguments of either side, but it is an RS for where to find the various arguments of either side. The analogy I'd make is to a directory of press releases of both the Obama and McCain campaigns - the directory would be a useful EL to an article on the 2008 campaign, and it would be a useful RS for finding the statements, despite the fact that the statements themselves in many cases wouldn't meet RS qualifications. The links also seem good - none of the ones I checked were dead. I lean towards including Climatedebate as an EL here. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Its a news-aggregator and it presents a false view of balance. Of course anyone might use that site as a resource for news to further improve the article - but the site itself is useless. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Brian and I don't think it presents a false view of balance. I also look at it as a large yellow pages of articles, something like instead of having 440 links to delegates of the House of Representatives you would have a link to a page that had links to the delegates. I really don't see what the big deal is on this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A link to a page with delegates would be comprehensive and complete (as well as by default balanced) - but a news-aggregator is neither comprehensive, complete - nor does it present even a semblence of balance, by always having 50:50 links to each side. (hint: if one side gets updated more often - then a casual reader wouldn't notice, but instead think that there is an equal amount of news on each side), and therefore by default unbalanced per WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The delegate page would be balanced by numbers but not by importance in such thing as committees. Different delegates do carry different weights except when voting... and 5 don't even get to vote. The same with Climate Database or any database for that matter. It's balanced by numbers but not necessarily by importance. That WP:WEIGHT you posted deals with the wiki article proper, not a link to a non-wiki site with a 50/50 split in articles that deal with an important subject. I have talked to reporters at the LA Times and Daily News, and the Sacramento Bee and some of them use the Climate Database because it is an invaluable way to find information, it is updated and it appears to be well known. Just because it doesn't fit some peoples' prerequisite for balance is no reason to dismiss it here; It is very handy a useful. Now I don't profess to know every wiki policy... so if there are no circumstances "ever" where a link to a directory is proper that's one thing, but it deals with the subject, is very useful, is relatively balanced and is used by the media. If I'm coming to this page for the first time and reading it top to bottom, to further my comprehension, I would be thankful that Climate Debate Daily was listed as an external link. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well - per my reading of WP:EL such a link is out of the question. We can't use the site to improve the article (although some of the links on it might), and while its a rather nice source for the general public... we (WP) are not a source for usefull links or a directory of such. (WP:NOTLINK). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Carriage return. I did not look at WP:EL this go around. But I did read WP:NOTLINK and with its use of "mere" I see nothing wrong with the directory. It says some are good and some are not. This "article" is not merely a linkfest, and the Climate directory compliments it well. 264 references is certainly bloatware, that passive smoking section is more added bloat... but there are only 15 external links. Certainly adding another 25 external links would simply add more fuel to the bloat-fire, but here we have a directory of sources in one location... and it only needs one link. It may well be that a cabal would read the policy exactly as you have but imho it is counter-intuitive in this particular case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

References are never "bloatware" if they are necessary to back up a specific sentence, that otherwise would be challenged. External links on the other hand can get out of hand, especially in an article that is already needing to be cut-down rather than expanded. A directory is something that's very nice on discussion sites or other websites - but wikipedia is not such a thing. We're not here to be the yellow-pages, nor to give helpful hints as to where to find other external links. Its an encyclopedia... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Kim - WP:EL talk section says directories can be okay as ELs but aggregators aren't. I haven't received an answer to my question there as to how to distinguish the two. Do you have an answer, and on what basis? Anyone else have an answer? Thanks.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An aggregator (as i understand the term) is a dynamic system to sort and select news-articles (on for instance topic) by, with little to no editorial determination of quality. A directory can be without editorial determination - but rarely is. Directories are mostly static - aggregators aren't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

But nothing yet from anyone that's higher up the wiki foodchain? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I reposted the question and got this response from somebody: "The primary issue is stability of content at the target link. Aggregators change their content frequently. When an editor posts an external link to any page, they need to have a pretty good idea of what will be on that page for the reasonably foreseeable future." Climatedebate's links have editorial determination, but new links are also added on a fairly regular basis. I could use some more info, especially info with something to back it up. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The stability explanation, is much more clear than what i described, and captures aggregator vs. directory rather well. How is additions determined? By balance, quality or just for each inclusion in one section - we add one in the other? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait a few days Count Iblis (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

New Entry on Data Archiving and Changing Data Sets

I entered this:

Skeptics are concerned the failure to archive data leaves data sets open to mischief by scientists and false conclusions. Sometimes two different data sets, both bearing the same name, are archived at different locations. The resulting confusion does not create confidence in scientific conclusions. RonCram (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Train wreck needs trimming

This article is massively overblown. Can we split it? "Scientific controversy of Global Warming" and "Political, economic and social controversy of Global Warming" perhaps?

There is also alot of warbling on, and on, and on, and quotes that are probably far too long. There are sections that are barely relevant, broken links, and a table of "history" of public opinion that effectively covers from... 2003 - 2006... and includes two data points... 2003 and 2006 (no, seriously). Did someone create that with intent to expand and forget about it?

Anyway, anyone in agreement that this article needs serious downsizing attention? Jaimaster (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely too long, definitely a train wreck. Mishlai (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a train wreck. The problem is, how to separate the "scientific controversy" from the political? Would the former, if we choose to split, only have references from scientists involved in climate change research? Even the term "scientific controversy" is politically loaded. --Skyemoor (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep its massively overblown - but i do not think that it should be split. Rather it should be cut down to a manageable size, preferably by removing the incredible undue weight that it currently gives to a handfull of persons. (try counting the number of things that for instance Pielke seems to have an opinion on - and ask yourself if he really is that notable). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Alot of WP:WEIGHT issues, agreed. Jaimaster (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be split. The scientific controversies are the real interest here. The political stuff does not really fit into Politics of global warming. I'm not sure the political stuff is even worth preserving, but if it is maybe a title of "Political controversies of global warming." Separating the scientific controversies from the political is not difficult. The article is already pretty much divided that way. RonCram (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Kim, yes Pielke is that notable. Roger Pielke is an ISI Highly Cited researcher who is both respected and quite prolific. The article would look odd to anyone knowledgable in the field if it did not quote Pielke extensively. The article also quotes a number of others so it does not read like "Pielke against the world." RonCram (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Corrections

There is a typo in "2.1.2 Petitions" - "Oregon Petition". It says "31,0000" where it should be "31,000". The article is locked so I can't fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycz (talk • contribs) 10:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Need a new section possibly

It seems the theory of global warming has run into new problems because of a dramatic increase in methane gas that is not possibly anthropogenic. [19] I have not yet been able to read the paper by Ronald Prinn and his post-doc Matthew Rigby because I have not found it online yet. If anyone finds it, please post a link here or notify me on my Talk page. Thanks! RonCram (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be mislead by the headlines. This is nothing exciting. See-also [20] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This effect was predicted by James Hansen from NASA's Goddard Institute, among others. It was long predicted that as the planet warms, it would lead to releases of methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from natural systems, including through forest death, ocean acidification, the melting of permafrost and the deterioration of other natural ecosystems, producing a feedback or runaway effect. The great fear is that these effects would lead to climate change spinning out of the control of human beings to rein in climate change. It seems that, as with much of the peer-reviewed predictions on climate change, the predictions are starting to come true, meaning that the time for serious action on climate change has been heavily reduced. --Sumthingweird (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with W and S; the methane time bomb has been long expected, and the writer from the popular IT-focused media outlet shows no real sense of the subject. Use the published paper as the starting point. --Skyemoor (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Was it also predicted that the increase in methane would lead to lower temps? 2008 is cooler than 2007 which was cooler than 2006. It seems to me this is a pretty important finding. RonCram (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has an update dated today, Oct 31. Several comments suggest a massive 2007 Siberian permafrost melt accounts for the observed increases in atmospheric methane. If Siberia were responsible for the increases, that would still be a northern hemisphere event and would require normal atmospheric cycling of about a year to reach southern hemisphere monitoring stations. These increases were nearly simultaneous and world-wide. The authors are not linking the rise in methane to melting ice.RonCram (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

[21] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

William, I am assuming you believe that blog post has some gold in it. Can you identify it for me? I have mined its depths and came up nearly empty. The only value I found was the link to this. [22] RonCram (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do indeed need a new section. We have now seen many examples of sceptics misrepresenting new scientific results as if they are contradicting AGW. This is clearly very relevant to the topic of this wiki article: "Global Warming Controversy". Count Iblis (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If we do as CI suggests, what shall we call it? "Increase in Methane Gas", "World-wide Increase in Methane Levels"? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it's a bit of a stretch to say that the increases aren't anthropogenic, but they are part of the feedback effect. These releases of methane have been long predicted as a result of climate change, as well as a contributor. If you can find a peer-reviewed, notable source from a climate scientist that "contradicts AGW", let's see it. It seems as though what you are indicating either a) shows that there is some warming which is not anthropogenic (which has never been refuted by any self-respecting climate scientists), or b) is evidence that the feedback effects are occurring, and our time to cut emissions is running out. In either case, they do not represent any scientific controversy. --Sumthingweird (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing Reference

Reference 60 is missing as of 11/23/08. I suggest deletion of the corresponding statement, or if anyone knows the reference, they can add it in.172.190.36.181 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't missing - it was a badly formed citation template. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus or Lack Thereof

I have a problem with this statement: "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation." More specifically, the sources used do not provide evidence that there is a majority of scientists in agreement.

The first source (editorial news article) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html) writes: "a document drafted by hundreds of scientists representing 113 governments [supports the theory of global warming]".

The second source (editorial news article) (http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html) writes: "American and international researchers have reached a consensus on the role of industrialization in climate change, though consensus doesn't equal unanimity." and

"There's broad agreement that the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation are causes," Tom Wilbanks, a senior researcher in ORNL's Environmental Services Division.

The third source (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html) writes: "Most of the literate world today regards "global warming" as both real and dangerous."

"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 (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far)." and

"The petition [in support of global warming] was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology." and

"One might think that such growing skepticism would have some influence on public debate, but the insistence on "scientific unanimity" continues unabated." and

"Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming" would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming," any scientist's agreement will do." and on, and on.

The first source does not state a "majority" and only talks about some scientists (not "climate" scientists) agreeing, the second source says there is a consensus, but with absolutely no evidence (and again does not reference "climate" scientists at all), the third source (amusingly) actually refutes the idea that a majority of "climate" scientists (and, in fact, scientists in general) support global warming. The first sentence in the third source says "literate world [agrees]" and the article actually discusses the mislead public perception (literate world being the public). The rest of the article states that most of the "scientific consensus" is politically created and there is no such consensus from climatologists.

I think the evidence I provide above warrants an immediate deletion of the statement: "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation." It is political propaganda, unsupported, and (in my opinion) disgusting. While I'm not very familiar with wikipedia guidelines, I don't think wikipedia would accept propaganda

Conclusion: The lack of evidence to support that statement makes it inappropriate for wikipedia and I will delete it shortly (pending arguments).

Side note: The third source does provide very valuable insight into the politics behind global warming and should be read by anyone writing this wikipedia article and anyone interested in a good and informative (if somewhat long) read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.241.11 (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that wikipedia should not accept propaganda. What matters is that there are thousands of peer reviewed publicatons that support AGW and almost none that deny it. So, if anything, the statement about the consensus in this article is not strong enough. As far as the scientific point of view is concerned, there is almost unanimity, not just a vast majority about this issue. Count Iblis (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement claims that a majority of climate scientists support AGW. Two of the sources are just editorials with no evidence. The third source says that a majority of climate scientists do not support AGW (maybe you should read the third source).

Two important points:

1. While the first two sources support the statement, they are just editorials.

2. The third source does not support the statement, it actually contradicts the statement (again, I highly suggest you read the third source, whether or not you believe in AGW).

If you don't have a source (other than your personal feelings) that can reliably prove a majority of climate scientists support AGW, then the statement should be deleted or revised until it is accurate. You could replace the statement with: "An editorial in the Washington Post says 'a document drafted by hundreds of scientists representing 113 governments [declares support for AGW]'." (By the way, I don't think "hundreds" makes a majority, and note that they are "scientists" not "climate" scientists).

Maybe there are "thousands" of peer-reviewed publications, I haven't counted them all. If you have a source that says this, you could quote them if you want, but encyclopedias are not places for personal interpretations (i.e. "thousands" of peer-reviewed publications doesn't prove a majority of climate scientists, or even non-climate scientists, support AGW.)

I know I'm writing a lot, but it seems you didn't get the point from my first post. The statement uses non-reliable sources and the third source contradicts the statement, so it does not have any sources that support the statement.172.190.19.92 (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the article carefully. It was written in 1992, and predates a lot of the scientific work that has been done since. The author, Richard Lindzen (who has received payment from fossil fuel lobbyists and also downplays the risks of smoking, which was also the target of a heavy PR campaign) has since heavily tempered his position (based on the scientific progress since 1992). He is currently in a wager with another climate scientists that average global warming will not exceed 0.2 degrees by 2024, but refused higher odds than 2-1 (for warming greater than 0.4 degrees). I would argue that because of the age of the source, it should be removed entirely as being non-notable or defunct. --Sumthingweird (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, according to Ross Geldspan "Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC."[23]. So there you have it - the article was commissioned by the Organisation of Petroleum-Exporting Countries. He doesn't stop there: "For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics—Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others—who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns." The source should be removed as a matter of urgency. I will do it in 24 hours. --Sumthingweird (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The article speaks of the political process involved in deciding on global warming and the lack of scientific evidence. The science may have changed since then, but the reporting of scientific consensus when there is none (or an artificial one) is still true to today. (Richard Lindzen is a professor at MIT. I don't know if he received payment, but that's not important. Don't engage in ad hominem attacks. Accepting money is not proof, not even in the least, that he is lying) If he's heavily tempered his position I'd like to see a link to that, but my point was that the article was definitely supporting the statement but it was listed as a source. I don't see what the wager has to do with anything; completely irrelevant. Not wagering has no bearing on the accuracy of his statement. Stick to facts and logic, not supposition and personal attacks. I don't know much about wikipedia, I'll try to become a full member in a few days when my exams are finished.

Furthermore, Lindzen is a professional and can charge whatever he believes the market will pay for his consultation services. The oil company's will pay for an expert opinion that is favorable to them as the enviro's will pay for an expert opinion favorable to them. Accepting money is no indication of deceit (he is a professional and an expert that wants to be paid for his time, imagine that). So there I don't have anything but your idiotic statements. I'm not sure if underwritten means commissioned, but I don't think that matters. As scientist you can expect him to report the truth, whoever is paying the bills. (By the way, I have heard of people losing funding if their research does not support the IPCC position, but I can't substantiate this. The point is that scientists receive funding from people that will benefit from their research, in both directions this certainly does not imply deception, even if your personal, emotional, irrational feelings insist that it does). I'm assuming you're quoting Ross Gelbspan when you write "He doesn't stop there: ---". I don't see your point in quoting Ross. He says that the skeptics is a small band, is he objective or omniscient. (I'll answer for you since you probably couldn't hand simple reasoning: No and no.) Ross Gelbspan says they are a small band of skeptics, so it must be true. Oh save us all, all-knowing Ross Gelbspan. Ross Gelbspan says they are creating an illusion that the the question is mired in unknowns. They are actually reporting their knowledge and reasoned beliefs that climate science is very uncertain. "According to Ross Gelbspan" you say. So what. Try using rational and logical thinking in the future . (By the way, I don't know whether AGW is a fact or not, I think that the lack of scientific evidence makes this theory uncertain. My idea is that unsubstantiated theories should not be presented as fact). Thanks.138.67.4.243 (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi 134.67, welcome to Wikipedia. To create an account, you just need to click on "Log in/Create account in the top-right corner, and above the "Username field" you will see a link that says "Don't have an account? Create one". The whole process takes about 15 seconds (you just have to pick a username and a password). It's a good idea to read over Wikipedia's editing guidelines. One of those is no personal attacks. We try to discuss issues here rather than making comments about editors with whom we disagree. Another relevant guideline is that all sources on Wikipedia should be notable, reliable, third-party sources. If an oil lobby has paid for an article that calls into question the reliability of the source, because the oil company has vested outcomes in a particular outcome. There is no need for climatologists to be paid by private companies, since they are almost all employed through public institutions (such as universities, or NASA, or meteorological research institutions). The point is that scientists should be producing research which is verifiable and peer-reviewed according to the scientific method, not research which is favourable to the oil lobby or the "enviro's". (Exactly what private interests do you think "enviro's" have?).

I don't know how you define consensus or lack of consensus, but in my mind when no peer-reviewed climate science article in the last 15 years has contradicted the theory that the average increase in world temperatures is in fact due to the increased levels of greenhouse gases (although there is a debate about the extent to which this poses a problem), that is consensus. Science is not about opinion, it is about testing hypotheses against observed facts. If you can provide any evidence of a debate in the scientific literature about this hypothesis, post it here. I have been following the climate change debate for the last several years, and I have to date found no evidence of a debate in the scientific literature (even though fossil fuel companies and politicians have attempted to paint such a picture). What I have seen is a track record of fossil fuel companies paying scientists (generally not climate scientists) to cast doubt about the science (but not in peer-reviewed journals, rather in public fora). I'm sorry, but the source is still going to go. --Sumthingweird (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure it takes 15 seconds. I'm also referring to the time it takes to read through the policies, find info, and write responses, etc. Like I said, I have an exam to study for. I may have overreacted when I called you irrational as a whole, but the main problem I had was that your criticisms of Lindzen are irrational. I'll discuss further in a few days, when I have time.138.67.4.215 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi 138.67, no hard feelings. I'm looking forward to contributing with you on Wikipedia. --Sumthingweird (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a strong believer in the (obvious) existence of a consensus on this issue, but as some other folks have noted, there have been a few contradictory papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Not many, but a few. I don't think any reasonable concept of consensus demands unanimity, or else we'd have to let creationist attacks into the evolution article, etc.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brian, we wouldn't, because there aren't any peer-reviewed scientific journals that support creationism (unless you count "Creation" magazine, which doesn't claim to be a scientific journal). I would be interested in any case to read peer-reviewed articles which contradict the theory that increased greenhouse gases are leading to climate change, because I have yet to find any. As you say, such an article wouldn't necessarily mean that climate change is not human-made or not occurring, but it is very irritating to constantly hear people say that there is a debate in the scientific community without being able to provide any papers which demonstrate a debate in the scientific community. The idea that there is a debate in the scientific community about the existence of anthropogenic climate change is leading to massive delays in addressing the issue (for example, there are many Australian parliamentarians who claim that such a debate exists). That is why it is of such critical importance and why it is so irritating to have people claim there is a debate without providing any sources to back up their claim. --Sumthingweird (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the "consensus" is that it is misrepresented, especially by those holding somewhat more extreme than mainstream views. It is used by catastrophists defending their arguments - "I am right because of the scientific consensus on global warming". However the consensus is not and never has been that anthropogenic effects will cause doomsday, or even widespread death, or even have any net negative effects at all. The consensus is that, according to the basic laws of physics, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere mostly through burning fossil fuels should / does have some heating effect on the climate.

The extent is still very much not a matter of scientific consensus at all. Just this week a very well written piece appeared on wattsupwiththat supporting my own view that AGW is real but overstated - pointing at a climate sensitivity to CO2 of ~2/3rds what the IPCC projected, while "tipping point" pos feedback theories are being progressively toppled by reality failing to comply and kill us all.

As an aside - you want to start playing "follow the money" to doubt credibility? Consider just for a moment the amount of grant money that would disappear from climate science and related areas if AGW was found to not be a catastrophic threat. Many reputations and careers of scientists and politicians ride the doomsday train now, long since departed from the scientific consensus "something is happening" station. If the temperature continues to flatline much longer... the derailing might not be very pretty. Jaimaster (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to turn into a more generic discussion about climate science, rather than the reference. The reference is supposed to cast doubt on the theory that human activities are having an average warming effect on the climate (which you aren't disputing). As far as your argument goes, I agree that there is some debate about the extent to which climate change is a problem. However, it's worth noting that the IPCC predicted that the Arctic ice cap would be at its current state of melting 80 years from now. This is observed evidence which suggests that the IPCC's predictions were conservative. The thing about scientific theories is that they are refined and confirmed as reality unfolds. The number of extreme weather events has already multiplied, the amount of arable land has decreased, the seas have been steadily rising, there has already been flooding in low-lying Pacific nations, the Great Barrier Reef organisms have mostly died, etc. We all have differing views of value, but from my point of view we have already passed the point of unacceptable climate change. Nobody knows what will happen if the Arctic continues melting at its current rate. --Sumthingweird (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that the northern ice cap since the summer of 08 has refrozen to well within recorded average limits, and thats without pointing out that total polar ice is trending up. I could take apart most of the rest of your points in the same manner, which would be of no real value to anyone. I dont take any of these weather events as serious evidence either way. If the artic melt of 07 is proof of AGW, what is the temperature plateau of 98-present proof of? Cant have the cake and eat it too. Jaimaster (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the planet's still warming since 1998 [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian A Schmidt (talk • contribs) 06:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the matter could easily resolved by a slight change to the wording of the statement? Such as "A large portion of scientists.." rather than an unproven statement such as "the majority..". This would afford a much more NPOV to this issue, rather that advocating statements such as "there is almost unanimity" without any reliable third-party source. The following link references an impressive amount of well regarded experts, including current and former UN IPCC scientists, who do not fall under "Unanimity" umbrella. As it stands now the article presents the case that the cause is a forgone and undisputed conclusion. If any page should provide dissenting POV's it should be the Global Warming Controversy page. :) --Coldbourne (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a short visit to scientific opinion on global warming? There is not a single scientific organization that disagrees with the IPCC core findings. Many of the world's National Academies have, singly and jointly, affirmed the position of the IPCC. I don't know if you are in the habit of believing politicians, but I take the Royal Society and the United States National Academy of Sciences over Inhofe any day. We know that the original version of that infamous minority report contained not only "scientists" such as Nigel Lawson, but also real scientists who strongly rejected that honour and eloquently stated that they were misrepresented and do not disagree with the IPCC core findings at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I try not to use Wikipedia as a source Stephan, I have been editing here too long to be able to disregard bias (Why would the American College of Preventive Medicine have any clue about climate change? Strange that climatology and cardiology were so closely related). I certainly don't take politicians seriously, so I would caution against blanket statements such as "not a single" which is entirely too reminiscent of rhetoric. I am currently unaware of any particular field of science in which there is no debate regarding findings, and AGW is no different. The APS published a very good article in this respect, and there are plenty of others. Regardless, my point was simply that the statement could easily be modified to be more accurate yet at the same time undilluted. Substituting "a large portion" for "the majority" would be much more conducive to providing varied and accurate information, from which the reader can then extrapolate an opinion. Also, be advised that the Joint Academies statement only recognize climate change, not AGW. I am certain that while many Scientists and Scientific Organizations DO recognize Climate Change, the IPCC's findings advocated AGW, which is an entirely different beast. Cheers. --Coldbourne (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you pick the ACPM instead of the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences (or any of the many other scientific societies with significant relevance in this particular field of science. And i also find it interesting that you pick a non-Peer reviewed "science article" by a non-scientist to argue debate. And finally the Joint Academies statement both recognizes climate change and AGW.... Here's the pertinent sentence: "In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reaffirmed that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.". Perhaps you should try to read the statement again? (you could for example start to wonder what can be mitigated and how if its natural. Or perhaps why a low-carbon society should be necessary, if AGW isn't happening....)

You could also try to find any scientific organization, relevant or not, that disputes AGW. That would be rather interesting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kim. There is no need to rely on the Wikipedia article itself - just follow the references and read the various academies own words. As for the Monckton "article", please note that the APS found it necessary to preface it with "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review...The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position...: Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate". But all this misses my point a bit. The original reliable sources on scientific opinion on global warming explicitly assert consensus, large majority, and near unanimity for the IPCC position and hence AGW. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I have merited an expedient reply from the Kim D. My ego just got a boost. It's called irony Kim, I mention the ACPM because it was listed on the scientific opinion on global warming page that Steph directed me to. I thought it was rather humorous and completely irrelevant that the ACPM had their opinions listed on said reference. I decided to share with the class. What is interesting is that both of you stick to the Royal Society script. I did not know that they had been given cart blanche in the field of relevant sources. Regardless, I am glad you find my source interesting, since I choose it explicitly to make an overt point that somehow both of you miss or choose to ignore. Despite the fact that the article was felt relevant enough to publish, the APS still felt it necessary to add a caveat lector to the heading. There is clearly a sense of CYA that is added, which underscores my point. Neither one of you have yet to provide a creditable source for the "Majority" argument, which is what this entire discussion was about. A majority of Scientists, not Scientific Organizations. If the sources state "the majority of Scientific Organizations", then please edit the article to reflect this. I am looking to ensure accuracy, so please don't try to throw multiple sources all parroting Oreskes's report. Cheers. --Coldbourne (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Its very simple. On Wikipedia we play by WP rules, and to state something about a majority of scientists, we need reliable sources.... And it simply doesn't get much more reliable than the relevant (and some irrelevant) scientific academies of most major and minor countries, or peer-reviewed papers (such as Oreskes). As for your personal point of view - please see WP:SOAP). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Coldbourne, there are no scientific socities that dissent from the IPCC consensus that global warming is real, and man-made, and potentially very destructive. Nor are there any peer reviewed papers. So unless and until you can rebut these reliable sources with reliable sources of your own, that's what our articles are going to say. (And a Monkton-penned propaganda article, or alike, most certainly does not qualify as reliable) Raul654 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Raul654, those references don't actually support your position. For instance, "Nor are there any peer reviewed papers" should have read "Nor are there any peer reviewed papers between 1993 and 2003 that contain the key words “global climate change” where the abstract argues against people being the problem". There are plenty of papers that dispute the science. The main one being the IPCC report itself, only the summary supports the conclusions.

Your other reference (basically, 3 letters to the editor) also says (to quote the pdf out of context)

• the demonstrated disagreement between observations and greenhouse models falsifies the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and argues convincingly that human effects are minor and that natural factors are the main cause of current warming.

• It is AGU that needs to admit its new stripes — an overt political action group pushing an environmental political agenda under the aegis of scientific study.

At least the AGU is willing to give "undue weight" to various positions. Q Science (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On Oreskes you are correct - between 1993 and 2003. But your "plenty of papers" is without backing at all (should have attached). As for your comment about the IPCC - well... you are incorrect, and you don't even have to take my word for it. You can take the National Research Council's expert committee's [25] (which included Lindzen) word instead. They where specifically asked to evaluate whether the SPM was a good reflection of the complete report... And guess what? They found it was.

There are correctly 3 letters in the AGU pdf. But you may have noticed that only one of these reflected the expert opinion of a relevant party ... the AMQUA. Why you picked on the others is a bit strange really, since they reflect the opinion of two individuals (Singer, Corbett), and while interesting, they are not really relevant. (strangely you also ignored the editors comment) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Colbourne missed the single most important sentence in the PDF - AAPG aligns itself with Crichton’s views, and stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming. AAPG later revised their position to take a noncommittal stance; thus, there are no scientific academies that dissent from the IPCC consensus. Therefore, both papers support my position - there are no reputable dissenters from the IPCC consensus. There are a few cranks and energy-industry funded shills, but they should not be confused with legitimate scientists doing real scientific work. Raul654 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few cranks and energy-industry funded shills - doubters include nobel prize winners - in physics, mind you - among other successful and distinguished scientists. Dismissing them all as "cranks" is a silly thing to do. Jaimaster (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an actual verifiable link to that Nobel Price winners comment? (i'm asking not because i doubt - but because its missing). Btw. his background is not really relevant to climate science is it? And do you have any indications that his comments are not taken out of context? (like others in that "report"?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a look and cant find anything better than that "senate minority report" (is that reliable or not? Isnt it a government website?) for verifibility, but http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/07/lindau-half-of-nobel-prize-winners-are.html quotes him at better length, where he does qualify his comments by stating he really doesnt worry about it anyway, and shows his level of knowlege quite clearly. His background clearly isnt anywhere near climate science, but I also doubt he is a "shill" or a "crank".

What is the difference between a someone who thinks AGW is all a communist plot and someone else who thinks everyone who doubts is part of some "big oil" funded conspiracy to knowingly and deliberately destroy the planet in the name of money? I would say, not much. Jaimaster (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and on Ivar_Giaever himself, I would have supported removing the paragraph you removed as not at all a part of why he is considered notable enough to be in the encyclopedia. Probably better than saying a gov website link isnt a RS :) Jaimaster (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, a senate minority report is not reliable. The minority report refers to political writings of the minority in congress (Republicans). In the context of global warming, "senate minority report" means it was written by James Inhofe, whose ramblings on global warming could generously be described as inaccurate. See previous discussion here. Raul654 (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added an entry to the FAQ to prevent this issue from coming up again. Raul654 (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what FAQ are you talking about?Brian A Schmidt (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Raul654 (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've modified the reference to the latest EPW report to try to reflect that it's not a RS. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, though im suprised the US doesnt have some sort of anti "misleading parliament" law that would prevent deliberate deception in goverment documents like that. So long as the boots fits on the left foot as well (minority = Democrats = not RS). Jaimaster (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The boot does fit - since majority papers aren't RS either. Only official documents from the committee could be considered such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be sceptical even about those, to be honest. Politicians are not particularly good on science-related topics. It would be a reliable source on the opinion of the committee, but not more. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your not about to drag me into an edit war. I will rephrase the previous entry, but in the meantime: I would strongly suggest you refrain from deleting commentation that you do not agree with. I have made no changes to this article, much less any that would constitute vandalism. And I am afraid discussing issues on a talk page does not fall within the vandalism catagory either. Further gaming of this sort will result in a report. --Coldbourne (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(rephrase from previous entry). Accusations such as "cranks and energy-industry funded shills" are slanderous and un-sourced, providing no added value to the discussion. As requested I have provided Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Rosa Compagnucci as sourced former IPCC members who currently disagree with the AGW theory. I have provided this for your benefit, though it has nothing to do with my original proposal. As I stated before, I am interested in ensuring that the statement within the article regarding the Scientific Consensus is presented within the most accurate language possible. In the interest of Consensus I have brought the matter to the talk page, as per Wikipedia Guidelines. Thus far, the matter remains unresolved and ultimately discarded in favor of delving into unnecessary WP:NPOV discussions. I myself am guilty of this, and recant the matter. As --Kim D. Petersen stated previously, "this article is a train-wreck of non-reliable sources and has significant problems ", I would hope that we could all work together to resolve this matter in order to unsure that the end users who ultimately rely on the information provided will be best serviced. --Coldbourne (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) can we stop arguing about comment removal please? This talk is clogged up enough as it is. C, if I read your original comments right, you wnat to disagree about "majority" of scientists. You can't do that with one or two anecdotal examples. Rosa Compagnucci is a very minor figure, and is WG II at that. Itoh is minor. Lindzen isn't, but he is the one outstanding example available for you, so doesn't really help. Please don't fall for the "senate minority" nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was moved to the user pages Will, so no more clogging. :) My original comments were regarding the veracity of the sources used to substantiate the claim under Existence of a scientific consensus that "The majority of climate scientists agree..". For instance, 20 only makes the ascertation in the tag line of the article, never referencing it in the main body. 21 points to the IPCC as basis for a majority, but with only 2000+ scientists in the IPCC, and not all of them in agreement, that is hardly a majority. The Royal Society link (22) is doing much better, but is in nature a political document that is addressing current dissenting opinions within the United Kingdom, not a scientific peer reviewed article (as was mentioned above). It does state that "the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points" but it then references the Oreskes essay to back this up. Which leads us to 23, who again references the Oreskes essay to substantiate its claims. What I am advocating, since there seems to be only one verifiable and peer reviewed source for this information, is to either replace "A majority" with something less explicit such as "A large portion" or "Many". If not that, then to move the paragraph down, unchanged in wording, to be included in the section dealing with Oreskes's essay. Thus leaving us with the transition of having "According to the 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes, the majority of scientists..." or something similar. I feel as if this would give readers a clearer picture as to the source of this empirical data. --Coldbourne (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is Will? anyway: you object to the RS on the grounds that its not a scientific peer reviewed article, but I don't see the relevance of that. Why do you expect one? And you're not allowed to play the following-refs-backwards game (outside of peer reviewed stuff). BTW, you realise this is going nowhere, don't you? Its fun to discuss for a bit, then we all get bored and the text stays untouched William M. Connolley (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Will, a contraction of William. I specifically laid out the problem with the sources, but if you insist on not taking the time to read them yourself I will sum it up. The only source that has ever made the verifiable statement we are discussing was the Oreskes Essay. Every other source simply uses the Essay as a reference. I am not sure what you are referring to in regards to "following-refs-backwards", as far as I am aware Wikipedia has long standing guidelines in regards to providing Reputable and Relevant sources. I am afraid the Knoxville News is not a RS in regards to a world wide consensus on scientific opinion. I am sorry Will, I was under the impression that this was Wikipedia. That crazy scheme of Jimmy Wales where you can actually discuss editorial points and then work together with other editors all over the world to build a concise and comprehensive encyclopedia. If "the text stays untouched" then perhaps you mistaken as to what website you posted that statement. I intend to see the changes made or at least adequately discussed and compromised. Dismissal is a statement of inability. Cheers. --Coldbourne (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

William is right about this. IPCC Reports are the consensus opinions from particular time periods, the national science academies and Oreskes' study reflecting them, and the mainstream media similarly reflecting that common scientific knowledge. Sorry (but cheers to you too!). Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced Statement

"Several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism (see section: Risks of passive smoking)."

This statement appears to be unsourced and reference 255 should be corrected or the corresponding statement should be removed. Thanks.138.67.4.49 (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Edited to duplicate the pertinent citations from the 'Risks of Passive Smoking' section where they were hiddenJaymax (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Slight Bias

The bias is mostly well concealed, but if the article was written with the same amount of bias for the skeptic side, the article would be completely revised in a second. The Enlightened Democrat (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have any concrete criticism, please bring it on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you call the sceptic side? From my point of view, scientific scepticism that theories are refuted according by evidence. Scientific scepticism is healthy, and it is what has lead us to the view that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have produced an average warming effect. --Sumthingweird (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

POV

I do understand the article is well-sourced and it survived too AfDs, but the article title seems a bit POV to me and it furthers the cause of global warming denial. "Controversy" is a POV term in the title of the article. Should we move it to a more neutral title like Non-mainstream view on global warming? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No... Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Skepticism on global warming is non-mainstream view. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the word controversy is easily understood, is talked about in the media and covers a wide range of opinions. It is not POV. i.e. Controversy 1. Contention; dispute; debate; discussion; agitation of contrary opinions... Webster. I see no improvement by changing the name of the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to ask what this article is intended to cover. Is it intended to cover a non-mainstream view or a POV fork? I think if this article is to remain it needs to have a title that isn't confusing. At the moment the title seems to add weight to the debunked argument that there is a scientific debate about whether AGW exists. No editor has been able to come up with any recent peer-reviewed journal article which would support this claim, and extensive surveys of journals and scientists have shown there to be no debate within the scientific community about whether AGW exists at all (although there is a debate around the extent of the warming). As far as the greenhouse effect goes, there is no alternative scientific theory to explain why the Earth is able to retain its heat, and it is a theory that has remained uncontested for a century. The enhanced greenhouse effect is just a logical extension of this theory. I also think that the term "global warming" is confused because, even though there is an average global warming (11 of the past 13 years have been the hottest on record), there can also be localised cooling as wind and wave currents change etc. Also, the problem with climate change is not the warming itself, but the associated effects (expanding droughts, increased extreme weather events, dwindling food and water supplies and conflicts, rising tides, ecosystem death etc.) So I propose that at least the words "global warming" be changed to "climate change". Perhaps an appropriate title would be "Political debate on climate change". --Sumthingweird (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The article covers controvesy, not specifically sceptical points of view. That you even use the word "denial" says more about your intention than the rest of your statement, though. Jaimaster (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you read it? --Sumthingweird (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

More times than I wanted to. Its a train wreck. You might consider that the seeming one sided controversy is possibly because the most active global warming editors regard any form of dissent as controversy and everything else as mainstream. This article has long been a dumping ground for anything that discolours the global warming page. Jaimaster (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

May i invite you to read WP:NPA again, please? And to consider that just because other people have differing opinions from you - they are not by necessity involved in conspiracies? On the other hand, i do agree that this article is a train-wreck of non-reliable sources and has significant problems with WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

How can we fix the train wreck, though? Like I said ive read through it several times. It just keeps on keeping on, no structure, no anything except a long winded rant about everything anyone ever imagined slighted someone else during a debate on the topic. Deleting has been rejected, but how to fix? Sandbox from scratch and try and build it again, with a structure and some sort of control on gasbagging? Exclude blogs? Yet if we exclude blogs, we exclude alot of the controversy, and alot of the responses to allegations. On the current structure -

Public opinion - not controversial. I would delete it.

Consensus - massive controversy. Attacks on AGW often start here. However, the section is rotten and overblown. Entire paragraph quotes on the heartland institute list? Come on. Just say "Gregory Cutter said he has no doubts... the recent changes... are man-induced. Keep the first 10 words of Bast's quote and you get his entire point.

The IPCC is controversial? Not really. Oreskes' is far more controversial herself. The section "statements disagreeing" leads with "in blog posts". Woopee for blog posts! Described as failed by WMC in flyspec blog posts, commentry that simply would never be in this article if WMC was not a notable wiki editor. The critism by the House of Lords - part of the bleeding British government, mind you - is buried under blog posts.

The causes is the very source of the controversy but is buried pages into the article. The section is massive and could be an article on its own, but then you end up with a series of controversy articles that will degenerate into garbage. This would be where I suggest scientific (eg, causation) vs political and other (disputes over access to data, disputes over the IPCC, disputes over Oreskes, disputes over the Hockey Stick arnt so much scientific disputes as much as disputes over underhandedness, dishonesty and creative data manipulation). But an article titled "Scientific Global Warming Controversy" would lend weight to the idea that the section title in global warming itself should include "scientific", something the not-a-cabal has strongly rejected in the past.

The political section - more massively overblown quotes. The quote from Trenbeth appears to be an orphan with no heading or idea of what it is about unless the link to SPM is mouseovered or a known acronym to readers. The rest meanders along until we get to some real controversy (funding is pretty controversial). Alot of garbage could be trimmed from funding. Too many advocacy citations. Changing positions of some skeptics is controversial, leave alone more than an entire page controversial? No. Political pressure on scientists has less wordspace... heh. Litigation keep, betting not so much.

Finally we have related controversies, which seems to be little more than a rehash / continuation of the funding section. The section starts by quoting someone even devote supporters of that particular political persuation describe as a partisan writer of diatribes. Its all a republican conspiracy! Come on. If we have that rubbish, we need to give wordspace to "its all a socialist plot!" too. Keep the CFC / passive smoking bits, but trim them. According to the advocacy group, its a conspiracy. Okay.

The Hockey stick needs a place in this article, not just as "see other". Its one of the most visible controversies related to the subject.

And after all that (this comment is already a train wreck itself) may the FSM help whoever tries to fix any of it. Jaimaster (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fiddling in a sandbox. Jaimaster (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

My mom with a bachelors' in chemistry from the fifties was spouting party rhetoric claiming scientists were fudging their data and politicians were listening to them. I told her the science would work itself out and it's really two issues, the second one being that if you're not a scientist, the average American and their elected officials aren't capable of the critical thinking that would identify which if any scientists are falsely reporting their findings. I get the impression from this article that nobody is disputing the data reports, but mostly the conclusions drawn from them. However, if there are disputes about whether data is being accurately reported, it ought to be indicated in the article.

Controversy about Mitigation and adaptation

A conroversy in the style of Jaimaster and friends is disgusting -and nothing about reality - The Storch and Stehr source i edited

• is first about a controversy betwen an renowned climat scientist, Hans von Storch with Ziegler, a high level political buerocrat in the German ministry of science and research.
• Second its about the question how to deal with the results of scientific consensus. It explicitely critizises the existing global mainstream of climate science and politics as being biased on mindering climate gases but not taking adaptation into account. Thats a real controversy, not a faked one with a general interst IMHO.

I'd like to see a better reason for an revert than "off-topic" - and i doubt a revert will erase the fact that as well in GB or the USA, not to speak of China conclusions e.g. based on the Stern report wont get much into real policy. Storchs remark about global warming being real and to be acceopted is already state of the art while being controversial as well.

• About the magazine - GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society is a transdisciplinary journal for scientists and other interested parties concerned with the causes and analyses of environmental and sustainability problems and their solutions. Board of editors contains among others Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of PIK, Potsdam. --Polentario (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is once more that you are ignoring weight. While Storch's argument is interesting, its only one of a multitude of varying arguments. Picking it out without secondary sources referring to it as significant - or even reacting to i, makes it original research. Its not enough that its interesting, or that you find that its a good argument, or that the author is credible etc. etc. We need some external reference to show that the viewpoint is notable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kim. I did some research on the course of the controversy, my source is basically Storchs website. Summary: Storch and Stehrs German controversy mirrors a global discussion, including Al Gore changing his mind on climate change policy. I think its worth while to mention it here as well

First Storch and Stehr have promoted the matra of adaptation and as well "openess about dissent" since ages. It was mentioned as early as 2005 in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a german Quality Newspaper, english translation to be found at [26]. The harsher version was published in Spiegel 2005 [27] rejecting e.g. to 'use methods of McCarthy against "dissenters"'. Dissens - at least according Stehr and Storch exists within the scietific communicty and of cause as well about global warming. He refers as well to his own critisism of the hockey stick. According Storch, the stick was based on false assumptions, (published in Science btw.) and after that he had it coming from both sides.

Back to the paper I edited here: its mirroring two parts of a more up to day controversy made public in a high level magazine dealing with the interaction of environmental policy and science. Insofar its already a good source about a controversy happening in Germany on a Meta Level.

• Some points about the course of the controversy from Storchs website [28]
• The answer of Storch et al to Ziegler was published as said on August 28 2008.
• Storchs website first quotes Roger A. Pielke [29] with regard to adaptation September 15th, 2008
• and the related economist article, September 11 2008,[30]
• citing Al Gore, “I USED to think adaptation subtracted from our efforts on prevention. But I’ve changed my mind,” says Al Gore, a former American vice-president and Nobel prize-winner. ... His words reflect a shift in the priorities of environmentalists and economists.

** --Polentario (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all very well. But the trouble is once more that you are doing original research, and coming up with your own personal synthesis and interpretation of whats important, and what isn't. Had this been published in a reliable source, then it would have a chance to go in, since it hasn't - there really isn't that much to do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Syn, Pov and RS would apply in the case I had compared Storch and Ziegler myself. This is absoultely not the case, the existing controversy is documented in a valuable source. The second working group of the IPCC has uttered similar opinions / expresses a similar shift in the recommondation to policy makers. [31]. I will revert accordingly. -Polentario (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand. You can't chose what sources are important or relevant - that has to be done by secondary sources. If no outside source is referring to Storch as notable - then by WP policy it isn't. And yes, that can be quite frustrating. But we are not the ones who chose what sources that gets presented - that would be (and is) original research.

You will need to present a case for the Storch article to be important. And that has to be done, by pointing out other reliable sources that do this specifically (ie. not just by talking about the same issues). Please sit down and understand how an encyclopeadia differes from an essay, and please familiarize yourself with WP policies. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My problem with this section, esp. the part currently in dispute, is that it's not about the article, currently defined as "The global warming controversy is a dispute regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming." It's a different controversy about how to react to warming that has little to do with the scientific basis of climate change. I suppose we could broaden the article to "Global Warming Controversies" or start a new article. I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian A Schmidt (talk • contribs) 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Brian nailed it. I don't quite agree with Kim - selection of sources and what goes in an article is an editorial decision. Otherwise, we would not need WP:WEIGHT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Then i probably haven't explained it correctly :-( My point was that we can't make arbitrary judgements about what sources that are important. We have to consider the weight of the sources. From what i can see about the Storch article, its interesting, certainly - but was/is it important (ie. notable) ? (the last part is the one i doubt). For what its worth, i agree with Brian as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I may not get the point what the article stands for, its subtitled to be about the political and media debate, while Brian now comes with a different point. the IPCC does either summarize a consensus on state of the art of climate science AND gives advice to policy makers. Aint the consequences, adaptation or mitigation part of the story?

• Except the heidelberg petition and solanki not anything is mentioned outside the english speaking world, not even Storchs US House of Representatives statements to the hockeystick, sounds like the confirmed Editorial policy :)
• Storch and Stehr are very clear about the scientific AND political discussion being an ongoing, multifaceted process, not a standstill, the article seems to claim that there is no debate at all. Why then the IPCC issues significantly different reports over the years is not explained.
• Based on this I assume that the complete controversy about AGW should involve state of the science, the advice given and structure / decision making within the organizations involved
  • Btw. at least Roger Pielke is cited with Politics and science being closely intertwined in this field
  • The article doesnt cover a dynamic and moving process, its rather static without providing synthesis

As a personal remark: For me as a German the article reminds me in sofar of a pre 1989 eastern newspaper: Highly formal and correct in details, very much based on written statements, programs and petitions and the real ongoing conflicts have to be read from inbetween the lines. I have been admiring the english speaking world for a specific sort of humour and a vivid debating culture, besides of some bets, this is not to be found in this lemma --Polentario (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Something favoring Polentario's position is in the third sentence of the intro, that controversies include "and what action should be taken (if any)." The rest of the article doesn't reach this issue though, and I don't think it fits well. I propose removing that phrase from the intro and remove the entire precautionary principle section from the article, which is already pretty long. We could consider reinserting it and maybe some version of Polentario's addition into the "Related Controversies" section, but I think it would fine just to delete it.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Think it would fit into the von Storch lemma, aiming to provide points of further interest which can be moved or copied further. E.g. Storchs papers about the Hockeystick play a part of the Hockeystick assessment of the recent IPCC reports [32].

From my side, its EOD here. BR and thnx for the instructive comments. --Polentario (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PS.: In the meantime, Storchs points were mentioned and repeated on different conferences and public discussions, e.g. at Hygienemuseum Dresden. Yes, its an ongoing controversy and you still miss real life her. --Polentario (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, per my suggestion last week, I've deleted the Precautionary Principle section as outside the scope of the rest of the article. If there's another article that covers adaptation v. mitigation responses to climate change, that would appropriate for inclusion in the See Also section, I think. We'll see what people think of this change.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Siting adjustments addition to theory.

The section 2.4.2 Surface station siting and adjustments

There is also a argument that the changes in the white paint used from old fashioned white wash to latext paint causes a difference in UV absorption. This article http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/rising_surface_temperatures_ba.html covers the topic. This page http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/14/a-typical-day-in-the-stevenson-screen-paint-test/ shows the exact experimental data.

This link http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/bad_paint_job_rising_surface_t.html is exceptionally clear cut on the issue with a well done and simple experiment.

The argument is that the change in paint could account for the entire rise in observed temperature in the 20th century.

--Rkeene0517 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The more general argument is that the airport based weather measurement system was designed to keep airplanes from crashing in bad weather, not measuring 1 degree C rise over a century. The measurement system is fundamentally flawed. --Rkeene0517 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire system wasn't "designed" for climate monitoring. But you are wrong about the airports. But regardless of your being wrong or right, your own opinion is of no interest William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Union of Concerned Scientists reference

I recently repaired a Union of Concerned Scientists link. The reference is basically just a fluffy marketing summary of a real paper and, as such, is an extremely poor reference. However, I noticed that it also says

Projections indicate that demand for food in Asia will exceed the supply by 2010.

In trying to explain why the link is dead, the fact that it is fluff and the fact that it incorrectly predicts global starvation in 2010 seem to be important. The second part is particularly important because these people are also predicting CO2 based Global Warming.

At any rate, BozMo decided to remove my comments explaining why the link is dead as POV/synthesis from reference. I, of course, think that my comments are fair and balanced, so I have placed this here for comment. Q Science (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Bozmo's reversion was entirely correct. It is POV and thus have no place in the article. And neither does it here - if you can demonstrate that its a unreliable source then there might be something to your comments. But your own personal opinion is irrelevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Japan's scientists are breaking with IPCC

According to this report, three of five scientists in a government science panel have rejected the hypothesis that late 20th century warming was predominantly caused by man. [33] The news article translates into English large passages from the original Japanese version. At this point, I do not have any specific suggestion on changes to improve the article. But it seems to me editors need to be aware of this information because it may affect the article in several places. RonCram (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's the register, well-known source of reliable info on climate change. Sigh William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's worse than that - it's not just the Reg, but it's Andrew Orlowski, professional troll. Raul654 (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• May I suggest you ignore the Register? I don't know what the panel said, but someone in the chain certainly was reality-challenged. As far as I can make out, JSTER is an energy-industry sponsored group. Even the Register does not claim they are a government science panel, but rather that "[JSTER] acts as a government advisory panel", a phrase typically used to describe lobbyists. Anyways, the Science Council of Japan has supported the IPCC explicitly in 2005, 2007, and 2008, so claims that "Japan's scientists are breaking with IPCC" are a bit far-fetched. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia at its worst. The Register merely published some English translations of a Japanese report, they have absolutely nothing to with the content of the report. The researchers also conclude that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity, a notion previously dismissed by the IPCC:

"The hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken." the report’s introduction states.

Kanya Kusano, Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC) reiterates this point: "[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,"

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, cites historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly: "We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. " "Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken." Akasofu concludes.

While it may be that some kind of global warming may be occurring, it certainly has not been proven and at this point it may be impossible to prove. The type of absurd environmental fascism blatantly evident on Wikipedia reeks of profound misunderstanding of not only science of complex systems and computer models, but corrupt nature of the politics and funding of science. In short, you do not what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.214.106 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A new global warming theory?

I have run across this paper which suggests an alternate theory: Michal Kravcik, Jan Hronsky, Jaroslav Tesliar, Robert Zvara The New Theory of The Global Warming 2002-01-26 Their cause is not CO2 in the atmosphere, but systematic world-wide deforestation. Is there any merit in including it under alternate hypothesis?

I don't think so. This does not look like a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the idea that deforestation has contributed to global warming is not new. It's been recognized in the AGW science from the 1979 NAS report to the 2001 IPCC report. Additionally, like Steve said, what you're referencing would not be considered a reliable source. It's just an environmental NGO.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually this report is from scientists who argue that lack of water in the soil contributes to global warming. That is different from the argument that deforestration causes global warming by releasing carbon from trees into the atmosphere. Here's a link to their website: http://www.waterparadigm.org/

However, before including their work you would have to know whether the theory has any acceptance and also whether they are claiming that this is the main cause of global warming. You should not use their report as a source, but instead a review of their work. I don't think though that this is the right article, because this article is covering the controversy, and this argument has not played a part in the controversy. Global warming sceptics would reject this theory anyway, because it's critical of deforestration. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reject inclusion - I want to see more of these alternatives mentioned (if only in passing, such that a "Search" of the article for key-words, names of authors etc, turns them up). But I can't see that one badly-translated report that's presumably never been picked up even in the "popular" press deserves inclusion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Connolley Reference

"These criticisms have been described as "failed" by William Connolley." Is a reference to blog posts by someone who is famous because of wikipedia. Doesn't that violate some sort of credible source or relevance rule? 216.255.104.61 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPS: "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" - as is the case with William, who is a published climate scientist with publications in Science, GRL, B.AMS, and other peer-reviewed venues. Also, RealClimate is not your average blog, but a reputable source, produced by a group of expert scientists and positively discussed in the literature. It has been discussed and found a WP:RS before. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And he's not "famous because of Wikipedia"; one of his papers is currently the #1 most-downloaded paper at the American Meteorological Society publications website.[34] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Its wonderful isn't it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviewed: FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS by Gerlich, Tscheuschner

In Print: [35]

Preprint: [36] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.47.95 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is trash. [37] and elsewhere for why William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

William, this is amusing don't you think? You are constantly asking for peer-reviewed references from "the other side", and yet when one is presented you point at blogspot to supposedly discredit it? Oren0 (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The blogposting is about an article that is almost ready to be submitted. This wiki article is about the controversy which exists mostly outside of the peer reviewed realm, so it doesn't really matter for this article. What matters for this wiki article is if there is some notable dispute going on.

So, if you had a dispute between Al Gore and Inhofe that is widely reported by the media then that could be far more notable than a peer reviwed article by a sceptic that is simply ignored. Count Iblis (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In figure 7 of William's reference, the caption says CO2 emits "between 800 and 950 cm-1" and in the text it says "CO2 between 600 and 800 cm-1". Which is it? Wikipedia says 667 cm−1. Q Science (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal then it should definitely be included. However, the International Journal of Modern Physics has it listed as a "Review Paper" [38]. I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean it's in the process of being peer-reviewed? If that's the case, then we should wait for the outcome before including it.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't really addressing the issue from the POV of wiki rules, but from the POV of Truth. G&T is trash; if you read the blog I pointed to you'll find its numerous flaws. I'm interested in Truth. As for You are constantly asking for peer-reviewed references from "the other side" - I think you'll find you are wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is IJMP considered a respectable (e.g., ISI indexed) journal or is it like E&E? The paper's arguments are utterly daft and its publication represents an alarming failure of the peer review process. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a respectable journal, its impact factor is a bit below that of Physical Review, but it is ok. as a physics journal. There was indeed a failure of the peer review process, something the authors were probably gaming for by submitting their paper to a theoretical physics journal that specializes in topics like particle physicsm string theory etc.. Who knows, perhaps Lubos Motl was the referee? Count Iblis (talk)

I always wait at least 6 months on new research to let it marinate. My money's that after two months, everyone who cares enough will slam the paper with enough responses on how they royally screwed up their characterization of the physical system that it'll be all over. Awickert (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR Report

Who wants to do the honors at WP:AN3? (I have two project reports to write today.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 Layout, Coordination, and Copy edit Log

This article, Global warming controversy has been identified as too long at 154 kb, which under WP:SIZE is over 54 kb above the limit. It receives on average 750 hits per day[39] as to Global warming which osculates from 10K to 20K hits a day.[40] We can therefore safely edit this article directly without concern over creating a major disruption. Sandbox editing may not be necessary, however if we choose do to do so, it should not be a challenge. I will log all content moved, removed, or changed in this thread; and will accompany each edit with the necessary rationale and potential alternatives for such actions. All previous threads of discussions have been archived with the exception of "A new global warming theory?", which appears to be ongoing. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing subsections "CFCs and ozone layer" and "Passive smoking and global warming"

“ Human emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) lead to depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere and intensify ozone holes over the Antarctic. This concept was politically controversial in the 1990s but was broadly accepted in the scientific community (e.g., by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other national academies); Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering the chemical mechanism that links CFCs to ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and is widely seen as a model for the Kyoto Protocol. The scientific basis of ozone depletion has been disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Kary Mullis, Steven Milloy, Fred Singer, and Frederick Seitz. ”

“

Main article: passive smoking

By the early 1980s, concerns began to arise regarding the health risks of passive smoking and whether policy responses such as smoking bans are appropriate. Medical, governmental, and UN organizations such as the United States Surgeon General, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization have concluded that the scientific evidence shows that passive smoking is harmful. The risks of passive smoking were disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Richard Lindzen, Steven Milloy, Fred Singer (1994), Fred Seitz, Michael Crichton, Michael Fumento in 1997 the Cooler Heads Coalition (Consumer Alert) and the Institute of Public Affairs. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists criticism of the scientific consensus on smoking and on global warming was embodied in The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a lobby group directed by Milloy and established with support from Philip Morris and subsequently from ExxonMobil. Science advisors to TASSC included Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels. TASSC originally campaigned against restrictions on passive smoking, and later on global warming.

”

• Removing subsections "CFCs and ozone layer" and "Passive smoking and global warming". The core subject is the Global warming controversy, these two subsection are irrelevant to the central focus of this article and I am therefore proposing for its removal. We have enough trouble covering the primary subject than in going off and covering less relevant ones. In the first subsection, it possesses two points which may be reintegrated at a later time: (1) the Kyoto Protocol is modeled off of the Montreal Protocol, and to a lesser extent (2) than the former the scientific basis of ozone depletion has likewise been disputed by Global warming skeptics. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Although you stated that you were proposing removing these sections, I note that you in fact removed them. I agree however that they have no place in this article. The article already mentions that leading global warming sceptics were involved in similar campaigns questioning the science of second-hand smoke and CFCs. If readers are interested in these topics they can go to the relevant articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree to removal - there are lots of things I'm expecting to find when I come to these articles, but these are not amongst them. Less of this material might improve some of the problems I keep finding when visiting as a non-specialist. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy concerning the science

• This change is more challenging than the first. This section, "Controversy concerning the science", is the single largest section in the article spanning eleven subsections and a number of sub-subsections. Under WP:SPINOFF, part of our objective is to condense the key points into a summery section WP:SS, which does not attempt too peddle itself as the main article. In the past, the lead from the main articles have often provided for the most reasonable means in creating summarizing a summery section. This method is available for two subsections: "Existence of a scientific consensus" and "Antarctic cooling". The remaining nine subsection will likely have to receive a more complex summery system, which involves a sharing the content between this article and the main as to a one-directional flow from the former. The third alternative is to create a new article for those particular sections which have grown too large. I am unsure about the popularity of the third option, you guys don't seem to appreciate stubs, but it is viable. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Building upon previous methods ([1][2]), the first step is nearing completion. Sections scopes too narrow to be notable on the TOC level are meged into section that are; section titles are truncated to (1) raise the scope of the section and (2) reduce the burden on the TOC; section that have grown to possess too large are spun off into their own article; and section titles which are inherently non-neutral are merged into a single section, the divisions are still fairly rough, but we can smooth it out at a later time.

  For the last action enumerated, the concept of classifying "those who agree" and "those who disagree" are inherenty non-neutral and lacks argumenative maturity; many groups rather than polarizing their position attempt to qualify theirs. In this system where we separate the "sides", we inherently favor of opponents as: groups either have to identify with the proponent's claims or—if they so choose to qualify their assertions—automatically become classified as opponents. Our purpose is to remain as uninvolved observers, not active participants or mediators, we cannot use this system.

  One article, Consensus on climate change controversy, has been spun off and the scope of the section raise to possible includ three articles, although the thir article "Climate change denial" can be cut. I've used an express summery section, which takes the first paragraph of its containing sections. We may have to at a later time copyedit the main article so that we can use a lead flow systyem. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Trying to improve the prose. Don't need to enumerate every institute that supports the statement in the section IPCC, this confuses the reader. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing sections "See also" and "External links"

“

• Economics of global warming
• Glossary of climate change
• List of climate change topics
• Politics of global warming
• Scientific opinion on climate change

”

Related to debates

• A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming: Dr. James E. Hansen and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, November 20, 1998.
• 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
• Blue Planet in Green Shackles:What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom, by Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, first published 2007

Related to the hockey stick graph

• 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 E. Mann's famous graph.

Climate-specialized media

• New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (Considers global warming a "hoax")
• Friends of Science: Providing Insight into Climate Science (Skeptical of human-caused warming)
• National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration article, September 2006 Global temperatures 4th warmest on record/local U.S. temperatures 0.7 °F (−17.4 °C) below 20th century average.

Other media

• Climate change: A guide for the perplexed from New Scientist
• CO₂ or Solar? A discussion about the evidence for anthropogenic warming and the possible role of solar activity increase.
• CO2 Science Catalogs peer reviewed papers on Medieval Warm Period and other Global warming issues.
• Climate scepticism: The top 10, a list from the BBC of the top reasons why climate sceptics dispute the evidence that human activities such as industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation are bringing potentially dangerous changes to the Earth's climate.
• The Greenhouse Conspiracy: British television documentary aired in 1990, noting the lack of concrete evidence for global warming in 1990.
• MU Professor Refutes National Television Ads Downplaying Global Warming Engineering Professor Curt Davis says CEI TV Spots are Misrepresenting His Research.
• The Denial Machine: Information about a documentary arguing that the fossil fuel industry kept the global warming debate alive long after the science had been settled.
• Global Warming or Global Governance? (Google video) - the other side of the global warming story
• Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics by Marcel Croc, translation by Angela den Tex, Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, February, 2005.

• Back to basics. The "See also" is partiucarly prone to link farming and have often been compulsorily added when it in fact is entirely unncessary. The function of this section is to link to related topics, which is already accomplished by the {{Global warming}} navigational footer box and throughout the article using the {{seealso}} and {{main}} navigational links. The "External links" is too easily prone to advocacy and likewise link farming with the utter lack of a serious criteria of inclusion; historically this section have either been used to "vouch" for the article (which is now accomplished by "References") or to provide a means to expand the reader's knowledge. Both these functions can be accomplished through the "References" section. Essentially, the criteria of inclusion is inherently implemented with WP:RS: if it's good enough to be used as a reliable source, it's good enough to expand the reader's knowledge. With the "External links" the "References" also recieves greater emphasis, from which we can accomplish both goals in one section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree to removal I suppose - I keep finding there's no link to material I come looking for. However, my NPOV meter will not deliver a better score simply because I find "Happer" or "soot" or "Antarctic" in the "SEE ALSO" section. That will only leave me wondering why, if those people/influences are important why they're not discussed. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

History

• "History of public opinion" has been renamed to "History", therefore raising the scope of the section. "Related controversies" may not become relevant to the central focus of the article as it provides context to the current controversy. In my opinion this section should be covered in greater detail, however, we can do so at a late time. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ordovician

I strongly object to removing the section on Ordovician CO2 and temperatures as "irrelevant and not notable". The CO2 concentration was 14 times today's value, but the temperature was only 2°C warmer than today. If true, this would completely discredit the global warming theory. The usual explanation that the Sun was about 4% dimmer should also be included even though it produces only about a 4°C change. In addition, because some of this information has been in the article since before January 2008, it should not be deleted without discussion. (I actually prefer the older version.) Q Science (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed... it should stay or at least be discussed thoroughly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Completely discredit" is a drastic overstatement. Evidence from the Paleozoic is limited, and we need to have a handle on the whole atmospheric cocktail, with only the rock record for our information, before making statements like that. If we think doubling CO2 causes a 3 degree C temperature rise, and approximate 14 as 16, we're going 4 doublings for 12 degrees C higher. There is going to be some response in the Earth system to this. Oh, and discussion is fine by me. I personally think that if it is included, it should address the broader geologic temperature record: the Ordovician is a nice place to start, but there is a wider context. Awickert (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)There is just the little trouble that its not controversial (afaik). And in fact the linked articles tell us that its a confirmation of theory. Your comment above is pure original research on what you personally find controversial or strange (the "usual explanation" etc). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There's the added trouble of WP:SYN in that part as well, try to actually read the references and then read the text.... Someone wanted to create some controversy here methinks.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I just skimmed through the article, and I don't see anything about the 2°C mentioned at the top of this thread. What's the source for that? I agree with Kim - no controvery - the author simply tried to reconcile the glacial evidence with the CO₂ evidence. Awickert (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

2°C is weakly referenced from Ordovician period and is supported from the graphs by dragons flight. As stated above, 4 doublings should produce a temperature rise of 12°C, but the reported rise is only 2°C. Oh, and it was warmer than today during an ice age. Q Science (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It may not be controversial but it adds a form of reference to this article and helps readers see see things from different angles. Boy this sure isn't discuss for awhile and then make a decision when it's deleted again instantly. You have to give other editors time to reply. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to reverting, I read the sources and changed the statements for factual accuracy. Diff. The major difference is that the summary of the second article (well, press release) was acutally wrong; looks like people don't know if the events were actually synchronous. In response to Q Science, yeah, the 12 degrees/2 degrees thing shows that there must be some feedback to stabilize things, but I don't think we know the time-scale, and definitely doesn't show that the CO2 doesn't cause a warming that is (geologically) rapidly stabilized to a more mild warming. I'll check around for temp sources - geological temp record is generally sort of vague for want of data. Awickert (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the second article is a press release of a GSA abstract. I'm looking for a real source. I've found his PhD thesis abstract, where he explains a bit more, but it might not be published-published yet. Awickert (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

They do in their published work look at feedback links between sea level changes and weathering, and specifically at drops in atmospheric CO₂ with respect to Ordovician glacial periods [41]. Once I get a better handle on the literature and if existence of the statement is decided upon, I'll remove the current Appalachian stuff and replace it with this peer-reviewed study. Awickert (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ordovician period was about 450 million years ago. The climate during that time wasn't just affected by CO2 but by other very, very major influences. In just one example, the land masses were in a completely different place from where they are now; see e.g., here. There would have been no Gulf Stream (because there was no western boundary as at present), a dramatically different thermohaline circulation, and the like. Another example, solar luminosity also was about 4-5% less than present. And so on. The study of Ordovician climate, while interesting in an academic sense, has no direct parallels to present climate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Boris. Mishlai (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Boris hit some of the big points. Adding onto that, the Ordovician lasted 45 million years. If we look at the last 45 million years, temperature has varied widely, from tropical periods to ice ages. Although we think that the Ordovician was overall 2 degrees C hotter, we don't have the resolution for the fine-scale variability. From what I've read, people who are working on decoding the higher-frequency signal do think that they see proxies for drops in CO2 associated with the glaciations. Awickert (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(see section: Risks of passive smoking)

This text is to be found under the section "funding for partisans" and links to the section "risks of passive smoking" in this very article. However, no such section exists and the text (and link) should either be removed or edited to link to the article on the passive smoking debate. Since it seems to only be there to provide another example of partisan funding, it should either be removed or, at least, reworded to note that it is only suggesting such an example. I can't edit this myself as I'm not a Wikipedia member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.154.200 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

John Gardner quote

The statement by John Gardner in 1957 is not relevant to this article. It should be removed. Q Science (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There are newer and more relevant papers that make this point, e.g. here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only that but its Martin Gardner not John (any of them). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, that Martin Gardner! The Annotated Alice is one of my very favorite books. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Deletion of editors' contributions on talk-page

Deletion of the post below was the subject of a request for third party comment;

There should also be more exposition of the defective science used to claim man made global warming effects such as the false claim of global temperature sensitivity to albedo variations and the assumption that the Earth radiates like a black body. This assumption is based on the confusion reflection with absorption/emission, unsound science of the type used by advocates of perpetual motion, amusing but wrong.--Damorbel (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In my view, it should be obvious that the above makes no constructive contribution to discussion on this article. It offers no concrete suggestions as to WP:RS which might be included in the article. It risks inflaming discussion and making the talk-page a less enjoyable and productive environment for all editors.
Note that I do not intend this to imply that any particular view on Global Warming is off-topic, only that discussion should be restricted to material which makes a constructive contribution to the article.
The only fault I find with the initial deletion is that the editor making it offered no explanation of the decision to delete. But even that should not be strictly necessary for those editors familiar with the WP:TALK guidelines, especially given the obviously problematic nature of the post concerned.
Regards, Muzhogg (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(Hopefully) Non-sidetracked section on updating the polling section

Please don't derail this talk page section, as the other two have been. Leave the debates of the strength of the consensus/Al Gore/"denialism" to the sections above (ideally, this wouldn't be on this talk page at all but let's be realistic). The question remains unanswered: the latest polls under the "public opinion" section of this article are from 2007, and show radically different results than newer polls like this one. Does anyone object to that section being updated and overhauled? Oren0 (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment indicates that you believe that the results can be compared, which they can't. They ask different questions - and thus get other results. Check if the polls we current show have been updated. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the different question. Also, the Rasmussen poll does not mention sample size and uncertainty (at least not on the page you linked to), usually a must for serious polls. How reliable are they? But in general, yes, I think updating the section is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan Schulz (talk • contribs)

Many of the articles on elections have nice tables of polls that are compiled. Perhaps we could have one with [date] [question asked] [percentages of respondents per answer] [who/how polled]. Although I mentioned my laziness before, I'll pitch in to search for polls if someone else spearheads. Awickert (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

@Kim: My comparison was an editorial comment rather than a suggestion for inclusion. I'm not suggesting that we replace the polls currently listed, but I do think that newer polls should be included as well where appropriate. Is there a reason you believe that updated versions of the current polls would be more appropriate to include than, e.g., the Rasmussen poll (which provides trend data as well)? Oren0 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I googled "global warming poll" and there were a number of nice results, so the data are definitely there. If someone (Oren0?) wants to sandbox a polls section, I think it would be easy to start pasting and organizing the info. Awickert (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Often Changing Position of one S. Fred Singer

Hello all. I wonder if someone could add Fred Singer to the "Changing Positions of Skeptics" section. In the article Unstoppable disinformation every 15 minutes from Fred Singer are links to his previous firm denials of any global warming. He reversed this view just a few years later by stating that global warming is "unstoppable" - but it's caused by the sun (and there's nothing we can do about it so don't even try). Actually he's made many comments that seem to vacillate back and forth, no, yes, no, yes which you can see here. I think this is a classic case of the changing position of a rather prominent skeptic. 63.196.193.251 (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reversion at "infrared hypothesis"

This contribution was removed "If confirmed, this effect might reduce the positive "amplifying" feedback assumed in climate model" with the justification "climate models make no such assumption" Exactly the point made, thus far a valid point.--Damorbel (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This article ignores recent polling done on Global Warming...

It seems the tide is turning in favor of the "denialists" because of recent public opinion polls. It seems global warming and the environment are at the very bottom of polls where people are asked what they most care about. Out of 20, it is 20. It also seems more scientists are coming out every day to challenge the "consensus" of man-made Global Warming. Also, I believe over half of the US is against the idea now. This article should include recent polling data, seeing as there have been some very recent shifts.PokeHomsar (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources, please? The recent poll provided by Oren0 above actually showed a continuing trend in the general public to accept the predominant scientific opinion on global warming even in the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people

That should suffice for now.PokeHomsar (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you calling for recent polls? "While the numbers are close, this is the first time more voters see human activity as the primary cause of global warming since January", from the June edition of the same poll at [42]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2009/01/global-warming-polls-dead-last.html

Here you go.PokeHomsar (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So? That poll is about priorities, not about acceptance. It's quite normal that people are more concerned about their immediate needs than about topics that develop over decades. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it, do you? Politicians, in this economy, will see no reason to meddle with it while there are more pressing situations. And when the world is showing a significant cooling trend starting, Al Gore is out of work.PokeHomsar (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I fail to get it. I'm interested in the best possible science and in the best possible and most fair presentation of that science. I have no particular concern for Al Gore or his career, and only very minor interest in US politics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we can agree that global temperatures change. There is just no agreement on what causes it, what to do about it, and what will happen if we do nothing. That's the problem. The earth is warming/cooling, but we don't know why, what to do about it, and what would happen if we did nothing.PokeHomsar (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't generate from a sample of one. "We", as the in the scientific community, have a rare level of agreement about the warming, about the causes, and about the range of likely effects. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore vs. scientists. Try that. His predictions are apocalyptic vs. the "likely" effects, which is my whole point. This whole debate has left the realm of science and fallen into the realm of politics. This is what happened to evolution, abortion, bat corking, and several other things. Facts just don't matter anymore. This whole international debate has become a shouting match.PokeHomsar (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

First you claimed that the "tide was turning in favor of the denialists" when nothing of the sort has happened; then you cited an out-dated Rasmussen poll which is contradicted by newer ones showing an increase in public support for AGW. You also falsely claimed that "There is just no agreement on what causes it, what to do about it, and what will happen if we do nothing." when in fact we have a pretty good idea about what causes it, what to do about it, and what will happen if we don't. [The only thing about which there is real uncertainty is the degree of damage that will occur if it continues].

It's amazing to me that you can, with a straight face, lament that "facts just don't matter anymore" when your last half-dozen comments on this page have consisted of setting up one canard after another. Talk about chutzpah. Raul654 (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) A small correction is required, your previous comment should have read: "You also falsely claimed that 'There is just no agreement on what causes it, what to do about it, and what will happen if we do nothing.' when in fact [AGW scientologists have deluded themselves into believing that they] have a pretty good idea about what causes it, what to do about it, and what will happen if we don't." Disclaimer: the term "AGW scientologists" is not meant to refer to any former, current, or future Wikipedia editors.

As far as the polls discussed above are concerned, the one that relates how people view the importance of AGW relative to other social concerns would be valuable information to help our readers to put the entire AGW topic into a proper perspective. Are there objections to including it? --GoRight (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Gee, whoever are we to believe? Those evil government-funded climatologists preaching global warming doom to scare people into funding their research? Or those ever-reliable scientists funded by the oil industry, who may or may not actually have degrees in climatology or related fields, who wiled away the 90s denying the link between cigarettes and lung cancer? Raul654 (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Some Americans don't trust anyone affiliated to the government Count Iblis (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a morality tale here. The people who follow that bankrupt ideology spent most of the last 20 years trying to make government as non-functional as possible. And what is the result? The FDA, run by big Pharma lobbyists, fails to stop all sorts of bad drugs from making it to the market; the department of agriculture, underfunded and lacking in inspection authority, fails to stop contaminated spinach and tomatoes from entering the food supply; and FEMA, run by an incompetent political appointee, utterly flubs the Katrina response. (And my personal favorite - putting true wingnuts in charge of EPA to hasten the destruction the environment in order to bring on the rapture) Fortunately, now that everyone knows you can't trust them for anything more demanding than local dog-catcher, they're going to spend the next few decades in the minority. Raul654 (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinion polls seem to be a great pulse of the controversy, especially if several could be compiled... something I unfortunately do not have the motivation to do. Awickert (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Raul654, the fact of the matter is, the debate continues whether you like it or not. When I said the tide was turning is that more and more scientists are questioning the "consensus." And there's no clear evidence that we're causing any of the problems. When we were burning crazy amounts of coal during the 30s, 40s, and 50s, the global temperature went down. And you also seem to forget that the scientists in the 70s were warning about the "consensus" they had reached on global cooling. Many of them were warning we'd be in the next Ice Age by the year 2000. You see my point?PokeHomsar (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"More and more" - who? From what I've read, more and more skeptics are moving to the consensus. No clear evidence - what evidence? "Crazy amounts of coal" - what constitutes crazy and what is it compared to what's going on today? What is the lag time? From what I've read, the 70's was more of a popular scare than scientists doing anything; AFAIK scientists just didn't have enough data to know what was going on in the 70's, so the media latched onto one idea... but I could be wrong about this one. So no, I don't see your point; there is more scientific consensus on global warming than basically anything else (well, barring classical mechanics and friends). Awickert (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

3,000 scientists came out recently against global warming. That's not just some few lone skeptics. That's a big number, including some of the most revered people in their fields. There is no consensus on man-made global warming. I've gone through and read both sides. Al Gore is exaggerating the "problem" to apocalyptic levels. The conservatives make a better case and use actual evidence from past patterns to prove their point. The debate continues.PokeHomsar (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting this 3000 number from? Is it another one of those James Inhofe-authored lists, which he comes out with every few months only to have half the people on the list say they believe global warming is real and ask to be taken off? (Requests which he ignores) Or is it another one of those ever-reliable internet polls, which include Spice Girls, fictional lawyers, retired people, and very, very few people with degrees in a field relavant to global warming? Raul654 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with Raiders of the Lost Ark? Indiana Jones: "Who?"; Government official: "Top. Men." So I ask the same question: which "revered people in their fields"? I'd love to see the better case that the conservatives make; my POV (which I try to make clear) is that I would love to see AGW disproven (make my life and work easier), but I have seen very little scientific evidence to convince me that it is not real. Awickert (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful if you (PH) would add sources to your claims if you are interested in a useful discussion. If you talk about the Oregon Petition, their nominal definition of "scientist" includes someone with a Bachelor in Nutrition. In the US, about 29% of the population gets a Bachelor or better[43] - now that's a selective criterion. The operational definition apparently also includes dead people and comic characters. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't the presence of "dead people and comic characters" balance the opposing presence of media hacks like discredited CBC reporter David Suzuki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Back of Beyond (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Suppressed EPA memos?

It turns out that Obama and the EPA suppressed memos that contradicted Obama's position on cap-and-trade. It showed that the Earth will cool until 2030 and that CO2 is not a pollutant. It was a 98 page report... Want links? Although, it seems not a single media operation except for Glenn Beck is covering it...PokeHomsar (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It turns out you're [PA removed - WMC]. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/ William M. Connolley (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The man who wrote the report showed the graphs for the report on Glenn Beck this afternoon. I'll try to get the clip later...PokeHomsar (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Alan Carlin went on Fox and Friends this morning... This link has a transcript of the relevant conversation:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sam-theodosopoulos/2009/06/30/meet-alan-carlin-epa-s-inconvenient-voice PokeHomsar (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a "teach the controversy" diversion, and the posters here are too cautious to call you out on your ideologically driven postings. I counted 83 pages, by the way. Did you even bother to read the crap that you reference? For those 83 pages, only 3 pages of references? I have more references for a ten page journal article, let alone something submitted for the use of the EPA. I suppose that can be explained by the fact that the author was an economist, rather than a scientist. Would you suggest that bad work is suppressed, or just deemed unfit? Ninahexan (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering it is a report and not an article for a paper and, thus, has less quotes of people (where most of your references are of) and more scholarly papers quoted. A scholarly quote and analysis can span several pages. Also, the graphs in the report speak for themselves. That's the real meat of the memo.PokeHomsar (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

References come mostly from citing previous research, not quoting. Articles are also for journals, not just papers. The graphs speak for themselves? Then no mention needs to be made about how the data was compiled, analysed etc? The "memo" that you think was suppressed was poor work, and was deemed unfit. If the author knew that the deadline for that sort of information had passed, then releasing it at that time reeks of it being politically staged, knowing that it wouldn't get scientifically scrutinised. I see through the attempts at obfuscation. The only question that remains for me is- do they get paid for doing this? Ninahexan (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Graphs never speak for themselves, not even such simple graphs as change in population over time. They always require interpretation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The graphs that show global temperatures going down until 2030 don't speak for themselves for anyone with an ounce of common sense?PokeHomsar (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You, as well as the EPA "analyst", suffer from a severe case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. -Atmoz (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Or you suffer from it for not wanting to even accept the possibility that this memo speaks the truth.PokeHomsar (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I was quite willing to accept that the memo was truthful -- before I had read it. Upon reading it I found otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Suppressed? Mk was actually the first person to bring this up. Here's the oldid.[44] Here is the link to the report.[45] Here is a link to Fox news, they had an article on this.[46] Here is the IPCC's AR4WG1 TSD.[47] I'm not going to review reliable source. The report is a critique of the IPCC's technical summery, calling it "out of date in a rapidly chaning field"(page 6). Now, the first argument was whether or not the EPA is suppressing anything. The CEI, the people who headed the report, can certainly publish the report without the EPA. The report is a draft, draft reports get rejected; the EPA, now under the new adminsitration, seems to be expressing discretion. Those blogs you've cited seem to be scoring political points. Tell you what, when the CEI actually publishes this, give us the link. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest claims to know/see/read "the truth" have little place in this Wiki article. This memo is widely reported [48], that the EPA took action indicating that they wanted to avoid public discussion is clear to all. Boris, this "truth "is your own and as such must be respected but it has no place in Wikipedia, the policy is very clear[49].--Damorbel (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to ignore that we have reliable sources (well, additional reliable sources - Boris is plenty reliable) about the truthiness of the memo. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Boris is plenty reliable" the evidence for this seems to be his statement "I was quite willing to accept that the memo was truthful -- before I had read it" which is fine but it is a POV completely unsupported thus quite out of the NPOV Wiki requirement. There is nothing else that supports your assertion, something better please.--Damorbel (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that and why Boris is a WP:RS for this topic. But that's neither here nor there - we do have other reliable sources, in particular the opinion of noted climate scientist Gavin Schmidt pointed out above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And what precisely does Gavin Schmidt (nice guy) have to say on the matter? Its no good just giving a name, this is just obfuscation and time wasting. --Damorbel (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Read. Learn. Evolve" (with apologies to TPN). If you do read, you will find Schmidt's opinion as linked above and read his opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that "Boris is a WP:RS"? To quote WP:RS "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians". At the very least Boris should not be anonymous, surely this a complete contradiction of "Wikipedia:Reliable sources". Where is the verifiability of Boris's "Truth". I would very much like to check Boris's assertions but i don't have the means to do this, do you?. As it says in verifiability "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"; I would like to see verifiability from Boris, without it time and space are wasted. --Damorbel (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you don't know that Boris is an RS. I've never claimed that you know it. However, I do and he is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Boris is an RS." Where is this in "Wikipedia:Reliable sources"? I can't find anything in here Wikipedia:Reliable source examples either. In the light of this guidance I cannot take statements like "I've never claimed that you know it" as a positive contribution; I think you need to do better. --Damorbel (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rule 5, Stephan. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Tchako Alpha 3 Charly, GL! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What is "Rule 5" Boris, does it have anything to do with Wikipedia? Do you have a Wikipedia:Reliable sources for it.--Damorbel (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? Reliable source? But he's only a professor at a State school...an Ag school at that. C'mon, even I have a Ph.D. from a a "state" Ag. school. Obviously you can't take them seriously :) Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

When did I ever say I wanted to be taken seriously? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

More recent public opinion polls?

The public opinion section seems pretty outdated. Is there a reason the latest data we have there is from 2007, when new polls like this one are being conducted on a regular basis? Oren0 (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion also is too shallow. We should note how the polling data show the disconnect between the state of the science and the public perception of the science; for example, about 2/3 of the public mistakenly believes that scientists "disagree a lot" on the issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of scientists disagreeing on the issue.... but not climate scientists. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

it should also ne noted that public opinion on GW is very different in the states vs the rest of the english-speaking world. man-influenced GW is not really seen as controversial in the UK and Australia. the "controversy" is more focused on what to do about it. Mjharrison (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the NASA report released on June 5, 2009, kills the man-made global warming debate...PokeHomsar (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the 31,000 scientists who signed the Oregon petition show clearly that the science is not settled. The public may indeed be correct, that scientists "disagree a lot" on this issue. Or do we simply disregard the petition and continue pretending that we have all the answers we need? Back of Beyond (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That canard is now dealt with in the FAQ. To wit - the lists have no crediblity whatsoever so we give them no weight. Raul654 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to respectfully disagree. The FAQ has no credibility, either. It's now widely accepted that it was assembled by high-school journalism students with no scientific qualifications whatsoever. Let's try to elevate this discussion to at least the BSc level. No scientist would ever try to crush a discussion with FAQs. Back of Beyond (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ cites numerous reliable sources. You cite a debunked petition. You lose. Raul654 (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sure. Now you're a referee with a whistle. No wonder this article is such a junkpile of nonsense. Back of Beyond (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we can not find credible lists to support the sceptics view, and those lists that do exist do more harm for the position because they contain such inaccuracies (I believe one list had people asking to be taken off of it, and the makers of the list refused because they wanted to increse their numbers). rather than trolling this board Back from Beyond (you tried that on the AA board as well) would you care to bring in some WP:RS To back up your claim.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Observation

As of today, we have 307 confirmed sock puppets of User: Scibaby, 120 suspected socks, several that no-one categorized, several that are pending investigations, and probably a number of sleepers. As we all know that it is completely valid to generalize from a sample size of one, we can safely assume that astroturfing makes the opposition to the mainstream opinion on global warming appear to be about 500 times larger than it actually is. Where do we put this gem of information?  ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby looks notable enough to be mentioned on the global warming controversy article and the global warming denial article. Count Iblis (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm...neutrality?

I have only read a fraction of this page so far (down to greenhouse gases), and the large majority of paragraphs I read up to this point seem to primarily be concerned with disproving the "deniers"' arguments, rather than factually showing the issues from both sides.

Segments and sentences like

• "The Canadian science broadcaster and environmental activist, David Suzuki, reports that focus groups organized by the David Suzuki Foundation showed the public has a poor understanding of the science behind global warming."
• "These criticisms have been described as 'failed' by William Connolley."
• "Attribution of recent climate change discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic GHGs. Correlation of CO2 and temperature is not part of this evidence. Nonetheless, one argument against anthropogenic global warming claims that rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) do not correlate with global warming."

are left standing all over the place without any juxtaposition to anything from those supporting hoax-claim.
Frankly, no matter which side of this you support, this page looks like a giant page of anti-hoax PR, written by global warming supporters to discredit hoax supporters through the power of Wikipedia's credibility. (Clearly violating NPOV in the process.)
imo, this page needs massive improvement to be in compliance with Wikipedia's statutes.

---

And just to make this clear, in expectation of the inevitable global warming support trolls who will come with excuses that that is due to the overwhelming evidence of global warming, yadda yadda bla bla: What I am talking about is independent from what which side believes is scientific fact. Even if one side clearly had all the facts on their side, that is no excuse to have a page about a controversy clearly biased towards one side of said controversy.
Besides, especially if you think that the scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming, you should have no reason to fear facing what they say.

80.171.27.69 (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Examples were chosen at random and have no particular rating as being the "worst", "best" or "outstanding" examples.

You referred to established editors as "trolls." You lose. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

the scientific evidence for global warming *is* overwhelming. whether you choose to *believe* it does not make it any less factually true; scientific fact is scientific fact. you're free to believe that the universe was created by a race of sentient purple mushrooms, but it doesn't mean that view should be represented on wikipedia. Mjharrison (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I came to the article expecting a discussion of both skeptics and believers, but I have to admit that I found it lacking. Personally, I think that the evidence for human's effect on the climate to be significant and likely to be the cause of climate change, but I wanted to read the opposing view in depth. Perhaps the article is lacking that POV because there is not much published regarding this, or that they are underrepresented in terms of wikipedia users. I'm not sure, but I do feel that the "Global Warming Controversy" title of the article is a little misleading, as reading this makes it sound like a fait accompli. Icemotoboy (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

From the beginning those that bring up opposing views have been set upon by the establishment in both this and the global warming article so you will need to look elsewhere for most of the opposing views and evidence. It's out there it's just not allowed here which is why most educators tell their students they are only going to get one side of the issue when they venture here. What is in this article though is very good just so long as you realize the limitations. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, there is not much depth to the sceptics position. There are very few original quality publications - most of the output are popular press snippets and think tank reports that can be adequately summed up as "anything but CO2". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This article definitely seems to be weighed more towards criticizing opponents of global warming. I would like to see it get a little more towards independent viewpoints. I've read the first two paragraphs, and it definitely seems to be taking a stance already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skelbley08 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think lack of an exploration of the opposing argument, damages any "pro" Human-caused Global Warming argument. I'd propose that unless the article can be balanced (and I'm not suggesting that it necessarily can), it really should be renamed too something more appropriate. I have no idea what it should be renamed too, though. I'm not even close to an expert on the issue, so I can't be much help. I'm also a global warming "believer", but I also want to read the opposing view as I think its extremely important that it be considered. Maybe I might just have to read some of the books out there! Icemotoboy (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the nonscientific controversies over global warming, so it's unsurprising if the discussion makes the controversies seem nonscientific. As for getting more info, the links are there....Brian A Schmidt (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let also point out that "balance" is often misinterpreted as "equal weight". But we don't give equal weight to the 2+2=5ers, or to the flat earthers. The arguments of the deniers are shallow, few, and often misrepresented by them and by the popular press (see e.g. [50]). There is very little dissent among qualified scientists, and what is even more surprising, there is wide and vocal support for the mainstream position as defined by the IPCC. See scientific opinion on global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this is an article about the controversy, I would think that more of the article should probably be devoted to the political debate, which seems to be much more active than the scientific debate. Within these confines, it might be possible to present the controversy outside of the bounds of what works with the science (the scientific portion of the article should handle that), but for what the voters and politicians and media say that defines the popular controversy. Awickert (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We should also have more on (mis)reporting of the subject in popular media. People have been told that there's a big controversy so when they read this article there's a dissonance with what they've heard elsewhere. The article contains hints of this divergence between popular reporting and the state of the science, but it might be helpful to break this out into a titled section "Coverage in the popular media." There are several academic studies that have looked at how press coverage gives a distorted view of the science (at least in the U.S.). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"The arguments of the deniers are shallow, few, and often misrepresented" (Schulz) Well, you gave a ref for the 'misrepresented', but your claims of shallowness and scarcity are not supported by the ref or indeed by the article, which doesn't really deal scientifically with the sceptical arguments (I notice you use the loaded term 'deniers'; don't), instead merely brushing them aside without adequate reasons. Please explain what you find shallow in, for example, the argument that temperature records started shortly after the Little Ice Age and hence will of course have a spurious upward trend? Or the argument that proxy-reconstruction methods for older temperature records use dubious statistical methods that attenuate past variability? Besides, no matter how "shallow" the sceptics' arguments, if they are widely held then they deserve fair and neutral treatment by the article. After all, we may not believe the Flat Earthers, but we make an effort to an unbiased analysis of their claims. Another example is the article on the 'Timecube' which treats the subject fairly even though it is generally considered to be crankish nonsense. PT (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article *does* discuss the controversy, it's just that the controversy is not as large as you think or hope it to be when one considers the evidence that is there. If the mainstream position, that GW is real, and is very likely to be in large part man-made, is solidy supported by the evidence, and held by 95%+ of scientists and 75% of the english-speaking world then it should be clear in this 'controversy' article that the opposing position represents a minority, dissenting view, especially when the majority of the "dissent" is opinion's NOT factual, referenceable evidence. Mjharrison (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is clearly biased by the media hacks who support the Global Warming issue. The CBC reporter David Suzuki being a prime example of an issue-driven media hack. The mere mention of Suzuki removes any credibility this article might have. The objective of the Suzuki-claque appears to be more "column-inches" at any cost in order to support their quest for government subsidies. The article needs a brisk haircut by the scientific community in order to restore even the tiniest little bit of credibility. What we have here is an insult to Wikipedia readers. Back of Beyond (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I agree. The part about confirming scientists... it basically says that "All scientists agree and that people who try and find scientists who disagree are downright wrong". This article really could use a revamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.181.234 (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that this article needs to be rewritten. The way it stands it is more of a refutation of ideas against human-caused GW than anything and is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. Part of the problem is that any dissension on the subject will be declared in violation of WP:RS. This problem seems to have occured to one extent or another in every article that I have read that is about dissenting theories from a mainstream idea. Perhaps there is a way to incorporate the "unreliable" sources that show that they are a minority and lack the weight of something published by a national academy? I understand that it needs to be clear that these opinions are a minority, however there is an entire page that talks about support for GW, we don't need a "defense of GW" page on top of that. Jmclark (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am just going to throw this out there, rather than having an article offer point by point on a position, could it be rewritten as a history of the global warming debate? there are enough kea points in history related to this debate to come up with a rough timeline and a set of ideas that have come out of those points. obvously the smoking gun from the Bush administration is one point, the Inconveniant Truth release immediatly followed by the UN scientific report, several papers that the denyers have relieced and the insuing controversy. while I don't know what the starting point would be, I am sure that people who research this topic know the first significant portion of the debate on global warming.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Nixon put global warming besides acid rain on the global agenda (of NATO!) in 1969, Maggy Thatcher and her fight against coal unions was quite useable inbetween. AGW has been shifting between left and right political agendas and being used to several means. Most has already been written however in Politics of global warming. What I lack here, is the obvious methology conflict, the main pro fraction is based on global modeling, while Naysayers as Pielke and Moderates as von Storch have underlined that global models (and treaties) are completely useless compared to risk assessments based on specific regional features, the role of land use being more important than global Co2 content. --Polentario (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I came to this page looking for a neutral article on Global Warming but all I find is editors putting up counter arguments to global warming one after another and then knocking them down. It just seems to me that this article looks more like a persuasive essay than anything else. I myself am not a great supporter of this thesis. The more I read about the issue the more it seems to me that people are just going with the flow without bothering to look anything up on their own (commenting on the survey results of course). Hey, look! My TV says burning fossile fuels are making the climate warmer! Let's stop! Oh, wow! That car says its environmentally friendly! Let's buy it! I live in Canada, and personally, I would love for the climate here to get warmer. But from what I've seen in the past half a decade, my summers are getting shorter and cooler, and my winters are getting longer and even colder. It's nearing the end of August and we've only had barely 2 weeks of real summer here in Toronto! I even remember having to wear my fall jacket going out in July! Then yesterday, a freak storm spawned four tornadoes in Vaughan and Durham and people are blaming Global Warming again! Now, I'm not saying that I'm against the whole concept of Climate Change. I'm pretty sure something is happening to our climate. But when editing an article about Global Warming Controversy, please making take a more neutral stance on the subject. --Jianyang55555 (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't know what you read, but I, and several of the editors here read the primary literature, the IPCC consensus reports, and any number of popular press articles and blogs. Some of the editors indeed contribute to the primary literature. You might want to take a look at scientific opinion on climate change and the GW FAQ. We do present a picture that reflects the weight in reliable sources - if anything, we give to much weight to the deniers. Yes, many people are uninformed and ascribe each and every weather event to global warming. But that's not a position we or the scientific community take - arguing against these misconceptions as if they were relevant to the informed position described in the IPCC reports is a classical straw man. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Section "Scientific" sub-section "Consensus"

The paragraph stating that " no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. " is out of date. As of Feb 2009, the Polish Academy of Science (a national Polish scientific body) issued a statement doubting the factual basis of anthropogenic global warming. I edited the paragraph to reflect this, including a link to a pdf of the translated document from the Polish Academy of Science, and this was reverted by some person who does not want this page to be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhall318 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but first of all the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS) aren't disputing the consensus - the link you gave was to a sub-committee, which isn't representative of the PAS (see Scientific opinion on climate change as well as the talk pages there, where this has been discussed), secondly the "EPA paper" isn't from the EPA, but a rejected draft. (see btw. above where it was discussed) And that is the reasons for the revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To wit: Undue weight to a subcommittee (which disagrees with its mother organization), and a rejected draft from the EPA. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

By not including a published verifiable opinion different from the majority opinion, you seem to be giving undue weight to the majority opinion. Also, the "rejected draft" was and still is supported by its author. It was an internal brief, not a draft for release. Why have an article on the "controversy" if we only repeat over and over again the "settled" nature of the debate?

The author supports material that he wrote? How remarkable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a background in science? How can you make an assertion like "CO2 emissions lead to global warming" when for 11 years now, CO2 emissions have increased and temperature has decreased? Also, where is the natural variability within the climate that would be expected independent of man's effects? Has anyone considered any of these? And yes, the author has come out and said "I was the person assigned to look into this until my results didn't match what my bosses wanted." Incidentally, I removed the EPA sentence, as it was not supported by the EPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhall318 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry - but please read Talk:Global warming/FAQ. Do some research - and yes people (and scientists) have thought about this. Please read and understand WP:UNDUE and WP:RS since the Carlin draft certainly isn't such one...... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• What a mental split between sentences 2 and 3. What do you get if you overlay a secular increase (from CO2) and natural variations? Yes, lots of people have considered all this - please see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read maybe their current SPM. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are many processes going on simultaneously. I'm sorry if I did not go into enough detail for you to follow my thought process through sentence 2 and then 3. If CO2 levels are the primary factor controlling climate change, we would expect that any natural (which I'm using to mean "non-anthropogenic") variability to be easily overcome by the change in GHG's. These are assumptions inherent in most current climate models. The creators of these models also assumed that the increase in global temperatures seen in the mid-1990s was due to CO2 forcing, with little or no effects due to natural variability. Sentence 3 was pointing out that natural variability has been ignored as a cause of climate fluctuations. Also, that's an odd use of "secular," usually used to mean "worldly" or "of this world" as opposed to "godly" or "not of this world": one would not contrast "that which is of this world" from "that which is of nature"/"natural." Also, one of the things the subcommittee of the PAS (incidentally, the geologic sciences are from where most of our evidence for anthropogenic global warming come: ice core samples; so one would assume they might have some small measure of expertise on the subject. It would be good if you would understand the underlying science, rather than taking someone else's word for it.) mentioned was doubt about the methods of the IPCC. And lastly, I've apologized for initially including the Carlin document; I was under the mistaken impression, initially, that it was a document released by the EPA. I should have known that a governmental organization would never release any document that would potentially show that it didn't need to get bigger.Jeffhall318 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see secular variation. I'll leave it to Boris to inform you about what assumptions are not "inherent in most current climate models", as he always seems to enjoy choosing the proper words for that. You might want to take a look at Attribution of recent climate change and in particular at File:Climate Change Attribution.png to find out how much natural variation has been "ignored". And I'd appreciate it if you would not make unfounded assumptions about my understanding of science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I appologize if you felt the comment about understanding the science was directed at you; you were not the one doubting the geologic science's contribution to the study of global warming. Nice graph through 1990. Jeffhall318 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ice cores do show fine-scale lagging. However, they are a different beast: nothing was pouring CO2 into the atmosphere to trigger climate changes in the Quaternary. Rather, current scientific understanding is that Milankovitch forcing caused temperature changes that resulted in CO2 being liberated that resulted in more temperature changes ergo glacials and interglacials. That's the 2-sentence summary, and I think that this is considerably off-topic for this article. Awickert (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Clear violation of wikipedia standards

To redirect criticism of global warming to this article is wrong, global warming controversy and global warming criticism are not the same thing. The global warming criticism article should be a list of criticisms made by others of global warming perhaps with a list of counters by global warming scientists at the end. As it stands this is intended to discredit said claims, and is not written from a neutral position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.102.13 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Solar variation section, no Pacific Decadal Oscillation?, etc.

PDO should be mentioned since it is usually part of skeptical arguments against AGW being primary cause of recent warming. related to Nature paper about warming being on hold for 30 yrs or so, counterarguments about "weather" vs. "climate", short-term trends vs long-term trends, cherry picking to create trends, recent temp trends being flat or not, etc.

also the "Solar variation" section and subsequent headings are a bit disorganized. Perhaps divide into two sections?

1-"Alternative hypotheses" section that lists solar variation, natural causes (some geologist viewpoints), PDO, cosmic ray cloud nucleation, iris cloud effect, etc. that offers alternative theories to AGW ...

2-"AGW criticisms and debate" where the issue is primarily criticism about methodology or supporting evidence such as instrumental records (urban heat island), climate modeling, arctic/antarctic ice melt, ocean temps, sea level rise, temp predictions/forecasts, weather vs. climate debate, Vostok ice core samples CO2 800yr lag / CO2 sensitivity arguments/counters, aerosol cooling effect/sensitivity, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.81.68 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Notice

Please retain this notice for at least 2 weeks to allow interested parties time to see it. I feel that editors who are interested in Global Warming or Climate Change related articles may also be interested in participating in the following RfC: RfC: How should this page be disambiguated? --GoRight (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

American Petroleum Institute Astroturffing

Would anyone care to include information on API's recently revealed "secret game plan" to whip up popular discontent against President Obama's climate change bill (borrowing from the success they perceive that rightwingers have had in whipping up manufactured rage against his health care reform)? API is funded by the usual suspects in Big Oil. [51] (PDF) More here [52] 4.246.206.237 (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed structural change

I think that organizing this page based on various issues and the position of both sides on each issue makes it virtually impossible for a non-scientist to comprehend the large picture differences between both sides.

I think that it would be much better if the page has only two sections listing *facts* in support of each point of view.

I'm rather skeptical that my proposition would be implemented; a desire for clarity could indeed be perceived as POV pushing. IMHO, the current obfuscated format of the page serves the viewpoint in support of global warming because public opinion is on that side already (which doesn't mean that such a position is based on scientific evidence.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.30.243 (talk • contribs)

This articles purpose is not to be part of the controversy, but to describe it. "Just the facts" on climate change are irrelevant. What we try to organize are the published opinions on the controversy. You might e.g. be interested in [53], though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

The article contains a lot of quoted text. Is there not a policy or guideline somewhere that recommends against that? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Long term perspective

This article lacks a long term simulations on where we will be when fossil fuels run out and how our environmental dollars can best be spent. Does anyone doubt that humans we will consume all of our fossil fuels? Fossil fuels will run out, so where will our money best be spent over the next 100years? I believe this article strongly lacks this long term perspective and that it should be the heart of debates. In 100years, would we be better off spending money on preventing garbage, toxins and pharmaceuticals from accumulating in our environment than delaying the use of fossil fuels? Would serious famines be better avoided if we used up fossil fuels faster. This sounds counter intuitive but I believe long term modelling could prove this to be true. This issue is truly a long term issue, so please add a "100 year scenario" section to this article and do not pretend that fossil fuels will not be consumed. We really should be debating where our money should be spent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.34.146 (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We only report on the existing notable debate. If you have sources for your point, feel free to add it. And no, it's not a given that we will use all of our available fossil fuels - indeed, the term "available" is very elastic with respect to energy prices. 100 years is the about the standard projection period of the IPCC, and their conclusion is that more warming (driven by more fossil fuel use) is significantly more worse over that period. Again, if you have reliable sources that differ: This is a Wiki. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am hoping that someone can find studies which add some perspective to this article about the tradeoffs on how we spend our environmental dollars. I think it is extremely naive for us to believe that the world will not use the majority of available fossil fuels. How can this be quantified in a study? Excellent question, but you can be sure that the huge windfall fossil fuel endowed countries enjoy will not be stopped. No one wants to address this question because it seems pathetic for environmentalist to acknowledge we are incapable of change. Therefore, we continue to present climate change models which defy human capabilities and thus spend our environmental dollars unwisely. Is this not a worthy skeptical viewpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.34.146 (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think its not even a coherent viewpoint - phasing out fossil fuels for a soft landing when they eventually "run out" seems to be reasonable goal quite independent of the environmental effect. As for the "large windfall" - fossil fuels are only an economic boon if they are sufficiently cheaply to extract. Even now, German anthracite coal production is only kept alive due to politically motivated subsidies - economically they could just as well bury Euro bills in the mines. Yes, easily accessible oil fields will probably be pumped empty. But oil sands and coal tar, and many coal reservoirs, may never be able to compete with renewables, especially if we decide to subsidize clean(er) energies instead of fossil fuels. The IPCC models include "business as usual" scenarios, which hardly defy human capabilities, and the climate models are predicated on these economic assumptions. Anyways, this is besides the point. If you, or anyone, finds reliable sources, they are welcome. But we do not engage in original research here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

One comment..

I find it ridiculous that this page has so very few people arguing on it.. I usually hang out at forums about LIFT (the aerodynamic kind) and find there are thousands of voices wanting to add something.. This article seems to be virtually dead.. How come?????????????

I find it strange..

Might be because WP is not a forum. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It even says that at the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion...".--CurtisSwain (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Global warming controversy is not an encyclopedia article, it is a blog, a clone of RealClimate dedicated to defending one hypothesis and attacking the credibility of all other hypotheses as "skeptical". In the article the word "skeptic" or "skeptical" appears 22 times, it is only used by those claiming that disagreement or controversy over the greenhouse hypothesis is fundamentally misguided, false or even corrupt, it has nothing to do with Scientific skepticism. Similarly the greenhouse hypothesis proponents defend their position by claiming that no informed person can disagree with them, they claim that there is a "consensus" (21 times) about the greenhouse theory. Needless to say this entirely against the principles of Wikipedia and a misuse of the word. The very existence of this article is proof that there is no consensus, so "skeptical" authors should be properly represented here. In the Global warming controversy article the word skeptic is a title awarded to people and organisations who do not accept the editors POV, this has nothing to do with Scientific skepticism and is completely at variance with the principles of Wikipedia. --Damorbel (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article asserts that there is a consensus and it provides links to other articles that demonstrate this more fully. Clearly, consensus in this case means a majority of opinion, not absolute unanimity[54]. As for the use of the word "skeptic", you're right in that it's not used here to mean Scientific skepticism which is an "examination of claims and theories which appear to be beyond mainstream science." AGW clearly is mainstream science. The word "skeptic" is used here in the more common sense as in "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual" [55][56]. If you can think of a better word or phrasing to use, please suggest it. --CurtisSwain (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no -- we use "consensus" because that's the term applied by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society of Canada, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the French Academié des Sciences, the German Academy of Natural Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Science Council of Japan, the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the U.K. Royal Society, amongst others. If you feel those bodies have misjudged the situation you are welcome to contact them and notify them of their error. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"the term applied by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement.... etc., etc., etc." At least one link please, Boris! Or is this just your POV? --Damorbel (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific_consensus and the linked documents. Footnote 2 in the Joint Science Academies Statement is supported by all the academies Boris listed. Several of them and the AAAS have individual statements, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per WP:TPG - this has nothing to do with improving the article or even the topic of the article. Good advice has been given. Also, Rule 5 applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Global warming theory declares that planet Earth is warmed 33K by gases such as H2O, CO2 etc from 255K to 288K, this comes by declaring the temperature of a planet to be dependent on its albedo Temperature relation between a planet and its starwhere it declare the albedo to be 0.367 giving Te = 248.567K. But there is not even any consensus which albedo to choose,examples has two for every planet. Perhaps the consensus is found here Albedo or here Hyper Physics. Much is made of the angle of reflection when distinguishing between geometric and bond albedo to calculate planetary temperatures, where does one find any physics based explanation as to why the reflectivity of an object in space affects its temperature in any way? (Yes I've read all the truly dumb ideas based on "energy balance" and "black body in the infrared" but only believers in perpetual motion accept these.)--Damorbel (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Damorbel, please note that talk pages are for discussing ways to improve an article. They are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. Although the issues you raise are important, the Reference desk would be the more appropriate place for them.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote above is pure physics, nothing to do with POV. POV is the sort of consensus described in Boris' links above. Your failure to distinguish hard physics from opinion seems to indicate lack of expertise in the subject. When writing about physics 1/you must understand the matter thoroughly so that you are able to present the science correctly; which leads to 2/, your understanding will only be sufficient when you have verified the origins of the matter.

I notice that you concern yourself with Scientific opinion on climate change, why should this matter? The absence of the science presented by the august bodies mentioned in the link is painfully obvious, the controversy is all about this appalling deficiency.--Damorbel (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK people, I'm invoking Rule 5 here. This party is over. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about rule 5 Boris, is it just the same as rule 12? --Damorbel (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As I thought , we have seen Boris' Rule 5 before. Anything further to say? Usually you trot out the none-existent Rule 5 when the argument is lost, this time it's the whole global warming scam that is lost. You must be quite worried, having to resort to "funny" rules when trying to cut discussion on the rubbish physics behind the Greenhouse effect. Do you recommend this kind of behaviour to other Wiki editors? --Damorbel (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO! Count Iblis (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Iblis! ROFLMAO? (Rolling on Floor Laughing My Ass Off?) Is this what you wanted to say?. Don't be shy, first let it all hang out then, when that's finished, give us the technical stuff, you know you can!--Damorbel (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Carbon tax revert

I've reverted the following addition:

As part of the global warming controversy, some who object the notion that the warming is man-made claim that the man-made theory is only an excuse for imposing a worldwide carbon tax on either nations, corporations or individuals.

Controversies around carbon taxes (maybe even a worldwide carbon tax, but that strays into black helicopter land) are certainly a valid topic. But I've checked the sources, and they do not support the above text. Neither mentions sceptics, one is an opinion piece by a Chinese analyst who argues against US carbon tariffs, and the other is a factual description of a proposed carbon tax in France. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Add Category:Climate crisis

Add Category:Climate crisis 99.155.156.1 (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Severe PoV problems related to this catagory. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Current View

Shouldn't the article mention that only 36% of Americans believe that human activity is causing global warming? In the USA the idea that man is causing global warming is a minority view. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/22/climate-change-us-pew-survey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.11.87 (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've thought for some time that a tabulation of public opinion polls over time could be a helpful thing for this article, but have never cared enough about the topic to compile them myself. If you'd like to, I'd be available to lend some help, Awickert (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Even the Germans are recognizing the hoax now.

at Salon, originally from Der Spiegel [57] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.243.107 (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You want global warming, not here. And its been done to death already William M. Connolley (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Climate Gate

Shouldn't we mention Climate Gate, or is it too early yet? 84.72.61.221 (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should wait until all the chips fall into place, so to speak. Many things about this controversy are still unknown. But, the article on it is called Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tsk. Let's start compiling references, eh? To begin the list in no particular order (to which additions are cordially invited), including some blogs as sites on the Web where more Wiki-able citations are being posted: 71.125.136.27 (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • Stephen Dubner's Freakanomics article in the New York Times on 23 November 2009 [58]
    • An interview with climate historian Dr. Timothy Ball on 23 November 2009 www.infowarscom/dr-tim-ball-on-the-significance-of-the-cru-hacked-documents/
    • Kieth Johnson's piece in The Wall Street Journal on 23 November 2009 [59]
    • Steve McIntyre's comments on his Climate Audit site [60]
    • Anthony Watts' comments on his site, "Watts Up With That?" [61]

Apology

Apology for my last rather confusing edit summary "Tjbs". I had typed in "It isn't disputed that a small nunber of orgs dispute global warming", but when I committed this seems to have emerged a "Tjbs, perhaps some random keypresses gathered by the computer during my attempt to commit the edit. --TS 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have cats who type things like that for me when they walk across the keyboard. --Nigelj (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Religious analogy

Reference to extensive comparisons of anthropogenic climate change with religious indoctrination would be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.229.99 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Any reliable sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In terms of correlation I guess more sceptics are US right wingers who tend to be religiously indoctorinated. If anthropogenic climate change was transmitting using the processes of indoctrination which say John Bowker characterises in "Licenced insanities" (basically sanctioning intellectual dissent and encouraging recruitment) wouldn't it correlated with people who were susceptible, rather than reverse correlate? Or are you suggesting the belief sets are incompatible which gives immunity.--BozMo talk 09:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, over time I've both heard "God would never allow global warming to become a problem" and "global warming will not become a problem, because the apocalypse is near" - somewhat different, but very convenient claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One of Reagan's aides made a comment about "the world is a used Kleenex" along these lines about land fill sites. Funnily the Bowker book "licensed insanities" was specifically about the way in which apocalyptic beliefs allow people to act in a way which viewed rationally is insane; he was a decade early on twin towers of course.--BozMo talk 12:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Munk debate

What about including this in external links:

Munk Debate on Climate Change with Elizabeth May, George Monbiot, Bjørn Lomborg, Lord Nigel Lawson, 01 December 2009, with debate video.

--Pevos (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. Two politicos and two activists - couldn't they have gotten, say, a scientist or so? Not that scientists usually do well in debates, but still. Anyways, if secondary sources show significant impact, we can include it. Otherwise it fails WP:WEIGHT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The criteria in this case are WP:EL, 2. each participant in the debate has due weight, 3. the debate as a whole represents a NPOV. --Pevos (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't really see how this is notable, but you are mistaking "equal time" for NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely the debate was "notable" in view of recent scandal at the British CRU. After of the recent revelations of deceit and manipulation of data by British scientists, the scientific debate has been severely discredited. The scientists are now suspect until proven otherwise. They've been caught with their pants down. Therefore the argument must be continued by others while the scientists skulk off the conjure up a fresh lot of excuses. Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice, a consistent voice for measures to reduce the effects of AGW, was stunned by the British data manipulation scandal. “I take from what’s happened at the East Anglia institution is that there were some serious allegations of impropriety and some serious questions about the quality of the scientific work that was done there,” said Mr. Prentice yesterday. Sagradamoto (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, the allegations are wrong and the questions spurious, but otherwise that statement is not completely wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)