Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 7

Resurrecting Connolley's victims

Let's look at the first of Connolley's victims (to continue his unfortunate but appropriate analogy). Petr Chylek - is he notable, or not? A good objective way to judge scientific notability is citations. In the Science citation index, we find Chylek has written about 150 papers. His work has been cited over 3000 times. He has an 'h-index' of 32; this means that 32 of his papers have been cited at least 32 times. This is much higher figure than most scientists. For example if we take, say, a certain W Connolley, his h-index is 12. So who is the more notable? Apparently Connolley is, because he has a wikipedia page but Chylek doesnt. Paul Matthews 18:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC) In fact I have just seen Connolley's own criterion for inclusion above, "at least one publication within the ISI index in the last 5 years". Chylek has 18!

Notable has just been deemed as having an article of his own - then we can let the AfD (or lack thereof) process - determine notability. In other words write a stub on Chylek - and then readd him --Kim D. Petersen 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears this person [1] probably meets the criteria of WP:PROF. You're welcome to start Petr Chylek Nil Einne 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, where is it written in this policy that you mention that an academic must have an article about him/her on Wikipedia in order to be considered notable? Please stop making this fallacious relation (this applies to everyone here). --Childhood's End 21:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You persist in misunderstanding, let me try the obvious again. Its the other way round. You cannot be listed if you are non-notable. If you list someone non-notable, their article will be AFD'd and deleted and the entry will be removed William M. Connolley 10:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this and so far, I dont have a major problem with that. My objection comes from the fact that notability has been defined herein with the existence of an article on Wikipedia. It may just happen that some scientists are "notable" per the cited policy but that nobody cared to afford the time to create a stub. Again, I'd like to see no red links, but I think we should allow them. --Childhood's End 13:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. No one is saying that someone without an article is not noteable. What we are saying is that if they don't have an article then we don't know if they are noteable or not so we don't mention them Nil Einne 11:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not missing the point, but you are avoiding it. Fact is : scientists are now deleted if they have no article covering them on Wikipedia. This decision was made upon a notability concern, citing WP:Notability, whilst this policy quite clearly can consider "red links" as notable according to circumstances. --Childhood's End 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I agree PC is notable, but not that he deserves a place here, based on You really cannot say for certain what is causing current climate change. This does not contradict the IPCC (or my, FWIW) position William M. Connolley 10:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Petr Chylek now has a stub

Chylek is an interesting scientist. His article deserves more development.RonCram 14:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

William, why did you delete this section showing that Chylek has a stub? You claim Chylek has nothing to do with this page. That simply is not true. If it were true, why would you not delete all references on this page to him? The fact Chylek is a skeptic is clearly seen in his quote and the article about him being a skeptic. Quoting the Associated Press: "Chylek stood before the attendees _ both supporters of the mainstream view and well-known skeptics _ and argued that the "data are inconclusive" on whether greenhouse gases are responsible for changes already seen in the Earth's climate. "You really cannot say for certain what is causing current climate change," Chylek said in an interview." [2] This clearly differs from the IPCC viewpoint because the IPCC says more than half of the warming is due to greenhouse gases. I do not understand you sometimes, William. Did you think I would not notice this deletion? RonCram 12:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[incivility deleted - William M. Connolley]

Ron, you have to find a better quote for Chylek - the quote has to be self-explaining - inserting your own interpretation is not allowed. As WMC wrote earlier - as the quote stands it doesn't contradict the IPCC or the 3 consensus statements. Noone is claiming "certainty" - just that the evidence is saying "most" - i agree with the statement (but possibly not with the context). --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to find a better quote for Chylek. In this 2002 article [3] he appears to very carefully condition his skepticism on the discrepancy between the satellite temperature record data and the GCMs, e.g., "If we admit both sets of data [GCMs and satellite] as correct, then carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming." Since it turned out that the satellite data was wrong, this gives us reason to suppose that his skepticism might have lessened since 2002. Of course he may still be skeptical but my point is that this is all the more reason to require a specific quote. --Nethgirb 09:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ron, thank you for starting the page on Chylek. If we look at his web page we see "A common view on the current climate change (global warming) is that it is a result of fossil fuel burning and the following increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. In reality, there are several factors that produce the current climate change. Some of the most important are:

• natural climate variability
• variability of the incoming solar radiation
• increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide
• increase in atmospheric concentration of other greenhouse gases, especially methane"

This clearly puts him in the "The principal cause of global warming is unknown" category. Paul Matthews 12:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it puts him in the "making carefully crafted ambiguous statements" category, perhaps we should start it. If he wanted to say "The principal cause of global warming is unknown" I'm sure he would simply say so. Assuming he doesn't define "current" then I have no problem at all with his statement as fact, but misleading fact William M. Connolley 12:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul, note two of his factors that are most important;

1. increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide
2. increase in atmospheric concentration of other greenhouse gases, especially methane

Show me where he opposes the consensus. --Skyemoor 12:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides which, that appears to be his old web page, last updated in 2002. [4] A more current page [5] says "It is reasonably well documented that the man made pollution modifies the size distribution of water droplets in clouds toward smaller sizes which leads to higher cloud reflectivity and cooling of the climate (a partial compensation of the warming produced by greenhouse gases)."—Not an explicit statement but it seems to imply that he thinks greenhouse gases are the main cause of current warming. --Nethgirb 12:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The requirements you are putting on the quote are too limiting and appear designed to exclude qualified skeptics. The quote I used was from 2006 and did not contain any interpretation from me. I simply quoted the Associated Press reporter who indirectly quoted Chylek when he wrote: "Chylek stood before the attendees _ both supporters of the mainstream view and well-known skeptics _ and argued that the "data are inconclusive" on whether greenhouse gases are responsible for changes already seen in the Earth's climate." Then comes the Chylek quote saying: "You really cannot say for certain what is causing current climate change." Even the indirect quote contained a fragment of a quote. There is no reasonable question remaining whether Chylek is a skeptic or not. Not only is Chylek a skeptic but he is a leading skeptic who organizes conferences to discuss the uncertainties of climate prediction. Excluding him is truly beyond ridiculous.RonCram 13:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

beyond ridiculous—are you operating on a modular set? Seriously, though: those are the reporter's words. It's quite likely that he's a skeptic of the type that deserves listing here, but at the same time it's plausible that the reporter is overstating his skepticism or misrepresenting him. We need it straight from the horse's mouth. --Nethgirb 13:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But as pointed out before, "You really cannot say for certain what is causing current climate change."' is fully compatible with the IPCC position. Its no good saying "oh come on we all know he is a skeptic" - you just can't use that quote. Nor is using a press report on a conference reasonable - it should be statements made, not reported. Did the conf not issue proceedings? Why not quote from those instead? William M. Connolley 13:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

the ability of you people to argue that black is white is just astonishing. It's abundantly clear from his web page or from Ron's quote that his view is that there are many factors involved and we cannot say which is the most important, and that this is contrary to the IPCC position. Paul Matthews 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply claiming he is a skeptic without providing supporting evidence does not provide us with the facts to add him to the list. If you have stronger wording that clearly demonstrates he belongs on this list, then provide it. Quoting a reporter's paraphrasing does not meet the criteria for inclusion. --Skyemoor 18:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Since TAR

We've been over this a number of times; the title states opposing, not who at one time opposed. Much has changed in the way of consensus since the TAR was published; many sceptical or fence-sitting scientific societies have joined the consensus. Old quotes (i.e, > 7 years) are no longer valid unless supported by a more recent quote, which should be the one used. --Skyemoor 11:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that you can presume that a scientist changed his mind... --Childhood's End 15:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you can presume that a scientist has the same opinion, years later, within a rapidly evolving field of science. Please follow WP:BLP guidelines as we've discussed earlier - this includes checking that an old opinion is still representative of the individuals views. --Kim D. Petersen 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, the science has changed quite a bit. Someone's views on an obsolete state of the science are irrelevant to the current debate. Raymond Arritt 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As RA formulates it, I can agree. But what is now obsolete and what is not remains questionable. Climate models have evolved to a certain degree, but it's not like going from horseback riding to cars. I am not ready to assert that all comments made about 1998 models are irrelevant to the actual models. I although totally disagree with Kim's way; you can (and must) always presume that a scientist has the same opinion. You need to reverse the presumption by either showing that the science upon which the comment was made is obsolete, as RA puts it, or by showing that he retracted himself. --Childhood's End 16:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But what is now obsolete and what is not remains questionable.—fine. And when there is any question, the content does not appear in the article, per WP:BLP. Anything prior to the TAR, with no supporting comment since, is questionable. --Nethgirb 16:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CE's view on the evolution of climate modeling has to be taken seriously, in light of his solid experience base and deep familiarity with the literature. Tell me, what are your views on the present trend toward finite-volume dynamical cores versus spectral techniques? Raymond Arritt 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you're good at ad hominems. I'll say that my knowledge about this stuff about which you seem proud to be knowledgeable appear to be as good, and perhaps better, than your understanding of how to use references in an encyclopedia [6]. --Childhood's End 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Do tell us, though, on what basis do you feel that climate model development has stalled such that comments made on 1990s-vintage models apply equally to today's models? I assume you are sufficiently familiar with how the models work so that you are making your comment from an informed basis, and am curious as to your reasoning. Raymond Arritt 18:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you take a read at [7] ? Or at [8]? If a math PhD can draw parallels between ancient oracles and today's prediction tools, I guess that 1990's models are not totally irrelevant to today's models and that there are criticisms that were valid then that are still valid now (be it only the impossibility to model chaotic elements). Perhaps you could also read Dr. Lucarini's criticism to get an even better idea (now deleted from the list, of course). And if you read my comment again, you will notice that I didnt say models have stalled, I rather said they have evolved. Draw your conclusions. As a scientist, I am sure you can move ahead from there. --Childhood's End 18:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Childhood, you should defer to experts for Climate Science information. However, I'm not sure if any notable climate scientists spend much time trolling Wikipedia. Roger Pielke Sr.'s website is a very good place to look.67.141.235.203 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And before you recite Dr. Pielke Sr.'s website once more - please note that he is not a sceptic, as defined by this page and the guidelines in it. He himself commented on this issue (you can find it in the archives) when someone tried to include him. (yes - we all know him (or of him)) --Kim D. Petersen 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Was not at all implying anything other than it's a good site for discussion where many scientists regularly post. Interestingly, Pielke Sr. has said he's not a skeptic, he's a heretic. I've often wondered what he meant by that.67.141.235.203 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a term invented by his son - Pielke Jr. (iirc)[9] --Kim D. Petersen 18:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be surprised (or not) to find out how many scientists accept the prevailing view of the science and yet are "heretics" as Roger Jr. defines them. Raymond Arritt 19:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. And i'd say that it would be surprising if that wasn't the case. The unfortunate thing is that the few skeptics/deniers are mudding the water so much that legitimate "heretics" aren't being heard. Imho. quite a lot of them are afraid to be put into the same basket, as these skeptics/deniers (quite legitimate worry (imho)) - and thus keep their mouths shut. --Kim D. Petersen 19:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another reason you don't hear much is that the heretic thing is mostly a policy perspective, as I understand it, and a lot of scientists don't think much about policy. They're too busy developing better convection schemes or whatever. This leaves the field open to the "we're all gonna die" types on the one side and the "what, me worry?" types on the other. Raymond Arritt 19:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Graphic

Can everyone please comment on whether or not this graphic belongs on this page? Its creators are not listed on this page. Since this page is about "Scientists opposing the mainstream....." Why would it possibly be here except as a POV insertion?65.12.145.148 13:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually one of the creators (of the data) is listed on this page (Roy Spencer). I have no idea why it is on the page... --Kim D. Petersen 20:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears just next to a quote about the satellite temperature record and supplies valuable context William M. Connolley 20:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The satellite data remains controversial.Regardless, it's entirely POV, please remove it.67.141.235.203 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Noooo... that the satellite data shows warming is entirely uncontroversial, unless you mean "controversial" in the sense that "evolution is controversial" William M. Connolley 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. There are many notable climate scientists who maintain websites with useful information on them. One of them is Stephen Schneider. You could learn alot. For instance, "In reality, the satellite record is very controversial". Many amateur scientists go around spreading false information, you should look to reliable sources so you don't get fooled.67.141.235.203 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What *are* you talking about? I repeat, that the sat record shows warming is not in the least controversial. If you think otherwise, please provide a ref William M. Connolley 22:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference is Stephen Schneider's website. He's a notable climate scientist. On it he says "In reality, the satellite record is very controversial". (Sorry thought that was clear from the post above) Here's a link to his site [[10]]. As I said, there are a lot of good resources on the internet about the climate change debate. If you'd like I can provide you with some more links.67.141.235.203 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Schneider's website indeed seems to be rather nice, but it's undated. From the paper he quotes it looks like it is 2-3 years old. Back then, there still were some holdouts of the "the satellite record shows no warming" school. As far as I can tell, all except Ball have now given up this line. Christy and Spencer, the most conservative serious interpretation of the satellite record, is included in the diagram. --Stephan Schulz 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like you, anon, to actually provide a link to the paper that the quote comes from, rather than SS's site in general. Do you think you can do that? William M. Connolley 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to you to see his website. (It's on a tab labeled Contrarians, I believe.) Another scientist, Roger Pielke, Sr. has an interesting website with a lot of good information. Check out this link ,when you have some time, it discusses some of the controversy with the temp record [[11]]. You have to be very careful with simple graphics such as the sat. record posted on this page. Out of context they can be very deceiving. Climate science is very complex.67.141.235.203 13:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Several times I've asked you for a source for "In reality, the satellite record is very controversial" and you've always evaded. So I don't believe your quote exists William M. Connolley 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the quote is there (on Schneider's website, not in a paper). Search for it here, it's about 1/3rd down the page. Of course, it's discussing the old sceptics position "no warming, look at Christy's (wrong) data!", and the quote is taken completely out of context. It is used to introduce Fu et al, and the various corrections. The site seems to be a rather good and balanced treatment of the state of the art, albeit 2 years or so out of date. --Stephan Schulz 20:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bog everyone down in the details but you should also take a look at this. [[12]] On page 63, this paper discusses the controversy regarding the sat. temp record. Where it matters(in the tropics), the data sets disagree without any explanation. Leading the author to conclude "Resolution of this issue would seem to be of paramount importance in the interpretation of observed climate change central to this Report". It seems to me that's kind of a crucial piece to leave unexplained.65.12.145.148 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, among people who follow this closely this controversy is well documented.67.141.235.203 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Letter to Harper

I'm going to add the scientists whos signed the letter to PM Stephen Harper last spring. It is not a survey or a petition but a signed letter and is acceptable as that person's statement.DonaldDuck07 15:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Given Inclusion is based on specific, attributable statements in the individual's own words, please don't, it will only be reverted out again William M. Connolley 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

By signing it, and identifying themselves by name and title, they are clearly attributle to that person. Can a letter only be attributable to one person? Can a paper only be attributable to one person? Obviously not.If more than one person authors a paper, is that paper attributed to multiple authors? Obviously. The people are clearly identified, the letter is widely distributed, they signed their names and they are eligible for inclusion on this list. Your attempts to restrict this list have grown evermore pathetic.DonaldDuck07 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

in the individual's own words is the important bit William M. Connolley 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that one of the signatories has since recanted, saying the purpose of the letter was misrepresented to him, speaks well to the requirement that any statement be in the individual's own words. Raymond Arritt 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute... It may be a shock, but someone who signs a letter makes the words his own.

And if a signatory later felt discomfort, be it with the words or with the professional implications of opposing Kyoto, that's his business and in no way does it invalidate the others' statements.

I see no good reason why each of these signatories, except for the recanter and a few objectionable others, should not be quoted in the article, except for preserving the consensus idea. --Childhood's End 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to include him, anyone can change their minds (ie allegre). The letter was widely distributed by reliable sources and anyone who wanted to change their postion could and did. Do you think they don't know they are on the list?

(When you sign a letter, the letter is your own words.)DonaldDuck07 16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well such are the rules - and they are quite specific. And the discussion is on any terms mute - the letter to Harpers doesn't contradict any of the 3 statements. Its a letter about Kyoto - not about the scientific opinion nor the IPCC. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 16:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The rules should be changed because they are wrong. Paraphraseing you, 'we change them all the time'.Your lack of interprative skill is frightening, no offense.DonaldDuck07 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Then propose a rule change - and see if you can get consensus on it. I suggest that you read through the archives first though - so that you have a clear view of the baggage that this page has already accumulated. --Kim D. Petersen 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I have to mention though that you haven't mentioned why the rules are (so obviously) wrong - as it stands right now - it seems to be your own POV. --Kim D. Petersen 16:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be noted that the letter is mostly about Kyoto, but also contains these specific statements:

• Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future
• ... the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."

--Childhood's End 17:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Childhoodsend - yep exactly - it is mostly (i'd say close to 100%) about Kyoto. The two statements (actually only the second) are minor things - that would most likely be (deliberately) overlooked when signing, if you have deep enough political feelings about Kyoto. All petitions that i've signed so far, have had small parts that i didn't like - but where willing to overlook as they where minor - and the issue important. Which is why petitions are a bad source for this page (perhaps if it had been primarily against the IPCC/consensus - we could've discussed it). --Kim D. Petersen 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I dont think that you should make assumptions based on your personal experiences. A scientist that signs a letter about science in his professional capacity, addressed at Canada's Premier and obviously at the public, is quite more likely to support it at 100% imho. Besides, the two statements are not insignificant in the context - they explain why they think Kyoto should be revisited. It's more or less the very basis of the letter. --Childhood's End 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Two comments - this letter is not about science - its about politics - and its entirely possible to agree completely with the IPCC and still be opposed to Kyoto (in fact i've met a few). Had the letter been about science it would have focused on science. If you (as a scientist) disagree about the IPCC conclusions - then it would be important to focus on that - because although the IPCC can stand (and does) fine without Kyoto - Kyoto can't stand without the IPCC.... But again - its mute - the article has premises - and this one fails them. And i suggest that this kind of discussion is exactly the reason for the premise :-) --Kim D. Petersen 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A letter signed by 60 scientists with statements about climate models and human influence on global warming, requiring that Kyoto be revisited because the science is not certain enough, must be somehow about science... Besides, I suggest that this kind of discussion exists because some people wish to preserve the idea of a "scientific consensus"`;) --Childhood's End 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone identifies themselves by name and title under their signature (Harper Letter), then the words of that letter should have the weight of their 'own' words. If that's POV, then I'm guilty.DonaldDuck07 17:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly - but this pages name isn't Scientists opposing the Kyoto protocol. Its about the scientific opinion on climate change. Kyoto is a specific policy - not a scientific opinion. --Kim D. Petersen 17:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be serious. From the letter - "Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'". A public statement that contradicts TAR.DonaldDuck07 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well please be serious yourself. When signing a petition - most of us look it over, and decide whether or not we for the most part agree or disagree with the text. If we agree sufficiently we sign it. That doesn't mean that we agree with every single nuance or sentence - but merely that we are in agreement with the overall lines of the petition. This petition is about the Kyoto protocol - a specific policy implementation. --Kim D. Petersen 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a petition, it's a letter. Oregon Inst. Petition Project is an example of a petition and is much different and rightfully excluded. The Harper Letter is a letter signed by its authors who were clearly identified. One author later retracted and was removed. That doesn't make the letter any less credible. Authors retract their support for IPCC, does that make IPCC reports any less valid? The statement I quoted contradicts IPCC TAR, it is reliable. Doesn't matter if it was in publically available personal correspondence to a head of state, a peer reviewed paper, a reliable news report, etc. It is its authors' opinions, and they clearly disagree with the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. This stupid (WMC's word) POV is nauseating.DonaldDuck07 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

According to my Webster its a petition: "A formal written request addressed to an official person, or to an organized body, having power to grant it". Now as for the rest of your argument: Do you have any evidence that the people sat down first and reached a consensus on what should be in the letter - and then subsequently signed it? Or do you think that someone lettered it - and then asked people if they want to sign it?

But again this discussion is mute. The letter doesn't meet the requirements for this page. --Kim D. Petersen 19:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time.DonaldDuck07 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A person signing a letter can legitimately be presumed to support what's in the letter, at the very least. Burdon of proof lies on you to demonstrate, for each signatory, that this is not the case. The letter meets the requirements, obviously. --Childhood's End 19:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but it doesn't: "Inclusion is based on specific, attributable statements in the individual's own words, and not on listings in petitions or surveys.". (btw. the burden of proof/documentation will alway be on the submitter - as per WP:BLP) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC). --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You asked evidence that all these people sat down together and reached consensus on the content of the letter. I indicated that such a thing can legitimately be presumed by the fact that they signed the letter and that it does not belong to DonaldDuck to prove such a thing. Dont mix up issues please. And again, someone who signs a letter, be it alone or with other people, makes the words his own. It cannot be clearer than that. Your presumption that "perhaps they did not support the whole of it and signed anyway" does not hold. --Childhood's End 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that signing a letter consitutes specific, attributable statements in the individual's own words, therefore the signers are not eligible for inclusion. Let's stop wasting DonaldDuck's time. --Skyemoor 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry to say, but whether you agree with this or not, it is widely known that someone who signs a letter makes the words his own, unless it works differently when it comes to letters signed by scientists... And anyway, in the event that this criteria would mean what you say, it would only show how tendentious this criteria is. --Childhood's End 12:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

it is widely known that someone who signs a letter makes the words his own. The support for this self-evidential claim has not been forthcoming, so its soundness has not been established. P.S. my last sentence on my prior post was intended as humour, though it may seem to come across rather dry. --Skyemoor 13:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to give a law lesson here, but from my profesional experience, I can tell you that you better wake up early if you intend to prove that you did not consent in whole to what appears in a document that you have signed :) Further than that, signature also gives a somewhat fair idea of the concept (notably pointing out that a signature is evidence of the provenance (identity) of the document... signing a document is proof that it comes from you personnaly, what does not mean that it cannot also come from other persons as well). For instance, you can have 3, 10, 20 parties to a contract, all can be held personnaly to the whole unless stated otherwise. --Childhood's End 14:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I sign documents on a weekly basis in my professional capacity, so I am well aware of the nature of consent. However, consent by signature is different from specific, attributable statements in the individual's own words, which is not achieved by signing a letter written in someone else's words. --Skyemoor 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"You asked evidence that all these people sat down together and reached consensus on the content of the letter." If one signer retracted their opinion because they were misled about or did not understand the contents, this is evidence that they did not sit down together and reach consensus on the content. --Nethgirb 02:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is rather evidence that this person later felt discomfort, perhaps with the text, or perhaps with the personal implications for him of having opposed Kyoto. This in no way allows you to presume that the others also disagree with the text. And proof that "they sat together and reached consensus" is not relevant anyway. Signatures are. --Childhood's End 12:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you been following this discussion? This retractor said he was misled, specifically "Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, a Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Alberta says that he was told he was signing a petition asking that the federal government devote more energy to research on climate change". Interestingly enough, even though this letter was presented to the Canadian PM as the opinion of Canadian experts, only 1/3 of the people were Canadian Nil Einne 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not sure of where you are going with this. Whatever the reasons Mr. Swaters had to retract, must I repeat, it does not make the others' statements invalid as well. And what's your point with your second statement? Are you implying that for some reason, they should not have invited scientists from abroad to support their case? --Childhood's End 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I was simply responding to the point you made that "person later felt discomfort, perhaps with the text, or perhaps with the personal implications for him of having opposed Kyoto". As he claims he was seriously misled about the contents of the letter, it is misleading to suggest he simply felt discomforture. You were responding to the fact that Netghrib suggested that the obviously didn't sit down and reach a consensus. However the fact that someone would think he was signing a pettition asking for the PM to devote more energy to research on climate change strongly suggests at least one person was not involved at all in forming this letter which would indicate they did not all sit down and reach a consensus (since one of the signaturies had no idea what he was signing). I have no desire to enter the debate about anything else. Whether or whether not it's relevant is irrelevant to the point I was making which was that 1) It appears very likely from the evidence that they did not sit down and reach consensus despite your denials 2) Clearly according to Gordon he did not simply feel discomforture but was seriously mislead. 3) (Somewhat of an aside point) The letter was presented as the opinion of Canadian scientists despite the fact many of the signaturies were not Canadians. If they has wanted to present a letter of opinion of world scientits then this is what they should have done. If the signaturies of non Canadians was simply supporting then they should have only made a clear distinction between Canadian scientists and supporting scientists.

BTW, if you want to argue it's irrelevant whether or not they reached consensus fine, but it's not something I ever wanted to debate. However if you do wish to argue something, please make sure your claims are accurate. My primary issue here is IMHO your claims were not accurate. Nil Einne 22:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Death to redlinks

I've removed:

• Peter Chylek, Adjunct Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University :"You really cannot say for certain what is causing current climate change". [[13]]http://fizz.phys.dal.ca/physics_3490.html
• Tom V. Segalstad[[14]],Head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo:"In a number of publications our research group has rejected IPCC's 3 proofs of anthroppgenic warming".[proofs rejected]
• Gary Sharp[15], marine biologist: "Global Warming is really not the question. The cause is the real question, and it is not clear to anyone that rising CO2 is the culprit - or even a bad thing. In fact, the relative role of CO2 in Global Warming is quite small in contrast to that of Water Vapor." [[16]]
• August H. "Augie" Auer Jr., retired NZ Metservice Meteorologist, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming:"So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that's like 12c in $100." "'It's miniscule ... it's nothing,'".[[17]]
• Lee C. Gerhard, formerly Principal Geologist of the Kansas Geological Survey[18], currently with oil and gas explorationists Thomasson Partner Associates, Inc.[19]: "There is no clear discernible effect of human activities on global temperature...There is little or no correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature change." [20]
• Martin Keeley [21], self-described "Wealth Creator and Entrepreneur", Director of oil and gas exploration consultancy Fieldco International Ltd.: "I have come across no rigorous proof that wasteful human pollution has caused any significant climate change. ... The only proof of anthropogenic climate change ever offered, which to my mind is fallacious, is that temperature has increased with Western industrialisation. ... Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science." (BBC News, December 6, 2004 [22])
• Fred Michel [23], Associate Professor, Institute of Environmental Science and Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University:"'Global Warming' is a natural phenomenon to which the human contribution is negligible".[24]
• Boris Winterhalter, Retired Senior Scientist at the Geological Survey of Finland: "[I]t has been obvious to me that the stellar influence is the most important factor in this respect. ... [T]he effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases." [25]
• Christopher Essex, Associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics at the University of Western Ontario,Wibjorn Karlen, Member, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Madhav Khandekar, Editorial Board of 'Natural Hazards',Olavi Kärner Senior Research Assoc. at the Atmospheric Sensing Group at Tartu Observatory, Tad Murty, Adj. Professor at the University of Ottawa James O'Brien, Professor Emeritus from the Center for Ocean Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University: "The hypothesis that greenhouse gas emmissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant warming of the Earth's climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed."[[26]]
• Lin Zhen-Shan & Sun Zian, The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University: "The dominant contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is the trend. However, its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales."[[27]]
• Orrin Pilkey, coastal geologist and emeritus professor at Duke University, and Linda Pilkey-Jarvis: "Assumption upon assumption, uncertainty upon uncertainty, and simplification upon simplification are combined to give an ultimate and inevitably shaky answer, which is then scaled up beyond the persistence time to make long-term predictions of the future of sea-level rise. Aside from the frailty of assumptions, there remains ordering complexity: the lack of understanding of the timing and intensity of each variable. ... The objectivity of the IPCC documents is laudable. But the fact that the group recognizes its model weaknesses and is trying to improve them doesn't make its conclusions stronger or more believable." (Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis, Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future [28] [29], pps. 82-83)
• Valerio Lucarini, Research Associate at the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Camerino, and Project Director of HYDROCARE : "The presence of structural uncertainties (due to the choices made when a model is built on which processes and feedbacks are described and how they are described) and of parametric uncertainties (due to the lack of knowledge on quantities which characterize the climatic system), implies that every model used to generate projections about future climate change is a priori false, or better, weak in its descriptive power." (Lucarini, V. (2002) Towards a definition of climate science, Int. J. Environment and Pollution, Vol. 18, No. 5 [30])

If you want to re-add them, do please create at least a stub bio page for them first William M. Connolley 08:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this. You are wrong to remove , en masse, each person based upon your own idiosyncratic standard that they have a red link. This is explicitly against wikipedia policy. If we need to, then we should take this to mediation, then to RfC and finally to arbcom. Or, alternatively, make a case for the removal of each person. But removal en masse is wrong. --Blue Tie 09:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, if you want to get an outside opinion via RfC or some such, that would be fine—but I personally think it will not be an effective use of your time since removing redlinks / requiring notability evidently has broad support among the editors here, and brings this article more in line with standard Wikipedia guidelines. --Nethgirb 09:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(agree with N): There is clear support for this above. The standards are not "my own". The one who has idiosyncratic views is BT, and his interpretation of policy is clearly his own. Threats of arbcomm are not scary William M. Connolley 09:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

BT, I agree with Nethgirb. In what way is the deletion against policy? Could you point the relevant policies out? And if you think that WP:CRWP:DR is necessary, by all means do something more than just complaining about it. --Stephan Schulz 09:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I will be pleased to provide quotes from policy if you will agree that you will smack down anyone who brings up "wikilawyering". These pages on climate change are being run as though they are not part of wikipedia -- but follow different rules and I am considering just taking it as a complex case straight to ArbCom. I do not like that solution, but I do not see any reasonable alternatives, having tried them all at this point. --Blue Tie 10:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DR? William M. Connolley 10:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ToManyShortcuts! I thought DR was deletion review and CR conflict resolution... --Stephan Schulz 10:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the need for notability is the consensus here. --Skyemoor 10:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with that too. I just disagree with the standard that has been used to determine what is "notable". It is a standard that is contrary to wikipedia policy. --Blue Tie 10:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

All one has to do is establish the notability of a person they want to add to the list. The evidence becomes part of the person's article. Very straightforward. --Skyemoor 12:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bogus. That is not the issue. The issue has been made clear. It is "Redlinks". No one should have to go and create an article just to add a name here. Indeed, there is nothing about adding a name here that requires the level of notability that an article would require. What is straightforward is that this is a violation of wikipedia policy. --Blue Tie 13:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To come to a common level: Is not! ;-) --Stephan Schulz 13:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seven votes for, seven against, one neutral. THE MOTION CARRIES!!! A great day for democracy!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jepp (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Don't forget, this is a global warming page, so William Connelly's vote counts 10 times everyone else's. Paul Matthews 18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant since wikipedia isn't a democracy Nil Einne 19:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But when a poll is called for, is it not because you want to get in touch with democracy? --Childhood's End 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. See WP:POLL Nil Einne 22:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found out WMC is notable too! I also suggest his page be deleted as their is no evidence of his notability, other than his being associate editor of a blog.67.141.235.203 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to AFD it, but this has already been done 2 or 3 times, each time without success. Also, these repeated attacks on William seem in violation of WP:NPA. While William may chose to ignore it, I think it's has to stop and will start warning editors who continue Nil Einne 19:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who you are warning about NPA, but I see none here. Is that just another attempt to limit discussion?67.141.235.203 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to bring up the William article in this talk page. Bringing up William himself unless relevant, e.g. in reference to a comment he made is also unnecessary. Doing either, especially when it's apparently because you don't agree with his views amounts to a personal attack IMHO and I think you will find most other editors will agree. NPA makes it clear. Comment on content not contributors. If you have an issue with the William article, take it to the William article (although be aware of WP:POINT) Nil Einne 22:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

People may also want to check the time/dates for the votes - and the time/date for WMC's removal. The motion carried - but people kept voting.... --Kim D. Petersen 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the election ends when "we" get enough votes. What is this China?65.12.145.148 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also point out that most of the "oppose" votes are anonymous or very recent newcomers to this article that appear to have shown up just for the vote. If you count long-term registered editors of this page, you have 8 in favor, 3 against. --Nethgirb 10:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"long term registered editors of this page", makes sense, Chairman Mao.Jepp 12:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Update on Petr Chylek

I have been traveling on business and have not had much time for Wikipedia, but I have been corresponding with Petr Chylek. He has a similar attitude as Benjamin Giese. He is not an alarmist or a cheerleader for the IPCC but he does not wish to be known as a skeptic either. He pointed out that he has published research that supports the IPCC and research the skeptics use for support. He prefers to research and describe his findings without choosing a camp because he does not want to limit his ability to get "funding, invitations for seminar and colloquia, and acceptance of manuscript for publications (by reviewers as well as by editors)." We need to keep him off of this list. RonCram 11:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So can we assume you no longer feel that "excluding him is truly beyond ridiculous"?[31] More generally, do you now understand why we have to be careful when adding people to this list? Raymond Arritt 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

From Ron's statement he said he "does not wish to be known as a skeptic" and listed various reasons why, none related to science. It's my understanding that an encylopedia is about facts not about spin and PR. More generally must all biographies be autobiographies?67.141.235.203 13:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, yes I understand why we have to be careful. I was careful with Giese and I took the extra step here as well, although it seems I should have done so earlier. I have no desire to harm the career of anyone. Perhaps we should add an additional requirement to being on the list - that the scientist is willing to suffer whatever derision and career limitations that might come his way for taking a stand against the IPCC view. RonCram 14:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If a scientist opposes the IPCC position he should go on that list. And if he does not, not. We can only go by their published statements, of course. And at the last UN Secretary General election, all the nations wanted to vote for me, with the new title of World Dictator For Life, but they all feared the derision and career limitations! In other words, stop the nonsensical conspiracy talk. --Stephan Schulz 14:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I suggest you email Chylek yourself if you think I am making this up. Remember Chylek has published research that both supports the IPCC position and undermines it. This is not an easy issue and I believe his wishes should be taken into consideration. After all, he knows his views better than we do. RonCram 14:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. His wishes have nothing to do with this. David Irving may not wish to be called "discredited" and a "Holocaust denier", yet this is a strong verifiable position. Likewise, if Chylek really opposes the IPCC core conclusions, we should list him. However, what I suspect is that he is not a sceptic in your sense. To be honest, your track record of interpreting scientists positions is not exactly stellar. You often confuse real scientific uncertainty with rabbit septicism of the Tim Ball variety. The IPCC position is nuanced, and covers quite a range of potential outcomes. The IPCC dies not, e.g., claim certainty in the attribution of warming. It considers a number of climate forcings, and acknowledges that there is uncertainty in how exactly they influence the climate. Even the AR4 only claims "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." - note "most", note "since the mid-20th century" and note "very likely". --Stephan Schulz 15:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Chylek just wants to do his research and let the chips fall where they may. I only know of one journalist who has written of Chylek as a skeptic and Chylek was not happy about it. The scientific conference Chylek hosts is well attended by both skeptics and alarmists and is designed to bring about discussion of what is known and what is unknown in order to draw the two camps closer together. I do not think the IPCC AR4 SPM does a good job of discussing the uncertainties of the science, as you seem to think it does. Andrew Weaver, on of the co-authors said of the report: “This isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles.” I'm sorry but that is not an honest scientist speaking. Scientifically speaking, the uncertainty around global warming is greater than ever. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical of unproven theories like global warming. But this article does not discuss people who are skeptical anymore, it only lists those who "oppose" the IPCC view. Chylek is not "opposing" anything and should not be listed.RonCram 18:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What's an alarmist by your definition? As you write, every decent scientist is a sceptic, and every decent scientist tries to avoid bias, or in your words, "wants to do his research and let the chips fall where they may". What you fail to realize is that by far most of the decent scientists have done just that, and arrive in the IPCC camp. And of course in science there are no "proven theories". --Stephan Schulz 18:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron, the point that you are strenuously avoiding is your previous comment: "excluding him is truly beyond ridiculous". Do you consider yourself to have any kind of reputation? Do you want people to take you seriously? If so, you need to avoid saying such things, and then reversing yourself; and when you do, please show some humility and apologise for it William M. Connolley 19:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, Ron could have saved face by not bringing this email information at all—so I do appreciate that. --Nethgirb 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because the email isn't a RS and is anyway (as said above) largely irrelevant William M. Connolley 22:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Connley, It's entirely relevant. It's part of the discussion and this is the discussion page, says so right at the top of the page. Your earlier reference to the Jane Francis email you have squirreled away was relevant too. (You do have one don't you?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.235.203 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

William, I considered the story by the Associated Press as reliable. I should not have done so. For that I apologize. Are you satisfied? RonCram 22:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you William M. Connolley 08:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hansen apparently disagrees with criterion 3

Hansen apparently opposes the low sea level rise estimates in IPCC conclusion 3, and has confirmed that as recently as Feb of this year. [32]--Africangenesis 09:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No... Someone more knowledgable should feel free to correct me on this, but my understanding is as follows. The first part of his quote you use is "The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today - which is what we expect later this century - sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don't act soon."—Note that this does not say that sea levels will stabilize at +25m by the end of this century. It only says temps will be +3°. In Hansen's view, it might take sea level much longer to stabilize at +25m. Then you use the quote "But we can now see that the models are almost worthless. They treat the ice sheets like a single block of ice that will slowly melt. But what is happening is much more dynamic."—The IPCC AR4 explicitly gives a "Model-based range excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow" [33] (emphasis mine), and that exclusion is exactly what H is saying will be significant. So this doesn't contradict the current consensus, though it might contradict how we have phrased the consensus at the beginning of the article (so a fix might be in order). --Nethgirb 11:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"So that is what we can look forward to" seems pretty clear. Maybe if pinned down, he wouldn't go for the full 25M by 2100, but he definitely thinks the IPCC statement is too conservative. The link above, and his peer review papers indicate this as well.--Africangenesis 11:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"but he definitely thinks the IPCC statement is too conservative"—that's your extrapolation, not a quote. "So that is what we can look forward to" may plausibly mean that eventually sea level will reach +25m but it gives no timetable. And there's still the other issue that this doesn't appear to contradict the IPCC's projections. --Nethgirb 11:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect H does think the IPCC too conservative. But putting him there (if you can substantiate it a bit better) is rather misleading; I doubt it can be usefully squared with the page title. If he must go in, I suspect that a new section for "the IPCC is too conservative" would be a good idea. Note, BTW, that this pag is sometimes used (unsuccessfully) by people on talk to argue that "there is a long list of skeptics"; this would be even less useful as an argument if the page includes people who think IPCC to cons William M. Connolley 11:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hansen addresses his sea level rise concerns in nearlly all his recent papers.[34] These following quotes are all from "Climate change and trace gases."[35]:

"Our concern that BAU GHG scenarios would cause large sea level rise this century (Hansen 2005) differs from estimates of IPCC (2001, 2007), which foresees little or no contribution to 21st century sea level rise from Greenland and Antarctica."

"Despite these early warnings about likely future non-linear rapid response, IPCC continues, at least implicitly, to assume a linear response to BAU forcings. Yet BAU forcings exceed by far any forcings in recent paleoclimate history."

"Global warming of about 3°C is predicted by practically all climate models for “business-as-usual” (BAU) growth of GHGs (IPCC 2001, 2007). Yet IPCC (2001, 2007) foresees 21st century sea level rise of only a fraction of a meter with BAU global warming."

"Despite these early warnings about likely future non-linear rapid response, IPCC continues, at least implicitly, to assume a linear response to BAU forcings."

"The IPCC BAU scenarios continue to be used as standard forcings for climate simulations, but there is no inherent reason that the world must follow BAU GHG growth rates."

"The climate sensitivities we have inferred from paleoclimate data assure that a BAU GHG emission scenario would produce global warming of several degrees Celsius this century, with amplification at high latitudes."

In this last one he appears to disagree with the IPCC on temperature projections as well. I think whether we include him, depends on whether this page is to have a "disagreement with the consensus" flavor, or a "skeptics" flavor. While his inclusion weakens the "long list of skeptics" usage, Hansen's visibility and popularity, does weaken the IPCC's air of authority and infallibility. His inclusion would also presumably weaken the pejorative flavor of this categorization, and make the page less controversial. --Africangenesis 13:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't get carried away. The last is fully consistent with std, as is the 2nd-to-last. And the 4th to last. And you haven't addressed N's point: that IPCC have left the non-linear ice sheet response bit out William M. Connolley 13:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the very fact that they left the non-linear part out, that leads Hansen to disagree with not just with the IPCC for leaving it out, but with the results in criterion 3. The IPCC did not think the evidence was good enough, while Hansen thinks they are just being scientifically "reticent". The fact that IPCC acknowledges that they have not taken into account rapid non-linear dynamics does not alter the disagreement. The IPCC probably specifically acknowledges that they haven't taken into account an cosmic ray mechanism, and doesn't mean some of the other scientists mentioned on the page are in agreement with the 3 criteria either.--Africangenesis 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the part about cosmic rays, but have not yet read the full report. And the situation is not analagous. Everybody agrees about the potential for non-linear behaviour of the ice sheets. They are left out not because they are irrelevant, but because there is currently no good way of modelling them ("We don't know if, when and how X will happen. If it doesn't, the situation will be Y"). The cosmic ray stuff, on the other hand, is generally ignored because the evidence for it is extremely thin ("We thing Y will happen as X is extremly unlikely").--Stephan Schulz 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

They is no good way of modeling they dynamics of ice sheets because they are poorly understood. Section 2.7.1 of AR4 WG1, notes that the level of scientific understanding is low for variation in direct solar irradiance and very low for cosmic ray influence. They don't state that cosmic ray influence is unlikely. The hypothesis sticks around because it has some plausibility and there is solar correlation with climate that needs further explanation, and cloud physics itself is still poorly understood.--Africangenesis 14:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So H thinks the IPCC should have more prominently included rapid ice sheet melting, rather than giving sea level rise as "X + future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow, whatever they may be". The question is, does this rise to the level of disagreement with the consensus? It appears rather that there is no consensus on this particular point of rapid dynamical changes in ice flow. IPCC says: "Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise. ... Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude." [36] RealClimate discusses this issue, saying, "The question then is: how much will this process contribute to future sea level rise? The honest answer is: we don’t know." [37] Now, as is clear from the new quotes you have provided (thanks—they're much more specific) it's clear that H thinks the IPCC is in some way too conservative, but it seems like it might be mostly an issue of presentation, in that the way the IPCC presented the numbers suggested (to the casual reader) a linear response to BAU forcings but at the same time the report stated that this was just one possible guess. Note H's use of "implicit". (Is this a fair reading of the situation, William?)

Now, if H really does think the consensus is too conservative, then I am OK with including him and other "anti-skeptics" somewhere—but it has to be made clear. Putting that section smack in the middle of a bunch of skeptics is not clear. A separate article might be appropriate, or at the very least a better organization of the people on this page. And the intro would need to make it clear too. I suggest discussing changes here first if you want to go down that path. --Nethgirb 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when the honest answer is, "we don't know" that means there should be no consensus, unfortunately, that is not always the case.--Africangenesis 04:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're suggesting there is a consensus on this point? The IPCC's statement on the issue ("there is no consensus") seems to suggest otherwise. --Nethgirb 06:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus is that "there is no consensus". In other circumstances where the IPCC should say "we don't know", such as whether models can be skillful in attribution and projection, given all their documented failures to reproduced observed climate data and behaviors, the IPCC forges ahead with "consensus" attribution and projection statements. Of course, the reason they forge ahead, is they have no legitimate response and are unwilling to throw out two or three years of model runs, and tell the politicians they will have to wait, while they improve the models. Realistically, the models may be 5 or 10 years away, and the climatologists are unwilling to live lives of other large slow progress fields such as those of fusion or accelerator researchers, and maybe have to go 10 years between publications, and risk losing the interest of funding agencies.--Africangenesis 08:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but none of that actually is relevant to the Hansen case, except that you agree there is no consensus on the issue of rapid dynamical changes in ice flow—in which case H clearly can't be opposed to a nonexistent consensus. I could be convinced otherwise, but for now I'm removing the section. --Nethgirb 08:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point, Hansen's thinks there should be a consensus, so he opposes the consensus that there isn't one. He also thinks the sea level rise should be much higher, disagreeing with criterion 3. Please restore the section that we had agreed upon.--Africangenesis 09:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is too much fiddling with details. "Agreeing with the consensus that there is no consensus" isn't one of the points listed at the top. It is *not* necessary to agree with IPCC on all points in order to stay off this list William M. Connolley 10:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your first point is too meta. But even if we go with it... you are now saying that H opposes the consensus that "there is no consensus on rapid dynamical changes in ice flow (RDCIIF)". But you don't have a quote of him saying that. Clearly he believes there will likely be RDCIIF, but you don't have him saying that he thinks most other scientists think the same thing. He's saying that other scientists should think what he thinks, not that they actually do.

On to A's second point: "He also thinks the sea level rise should be much higher, disagreeing with criterion 3."—You're correct that this disagrees with criterion 3 as it is stated here, but that is because of the confusing way in which criterion 3 is stated here, not because of a disagreement with the consensus (as far as I can tell). The point in question is whether the IPCC sea level rise projection explicitly excludes RDCIIF. Hansen's recent comments should probably be judged against the recent AR4, which does exclude RDCIIF, as I pointed out above. Criterion 3 in the article is written based on the earlier TAR, which at least partially excludes RDCIIF ("this range does not allow for uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet" [38]—no mention of Greenland, at least in that summary). --Nethgirb 10:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the references for Hansen's quotes. You will see that he is explicitly targets the IPCC for disagreement.--Africangenesis 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Pielke Sr.

Great interview.[[39]] It's hard to claim he doesn't oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.65.12.145.148 02:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What category should I put this under: "For all of the human-caused warming radiative forcings, which includes the 0.5 Watts per meter squared value for the shortwave albedo change, and estimating tropospheric ozone as 0.3 Watts per meter squared, the aerosol black carbon direct effect as 0.2 Watts per meter squared, the black carbon on snow and ice as 0.3 Watts per meter squared, the semidirect indirect effect as 0.1 Watt per meter squared, and the glaciation indirect effect as 0.1 Watt per meter squared (with the latter two forcings using a nominal value, since these forcings are very poorly known), the contribution due to CO2 will fall to about 28%." 67.141.235.203 19:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I'd put it under "unsourced quotes" until you source it. I would have thought that if he really is a skeptic, you could fnd something better. But he is generally careful with his words. Ah, I see, its from [40]. Well, read the "conclusions" at the start - they are pretty clear, aren't they :-? William M. Connolley 19:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet again(sigh)....yes that's the source, did you happen to read it? I doubt it from your nonsensical comment. Yes the conlusions are clear and the quote I listed contradicts the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. When you read things like Pielke's comments, do you at all comprehend them? Your comment (and previous ones) lead me to believe you do not.67.141.235.203 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Which of the three IPCC conclusions does he reject? Nil Einne 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. Unless I'm misinterpreting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.235.203 (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

It is clear Pielke is not a cheerleader for the IPCC view on global warming and climate change. Pielke thinks the IPCC view is underestimating warming from land use changes but I don't think he believes land use changes will add up to catastrophe like the alarmists (Gore, Hanson, Jones, Mann) do. However, I think he is probably of the same view as Giese and Chylek (see below) that being known as a skeptic is not worth it. If he had to choose a label at all, my guess is he would choose "renegade" or something that did not align him with any camp. One climatologist I know calls himself a "luke-warmer" because he thinks CO2 is having some affect but all of the alarmist scenarios are hogwash. I understand the "luke-warmer" label is growing quickly. I am not sure if Pielke would buy that label or not.RonCram 14:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

IPCC says most warming is due to Anth GHG. Pielke says otherwise. What's hard to comprehend about that?65.12.145.148 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually no. Most warming is anthropogenic. (>50%) - most of this is caused by GHG's (>50% => >25% of total). How does Pielke contradict this? Most of his comments are on the precise contribution of GHG's vs. for instance land-use changes - and on regional effects (which isn't part of the consensus). --Kim D. Petersen 23:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I misinterpreting this, "Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. "65.12.145.148 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What Pielke quote do you think contradicts it? --Nethgirb 02:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.12.145.148 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually reconsidering the quotation comes close to disputing IPCC4. But one problem is that Pielke only focuses on CO2 but the IPCC considers all GHG including CO2 and methane. The other is that we're still focusing on IPCC3 not 4 Nil Einne 13:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Help me with this. The way I read the quote, it seems Pielke is either claiming human caused methane contrib is 0 or he's including it in the C02's 28%.67.141.235.203 14:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dowsing

I removed Nils-Axel Morner Emeritus [41] on the grounds that the quote doesn't express disagreement with any of 1-3. But we all know he *is* a skeptic so if you can find a better quote for him, do put him back William M. Connolley 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you work on making this page more factual, rather than wasting your time seeing whose name you can remove?65.12.145.148 00:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Errrm, because removing false "facts" *does* make the page more factual William M. Connolley 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(What does ERRRM stand for?) You yourself said that Morner is a skeptic, see above, yet he doesn't meet the criteria you established (re-established). Seems to me, you need to change the criteria so that skeptics meet it. Unless your purpose is to keep the list as short as possible. For instance, Jim O'Brien is notable and a skeptic, yet he doesn't meet YOUR criteria. You may think this is somehow better 'factually' yet a reasonable person would say it's a problem with your criteria.65.12.145.148 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is Jim O'Brian? Google is rather unhelpful, spitting out football players and coaches en mass...--Stephan Schulz 07:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Do a Google Scholar for James J. O'Brien -- note spelling of surname. He is indeed a notable scientist, mainly as an oceanographer (I've met him and have cited one or two of his papers). O'Brien is a common surname so you may get some false leads. Raymond Arritt 13:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So is this [42] the exciting quote? William M. Connolley 13:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Give this a shot. [[43]]67.141.235.203 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, fails Inclusion is based on specific, attributable statements in the individual's own words, and not on listings in petitions or surveys. William M. Connolley 13:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, maybe the ISPM is OK. It's not really a petition or survey; it's more like a (unpublished) paper, since the people are listed as authors. However, it is unclear who wrote what parts. --Nethgirb 14:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, you point out how poorly constructed your criteria is. Jim O'Brien does not agree with the IPCC assessment. Maybe Raymond can ask him to call you and let you know. (Also, WMC please note sarcasm is poor Wikiettiquete).67.141.235.203 14:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno what you mean by sarcasm. If you want to suggest changes in the crit, please do William M. Connolley 14:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase, 'it's a paper, but unclear who wrote what parts'??? Just when I didn't think this discussion could get any more bizarre....So if a paper is written by several people, it is attributable to no one? On your CV, do you list your papers written 'et alii'? or just the ones you wrote solo? [PA removed - WMC] 67.141.235.203 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion is based on specific, attributable statements in the individual's own words, and not on listings in petitions or surveys. seems clear enough. Multiple-author papers aren't William M. Connolley 18:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sooooooooooo....multiple author papers are attributable to no-one. Interesting concept. So if Raymond and I wrote a paper together conlcuding that the increase in Temp Record in the 20th century was attributable to measurement error, neither of us would be listed on this page, unless someone from The Mail interviewed one of us and we said something that meets at least one of your three criteria? That's mad.67.141.235.203 18:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious that authoring a paper or signing it makes it your own attributable words, irrelevantly of whether other people also authored or signed it. If it was not so, escaping responsibility would be pretty easy wouldnt it? Just find a co-author and poof ! "these are not my words". Let's be serious. --Childhood's End 18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

When a survey or poll has been signed, the words can be attributed to the signer. With a multi-author peer reviewed paper, the status of the co-authors is a little less certain, the words are attributed to the primary author. Co-authors are sometimes included just for significant contributions to parts of the research, and although they are responsible for having reviewed the whole, the voice is that of the primary author. If fraud is alleged the co-authors are usually under suspicion unless cleared by specific details of their participation. It may be OK to attribute the words of a paper to a co-author. It is rare for a co-author to repudiate words in a paper, presumably if they objected to the statement of the research, the would have refused co-authorship. --Africangenesis 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the issue depends on the paper. On a narrow topic research paper, all authors can be assumed to have contributed to or at least consented to the paper as a whole. But on a long, multi-specialty report like the one in question (or indeed the IPCC reports), this is not necessarily the case. I would assume that O'Brien has only contributed to the hurricane section, but from the sources we can't tell either way.--Stephan Schulz 21:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If our current criteria don't allow O'Brien's inclusion, we need to change them. The is report's reason for existance is obviously dissatisifaction with the IPCC's process or conclusions, and from reading it, at least the latter is true. What I've read so far seems to be a better assessment of the state of the science, but that is probably to be expected from a smaller set of authors much less encumbered by a political process.

That said, I consider a specially effort like this, which isn't research itself, to be different from multi-author climate science papers in general. Given the multidisciplinary nature of climate science, there are specialties that may not have expertise in each others field, so co-authors should not always be assumed to have understood the whole paper. Many lead practicioners of climate science research are physicists, geologists, etc. Many universities don't have their own climate science departments and expect those interested in that field to be affiliated with one of the other disciplines.--Africangenesis 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I am interested in your last statement. Should I understand from it that the whole IPCC reports cannot be attributed to the 2000 or so contributors and that the concept of "consensus" on the whole IPCC conclusions is a strange concept? This would of course not mean to say that agreement among specialists in a specific field cannot be reached for this field's specific findings, but it would mean, though, that the notion of "climate scientists reaching consensus on the IPCC conclusions" can be misleading no? --Childhood's End 14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It means that the consensus had both breadth and depth. Of course not every contributing scientist has in-depth understanding of each individual topic.--Stephan Schulz 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Back to the sarcastic title of this section, Morner's opinion on dowsing has nothing to do with his opinion on climate change. Does the fact that Kary Mullis claims to have been abducted by aliens invalidate his work on PCR. Or JT Houghton's nutty beliefs about Adam & Eve discredit his work on several assessment reports.67.141.235.203 14:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New Senate list of skeptics

A new US Senate list of skeptics has just come out. Follow the link to read the list: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research --Britcom 14:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to claim these people are skeptics? Some don't even have wikipedia articles!!67.141.235.203 16:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And at least partially based on 2 year old quotes and the infamous National Post series repudiated by at least two of the people described. Really a shoddy piece of crap. --Stephan Schulz 17:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think this was more meant as (legitimate) sarcasm of this affair... --Childhood's End 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

From the David Bellamy article however it sounds like potentially he should be on the list Nil Einne 17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_1#Bellamy (and I seem to remember more dicussion there). --Stephan Schulz 17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As expected, it was written by Marc Morano...not really a "US Senate" list. If I count correctly, 10 of the 13 names have already been discussed here. But, we could look into the few new names on it (or new evidence for old names). --Nethgirb 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to check this out.[[44]]67.141.235.203 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. The paper shows that Bellamy knows even less about the topic than I suspected. The section on MODTRAN calculations is a horror; unfortunately, it sounds technical enough that people outside the field may be fooled into thinking he is at least minimally competent to apply computational methods for climate science. Raymond Arritt 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There must be something from the full text, I don't see how you can conclude that from the abstract.--Africangenesis 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do read the full text. I'd be quite curious to know what you think of it. Raymond Arritt 23:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It requires a subscription. Perhaps you can quote the part you have in mind, under fair use.--Africangenesis 23:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two basic problems. First, he gave almost no details on how he did the MODTRAN calculations. It's not a simple shove one number in, get one number out type code but there are various options that need to be specified. We need to know things like what he specified for water vapor (there are two options, constant vp and constant relative humidity), what location he assumed, and so on. Second, and more important, MODTRAN is the wrong tool for the job. Computing climate sensitivity with MODTRAN is like trying to drive nails with a Geiger counter. He does mention "These figures are to be considered with caution since they represent the instantaneous effects of CO2 changes. They do not include the ameliorating effects of clouds, nor do they include the eventual global consequences of the instantaneous changes." But that's only at the end of his comments, after he's used MODTRAN to make his point. And those (along with others he neglected) aren't second-order effects. I don't know if he's even aware of things like ice-albedo feedback; certainly they're not mentioned in the paper. Please do try to get access through a library, or email Bellamy and ask him to send a PDF. Raymond Arritt 02:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Given those limitations, any claims of a "proof" would seem a stretch. Still it sounds like his result might be particularly clean piece of information, either the temperature response at the surface from CO2 doubling alone (constant vp) or the temperature response from CO2 under the constant rh assumption. All the AR4 GCM models failed to reproduce the ice-albedo feedback also, but have the added problem of having been tuned to somehow match the climate despite this.[45] All of the AR4 models also fell short of constant rh also, even though supposedly that was the goal of their parameterizations.[46] If the Bellamy simulations are constant rh, then that would imply that most of the positive feedback in the AR4 models are from other sources than water vapor feedback and/or their climate sensitivities are too high. Bellamy's low figure certainly does raise the question of whether it was constant vp or rh. Did the paper give an email address for him? I haven't found any on the internet.--Africangenesis 07:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A chance to meet your idol. ~ UBeR 18:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Who's in London? ^^ ~ UBeR 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he spends too much time trolling wikipedia, and not enough on research....65.12.145.148 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RA, glad you took time to read the paper. I know the Proceedings of ICE encourages comments on its publication. You should write them. However, I must tell you, your comments must be specific and substantial. It's not like Wikipedia where anyone can post anything. Best of luck.67.141.235.203 23:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This list of publications seems to indicate that your advice is superfluous and your tone is misplaced. --Stephan Schulz 00:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This statement "The paper shows that Bellamy knows even less about the topic than I suspected. The section on MODTRAN calculations is a horror" would seem to indicate his advice was either needed, or likely to be ignored. If we are discussing someones knowledge, work or reputation, I think we should be specific and evidence based, yes, even here on the talk pages. Let's not just characterize or daemonize.--Africangenesis 00:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, WP:BLP applies even to talk pages! ~ UBeR 01:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

...but is completely irrelevant, because this opinion is clearly and unambiguously attributed to Raymond. --Stephan Schulz 09:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What is irrelevant is Raymond's biased opinion on whether the paper is any good or not. It is a scientific publication. Therefore he qualifies for the list. Please add him, somebody. And some seem to have forgotten the talk page guidelines - "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views". Paul Matthews 12:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Bellamy

A better quote is needed for him to stay on the list (because of WP:BLP. The statement from 2005 was the one that he backed away from (see earlier discussion and this). Now the section above mention a new paper from him - any good quotes from there? --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if there are any quotes in the new paper. It's written by more than one author. We have no way of knowing if that's what he believes.67.141.235.203 19:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In effect any quote from Bellamy needs to be dated after 2005, where he officially retracted his views. He apparently has regained a view - and this is what must be documented. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First para of the Conclusions from that paper: "Additional atmospheric CO2 should cause an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, but a doubling from the pre-industrial value of 285 ppmv will not produce serious warming and it is doubtful whether there are sufficient reserves of fossil fuels to reach that particular target by the end of this century." From the Abstract we infer that by "serious warming" he means less than 1 deg C. Raymond Arritt 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have access to the I.C.E. article; I've printed off a copy to read tonight. It looks like it might put him over the line of this' page's criteria, if I.C.E. does count as peer reviewed. There is also an overview of his statements on climate, includes some since 2005, (with links rather than quotes) in his WP bio page at [[47]].

Bellamy seems like a long-time crusader for the environment. He's been out of academia and peer reviewed botany research for a couple of decades. Aside from the I.C.E. paper, he had not published anything in a scientific journal in quite a long time. From his WP bio page, he's been very busy as an activist, (popular) writer and media figure. The only other publication since 2001 that comes up in Google Scholar is [An Environmentalist's Vision of the Future in ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING LAW JOURNAL], but our library doesn't get that journal and I'm not willing to spend >=UKP 13 to read it. Birdbrainscan 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, see above. WMC claims that multiple author papers are attributable to no one.65.12.145.148 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pielke, Sr

[[48]]Can we add him now?67.141.235.203 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Which of the 3 consensus statements do you believe that he contradicts? --Kim D. Petersen 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. "Perhaps global warming will begin again. However, the neglect to include the recent lack of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling (both of which are predicted to continue quasi-linearly for the coming decades by the multi-decadal global climate models, except for major volcanic eruptions) results in a seriously biased report by the IPCC" or this "The IPCC SPM conclusion that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” is wrong ".67.141.235.203 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those are contradictions of the 3 statements, which can all be true, at the same time that Dr. Pielkes statements are true. - his posting is critical of the certainty levels that the new IPCC report has put on specifics, not on the consensus items (imho). Pielke Sr.'s view is quite nuanced. --Kim D. Petersen 22:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Pielke supports the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? I interpret those statements otherwise.65.12.145.148 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well go back and look in the archives - Pielke Sr. himself has commented here on a previous attempt to include him. Pielke is skeptical about some of the IPCC's conclusions - that doesn't make him eligible for this list. Now he could have changed his mind (quite possible) - but that requires a quote that directly contradicts one of the 3 statements. --Kim D. Petersen 00:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So when you read those quotes from him, you believe he supports the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming?65.12.145.148 00:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What you or i believe is completely irrelevant. Either there is a quote to put him here - or there isn't. Anything other than that is WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 00:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, there's a great deal of interpretation going on here. For instance, Mr. Connley has interpreted what it means to be notable. This three criteria business is what some 'believe' represents the mainstream. It's ok to think and discuss, I encourage you to do both.67.141.235.203 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Cotton

Which category for Dr.Cotton?[[49]]67.141.235.203 20:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"It's an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system"67.141.235.203 20:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

William, is HE notable?65.12.145.148 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

With an h-index of 33 and 569 published papers with over 5000 cites, WR Cotton seems easily notable on articles published alone. That statement isn't too strong though, I'd look for something better and create a page for him before listing him here. If he must go here, it'd be under "scientists who believe the cause of global warming is unknown" based solely on that quote. Oren0 03:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he is notable, if you bother to create an article it would survive. But what about "The figure suggests that the sharp temperature rise since 1860 was caused by CO2."? The trouble with taking text from a power point presentation is that you don't know what he said over the top William M. Connolley 09:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We should be careful, but that particular statement is on a "conclusions" page, after he made several points in previous slides building a case for what we don't know.--Africangenesis 10:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

He makes statements that, read literally, are contradictory. To make sense of them you ned to guess what he was saying over the top. It would be far better to have a piece of text meant to be read as text William M. Connolley 10:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

He titles his talk "Global Climate Change: A Skeptics Perspective". A skeptic would naturally be equivocal, which is different from contradictory. There is evidence both for and against anthropogenic global warming. What they are skeptical of is the certainty and perhaps in light of the evidence, even the plausibility of the conclusion, not necessarily of the possibility of at least a weak form of the conclusion. With an "open question" or we don't know position, equivocal statements are particularly unsurprising.--Africangenesis 10:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "The figure suggests that the sharp temperature rise since 1860 was caused by CO2." contradicts the conclusion—he's talking about the figure, not his own opinion. --Nethgirb 11:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I say find a better quote for him or leave him out. Oren0 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ball doesn't deny warming

Ball doesn't deny warming, but he most certainly believes it's a natural phenomenon. He should be placed in the section titled "Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes."

"Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on."[50]

Whether Ball believes warming has occurred is impossible to tell -- he has plenty of quotes in both directions. Finding a consistent answer from him is often difficult, even on a matter as simple as how many years he was a professor. Raymond Arritt 18:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also that quote is referring to warming since 1680, not warming in the last century. As quoted in the article he has said "(The world's climate) warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down." --Nethgirb 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Roger Pielke Sr.

Cut from the page:

• Roger A. Pielke, professor, Colorado State University: "The IPCC SPM conclusion that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” is wrong as it ignores the lack of such warming in recent years by these other metrics of climate system heat changes".[[51]]

Pielke has commented on this page earlier Talk:Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_1#Roger_A._Pielke.2C_Sr. - specifically denouncing that he belongs on this list. Now according to WP:BLP i suggest that you either get Dr. Pielke Sr. to retract this specifically - or stop trying to "mine" for quotes to include him. Inclusion would demand serious discussions here first. And anymore. --Kim D. Petersen 02:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok - i've self-reverted since i'd otherwise break WP:3RR, the rules state that it should be Ok to go beyond 3RR in this specific case ([52])- but i won't take the chance. - i hope someone other will revert it back again. --Kim D. Petersen 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What I've read doesn't really look like a specific denouncement, unless I've missed something. He posted a link to how he feels about climate change, but it no longer functions. And from what I reckon about Wikipedia policies, content can be added to articles about a person, regardless of how they feel, if it's not libelous. I think his quote is rather clear, and his own statements on Wikipedia unclear (again, unless I've missed something). It should also be noted the quote above is taken quite a bit after his response on Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 02:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, the 8 statements that Pielke posted are still the one that he holds on to [53] So i suggest that people do not try to "guess" from quotes or specific blog-entries what Dr. Pielke's opinion is. These 8 statements is his official opinion - which was what he was saying. That you find them unclear is unfortunate - but doesn't influence them at all. Note specifically the last sentence:

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.

--Kim D. Petersen 03:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously he believes humans impact the climate is a very profound way, but he's not very specific in what he believes the result of our activities has yielded. For example, his quote above shows fairly clearly he believes there's a "lack of such warming in recent years," without mention of human or natural causes. ~ UBeR 03:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, i don't believe that anyone (including the IPCC) is 1) ruling out natural variability 2) saying that the temperature rise will be uniform. --Kim D. Petersen 03:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why is Ball listed as not believing in warming? He's clearly stated (recently), "The world has warmed since 1680 . . ." ~ UBeR 04:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Because pinning down Ball on one specific opinion, is the equivalent of trying to nail a jelly fish to a wall? --Kim D. Petersen 13:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who doubts model skill, qualifies via criterion 3, because that is how you get there. That said, he is a really nice guy, so maybe we should leave him off this list.--Africangenesis 04:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually no Africangenesis. That would depend entirely on how large you think the error envelope is. You can accept the IPCC's SRES projected range - and still doubt significant skill. --Kim D. Petersen 06:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in Pielke Sr.'s case, he doesn't think model in skill "on multi-decadal time scales", which would seem to exclude the projections in criterion 3.--Africangenesis 12:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since he specifies this at a regional and local level it doesn't exclude it. --Kim D. Petersen 13:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More Hypocricy. KDP now when someone says something that differs from what they said in the past, we have to also have 'some reason to doubt that his earlier comments do not apply'. We do, we have a more recent quote. See Also Claude Allegre.65.12.145.148 12:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 65.12.145.148 - Pielke himself is referring people who are in doubt about his opinion to his 8 statements [54]. He does this for a very good reason that you can find referred on several of his blog postings: He is commonly misunderstood - and misinterpreted in media and elsewhere. Now, since Dr. Pielke still hasn't changed these statements, and is still referring to them. It is not our job here to second guess Dr. Pielke's opinion - specifically not when he is so nice as to give us them in a summarized form. May i suggest that you ask Dr. Pielke specifically on his blog, whether or not the he still adheres to the 8 statements? --Kim D. Petersen 12:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Or more specifically if he believes there is no warming occurring. But in my opinion, he's already answered that in the quote at the top. ~ UBeR 18:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

YI

I cut YI because "There is no need to dramatize the anthropogenic impact, because the climate has always been subject to change under Nature's influence, even when humanity did not even exist." isn't good enough. *I* agree with it. Compare "Global temperatures will likely rise by 1.4-5.8 degrees during the next 100 years. The average increase will be three degrees. I do not think that this threatens mankind. Sea levels, due to rise by 47 cm in the 21st century, will not threaten port cities." [55]. YI is just giving the IPCC line, but spinning it differently. There are clearly big problems in translating from the Russian William M. Connolley 20:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll make it more clear. See my edit for details. ~ UBeR 20:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Izrael is trying to follow Putin's line on the geopolitical implications (polonium sushi, anyone?) while sticking to the science. Raymond Arritt 20:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cut him once more - the quote mentioned is not in the reference (corrected here compared to the original on the page (htmll => html):

• Yuri Izrael, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."[

--Kim D. Petersen 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Terribly sorry. Copied the wrong link. Readded with proper one. Thanks for pointing that out. ~ UBeR 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The text in the quote is certainly is contradictory to the 3 statements. But i'd like to contest that the article in full isn't. When read in full context - it doesn't contradict the 3 statements. Possibly a bad translation? Comments? --Kim D. Petersen 21:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm seems Connolley has already commented on this. Now the question is: Are we mining for quotes here (regardless of context) - or are we going to adhere to WP:BLP? I suggest that we find a better and less questionable quote and reference if possible. (nb: UBeR - thanks btw for filling the 4 problems i had with it earlier :-). --Kim D. Petersen 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"This shows once again that much uncertainty remains in climate changes forecasts. Climate change is obvious, but science has not yet been able to identify the causes of it." [56]67.141.235.203 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Which would then contradicts himself - which i find unlikely. I suggest that the quote is mistranslated and that he is talking about the consequences and the uncertainties involved around pinpointing these. He is talking about Antarctic changes that are not projected, in this sentence. ie. change the word "causes" into "consequences" and you get meaning that is not contradicted in the rest of the text. --Kim D. Petersen 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Who says it was even translated in the first place? Regardless, I think Dr. Izrael is robust in his statements: He does not believe humans play a major role in global warming, or at least believes we cannot tell we are responsible. He's clear he dislikes the Kyoto Protocol, and there's at least a half-dozen or more quotes that unambiguously show he does not follow the "mainstream scientific assessment of global warming." ~ UBeR 22:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, so far i haven't seen that he "doesn't believe that humans play a major role", when you read the articles in full context then it doesn't seem so. Kyoto is irrelevant, its policy not science. What i get from the articles is that he contests that there will be "catastrophic" consequences, a very reasonable scepticism. Note: I'm not saying that he doesn't belong - but that i find the articles so far unconvincing. --Kim D. Petersen 23:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes if you change his words it may change what he is saying, imagine that. This is mindless.65.12.145.148 22:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It certainly reads like a translation. Regardless, YI's "Global temperatures will likely rise by 1.4-5.8 degrees during the next 100 years. The average increase will be three degrees" is straight from the IPCC book. You can't belive that *and* belive no human influence - its simply incoherent William M. Connolley 22:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to call him incoherent fine. You say that about many other notable scientists. Regardless, he meets the criteria on this page. I really wonder if you people are disingenuos, brainwashed or just messing around but it has to be one of the three. (I must prove Dr. Cotton notable???? He's spent his career doing it.)65.12.145.148 22:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

65.12.145.148 - please read the guidelines in WP:BLP and the previous discussions on this talk page (and the archives). There is reason for caution, while this at times may read as contrariness, it is really a concern for accuracy. So far i don't believe that any scientist who belonged on the page, according to the guidelines, have been turned away. Dr. Cotton is very very likely notable - and a simple WP:Stub will be enough to certify this. But its a requirement, and not an unreasonable one. Its not a question of proving that Dr. Cotton is notable - but to document that he is. Please assume good faith. --Kim D. Petersen 23:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you even trying to use Wikipedia's policies on article for content? It doesn't work that way. WP:notability is for articles as a whole, not its individual parts. Ergo, their policy, "Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'." Might help to understand the division fallacy as well. ~ UBeR 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR - because the consensus here is that notability has to be established first. Please read the archives (and the top of the article). --Kim D. Petersen 00:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read them, and have voiced the same concerns in them. As usual, the comments were ignored (probably because they made too much sense). I've certainly never heard of a consensus to break policies, because I'm not quite sure it's allowed. What's the saying? "The vox populi is far more often the vox stulti"? ~ UBeR 01:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Climate change is obvious, but science has not yet been able to identify the causes of it." [57] How unequivocal can you get for inclusion in "cause is unknown?" If you think this is a mistranslation, show a source that it's mistranslation. Otherwise, this easily belongs. Oren0 00:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments KDP and I try to assume good faith, but if someone has a history of bad faith it is difficult. Some are determined to keep this list as short as possible. Evidence: When prior 'acceptable' names were added, but in the wrong category, the names were not moved but deleted. Additionally, the criteria for inclusion was fine, until the list got 'too' long, so it was arbitrarily made more restrictive. Editors of this page try to have bios removed from Wiki because they are deemed 'un-notable', yet the bar for Wiki notability is EXTREMELY low (ie [[58]]yet the diligent editors of this page don't question that. I understand the need to make sure this is an accurate list and try to assume good faith, but it should work both ways.65.12.145.148 00:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

65.12.145.148 - couple of things wrong with your text: 1) Wrong category: Removal of wrong or misleading information is the correct measure in accordance with WP:BLP - normally they are removed to the talk page - where the issues can be resolved. 2) If you read through the archives - you will find that the bar for inclusion has actually been lowered - not raised. 3) If you believe that someone doesn't meet WP:Notability then you first request extra info via a tag - and then if you do not feel that it has been met - you raise AfD on a page. There is nothing strange in that. And the AfD process is usually fair and measured - bringing in outside editors both to comment and to improve on the article. I've suggested entries for this page, who haven't made it either. There is no cabal here. (at least not one that i know of). --Kim D. Petersen 01:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oren0 as said above - i suspect that the quote is mistranslated, the context of the quote is about Antarctica. The sentence simply doesn't make sense when you read the whole article. --Kim D. Petersen 01:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading the article, I also agree that the quote appears to refer to local, rather than global, effects. --Nethgirb 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't read like a translation (neither the one Oren0 posted or the ones written by Dr. Izreal), as Will would suggest. But looking at the context of the article, which mostly discusses the global phenomenon, it's quite reasonable to deduce the quote Oren0 pasted is pertaining to global climate. In the former part of his sentence, he's doubting climate change forecasts because of the discrepancies of what is observed and what is expected (e.g. in this case probably Antarctica). In the latter half he clearly states science has not identified the cause of climate change. Couple this with his statement, "there is no proven link between human activity and global warming," and his view becomes rather conspicuous. ~ UBeR 02:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So when the new criteria resulted in names being removed from the list, you interpret that as being 'lowered'. Please explain. Secondly, you are incorrect about the BLP standards. It does not say that if an article can be improved by editing, an editor should delete content. (For instance a skeptic was put under the "natural variation' category but the quote supports the "cause unkown" category, so the entry is deleted.) Nethgirb, which article are you referencing?65.12.145.148 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I say lowered because several of the people currently on the list, wouldn't have been included at the time when i first began editing here. Again: read through the archives. The bar was raised abit again - because of the inclusion of a direct crackpot (Correa). And note that the notability bit isn't new - red-links weren't allowed then either.

Btw. this whole issue goes away if you just create the neccessary stubs. If you don't think that the people are notable - then why include them? --Kim D. Petersen 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole issues goes away if you remove the double brackets from around the scientists with no Wikipedia articles. ~ UBeR 02:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You just said lowered, now you say raised, please clarify. So the criteria was changed for one 'crackpot', but what about skeptics who don't meet this criteria (Jim O'Brien, Kary Mullis, Garth Paltridege and others). Yes the criteria can't be perfect either way, but as I have said before some people who should be on the list arent(abovementioned) and some who shouldn't are (Correa), it will always be that way but it must be consistent. WMC changed it and I know Correa has criticized him in the past. While I don't agree with Correa's science, WMC can't change the criteria just because Correa gets on the list (your words).65.12.145.148 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To cut it out in paper: In most of the existance of this article the bar has been higher than it is now. At some time within the last 6 months the bar got lowered quite a bit - then it got raised again - this raise is still lower than it has been during the most of the existance of the article. Clear enough? :-) --Kim D. Petersen 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Or an analogy: Temperature and the Medieval Warm Period. ;-) ~ UBeR 02:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the names mentioned - create a stub and see if they survive wikipedia notability criteria. (Nb: calling what Correa does science, is a bit far fetched - pseudoscience is accurate (and the reason for it being deleted from wikipedia earlier (iirc))). --Kim D. Petersen 02:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referencing [59] cited by Oren0 above. Also, we're getting off topic here with the discussion of the inclusion criteria... if you think they can be improved, suggest how, preferably in a new discussion section. --Nethgirb 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ive cut YI again. Read the source provided - http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050623/40748412.html - and its clear that "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming." is a section header inserted into the article, not a quote, like "Danger levels can be raised" and "Climate change and the rising sea" and so on William M. Connolley 12:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, you do realize Dr. Izrael was the one to write that article, correct? You do realize that if he wrote it, it means it belongs to him, regardless, correct? ~ UBeR 19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

John Christy

Cut this from the article:

• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports (answering to "If global temperatures are increasing, to what extent is the increase attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity as opposed to natural variability or other causes?"): "No one knows. Estimates today are given by climate model simulations made against a backdrop of uncertain natural variability, assumptions about how greenhouse gases affect the climate, and model shortcomings in general. The evidence from our work (and others) is that the way the observed temperatures are changing in many important aspects is not consistent with model simulations." [60]

I think we all know that Christy is at least a moderate sceptic (now thats out of the way). I'm not certain that he qualifies for this article though - Christy is usually very careful, not to contradict the IPCC basics - even when at the same time being critical. The reason i cut the statement is that it doesn't qualify. All of the above can be true at the same time as the 3 consensus statements are true. And Christy is even following this specific quote with (what i assume) is what he considers the best estimation (full quote):

No one knows. Estimates today are given by climate model simulations made against a backdrop of uncertain natural variability, assumptions about how greenhouse gases affect the climate, and model shortcomings in general. The evidence from our work (and others) is that the way the observed temperatures are changing in many important aspects is not consistent with model simulations. However, with extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere there should be some impact on global surface and atmospheric temperatures, but the exact extent is unknown. Since 1950, the IPCC indicates from model simulations that “most” of the 0.5 °C surface warming (perhaps 0.3?) is due to the way models incorporate the effects of extra greenhouse gases.

Ending this with the IPCC estimation, and not contradicting it - means that he at least considers it very plausible. I don't think the IPCC says that they know the exact amount - just that there is a 90% confidence that its most --Kim D. Petersen 15:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He's a clear one for your, Mr. Pertersen: "One of the statements in the SPM was the statement that, if you boil it down, it says we are 90 percent certain that most of the warming in the last 50 years was due to human effects. I don`t agree with that. I think things are much more ambiguous."[61]

Well, I think that when a scientist answers "No one knows" to the question "...to what extent is the increase attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity ...", he is more than skeptical of the IPCC position. Also, to say that Christy is a "moderate skeptic" looks like an understatement. Reading his congressional hearings or looking at his participations to The Great Global Warming Swindle or to Glen Beck's CNN 'Exposed:Climate of Fear' leaves little doubt. You may also want to check a selection of other quotes by Christy at the end of this previous discussion. --Childhood's End 00:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - but what is his problem with the statement? What is it that he feels ambiguous - is it that he feels it may only be 70% certain? Or is it the human contribution. Its not clear. (he is btw. talking about the AR4 SPM).

Childhoodsend - i've been trying to find a quote for Christy for a loooong time - i feel that he is a candidate for inclusion - but unfortunatly i've never found a quote that is sufficiently clear to do this. And btw. i've seen both movies. --Kim D. Petersen 00:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In effect what i'm asking here - is: Find a quote that we can agree isn't ambiguous. This one isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 00:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I understand what you said, but the point, imho, is not to find a quote that says "I totally disagree with the IPCC". This article rather is about clear skepticism of the IPCC position, and "no one knows" is definitely such skepticism. Not total or absolute disagreement, but certainly skepticism... Agree? --Childhood's End 02:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Childhoodsend - there is nothing controversial about a statement saying that "noone knows" in this context. Noone does know. All we can do, and all the IPCC does - is to give the best scientific estimation of how large this is. We have a 66% confidence level in the TAR that "most is human origin" the AR4 increases this to 90% (something Christy apparently does doubt). Uncertainties are part of this - we really don't know - but we do have a scientific estimation within bounds - and Christy is giving this in the last part of his sentence. I agree that he is sceptical - i also agree that Pielke Sr. is sceptical and several others. But there is a clear distinction between scepticism of the major points (the 3 statements) and scepticism about specifics. If i'm not mistaken even Arritt and Connolley are sceptical of some points in the IPCC reports - that doesn't mean that they should be on this list.

But all this is mute - the rules of the game is: a clear distinct quote that shows dissent with either of the 3 statements - none of these do. --Kim D. Petersen 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He obviously disagrees with the second "criterion" for inclusion in this article. I think it's clear, you don't think it's clear. It appears this is a matter of opinion. ~ UBeR 03:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok UBeR - it its so "obvious". Then how is it that there can be a difference of opinion about the same quote? What you or I "feel" or think is not relevant. Quick question UBeR - why do you think he is giving the IPCC estimate at the end of the sentence? --Kim D. Petersen 03:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: its obvious that he doubts the AR4 conclusion - it is not obvious or clear that he doubts the TAR conclusion. And the TAR is still the articles focus (see discussion previously) --Kim D. Petersen 03:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, it's clear he comes in disagreement with criterion 2. And why we're still using an outdated document for a newer document that every climatologist (and then some) knows about, I don't know. ~ UBeR 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR - in the newer document he is talking about the AR4's wording - which is not the same as the TAR's. This page is about disagreement with the TAR statements. We can see that he disagree's with the AR4, but we can only assume from that quote, what he means about the TAR. --Kim D. Petersen 05:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, surely many respected climatologists disagree with the TAR, as AR4 has many correction that were of course wrong in the TAR. Why anyone would support that over the corrections, I do now know. ~ 17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you one: 66% confidence vs. 90% confidence. You can agree with former - and disagree with the latter. Without much trouble. --Kim D. Petersen 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I think that "no one knows" is at a long distance from the IPCC, even TAR. The IPCC's position is essentially "we know, but there's still some little doubt left". By saying "no one knows", Christy casts a vote of no confidence on the IPCC's statements on this issue. Also, if my understanding is correct, I think that the last part of Christy's quote that you added was actually pointed out by Christy to turn against the IPCC one of its own indications. In this context, dont you agree that when you add to "no one knows" his statement to the effect that "the way the observed temperatures are changing in many important aspects is not consistent with model simulations", we can fairly understand that he is clearly skeptical of the second criterion? --Childhood's End 13:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Again - he is ending this with the IPCC conclusion - verbatim. Its up to interpretation. I'll say that i haven't got a clue about which interpretation is the correct one - and i rather doubt that you do either. --Kim D. Petersen 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To say that he simply ended with the IPCC conclusion, no more no less, is far-stretched as a way to interpret objectively his comments. And in any event, logical interpretation rules require that you look at his comments in their context, not out of it. Obviously, your position relies on interpreting a single sentence, which interpretation requires that you ignore Christy's whole position with regard to the second criterion. As I said earlier, this article is not about reporting total and absolute disagreements with the IPCC, but opposition for some reason. Following your tight out-of-context interpretation, we would need to delete most of the article. Quite frankly, I wonder if Lindzen would be included under your reasoning. --Childhood's End 17:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I've seen Lindzen repeat the IPCC conclusions somewhere sometime. ~ UBeR 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lindzen actually even said that the IPCC report (not the SPM) is a remarkable piece of scientific work. We nonetheless can report with confidence that he opposes some of the IPCC main conclusions, at least in the form that they are formulated/communicated. --Childhood's End 18:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

CE actually my conclusion is based on the context - the entire context and content. The quote given - was arbitrarily cut - and my view is that the entire answer to the question, makes the quote questionable. --Kim D. Petersen 18:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Then the quote is well supported by Christy's document and various appearances. I dont see from which Christy's comments you can infer that this quote does not clearly oppose the second criterion (as long as we do not require total and absolute disagreement, as I said, given the uncertainty on both sides). So far you've supported your view only by the fact that he quoted an IPCC conclusion after the said quote, and by ignoring the context within which he cited the IPCC. Also, just curious, how more "skeptical" do you think Lindzen's quote is? --Childhood's End 18:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Compared to Lindzens? Extremely weak. I'd say that this one from Lindzen leaves no doubt or question at all: "But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.". --Kim D. Petersen 18:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"We are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2" is any different from "No one knows," how again? ~ UBeR 18:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That was exactly my point. They say the same, worded differently. --Childhood's End 19:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

CE, first you state that i'm not seeing things in context. And now you are pulling two words from context to compare? - Let me restate: In the full sentence and in context of the entire document. It is not clear that Christy is stating dissent with statement #2. --Kim D. Petersen 19:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this quote above got missed in all this bickering: "One of the statements in the SPM was the statement that, if you boil it down, it says we are 90 percent certain that most of the warming in the last 50 years was due to human effects. I don`t agree with that. I think things are much more ambiguous. (emphasis mine)" How does that not dispute #2? We can talk about using this quote instead of the one that was there previously, but there's no doubt that he merits inclusion. I've noticed Kim that you're often outnumbered in these discussions, yet you just continually revert other people's edits to keep the version you like up. That's not how Wikipedia works. Sometimes you have to leave things in pages that you don't like when there's consensus the other way. Oren0 20:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oren0 - thats not missed. Look at the discussion above. Your quote is from AR4 - this page is about TAR. The difference being that the TAR only states 66% confidence, and AR4 states 90%. Now clearly Christy doesn't agree with AR4. But he can certainly at the same time agree with the TAR. And please keep the personal stuff out of this - Ok. File a complaint if you have a gripe. --Kim D. Petersen 21:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, from TGGWS: "I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist - and there are many - that simply think that is not true." Oren0 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

KDP's point is that AR4 had 90% certainty while TAR had 66%, so someone could disagree with 4AR while agreeing with TAR (although there are no known "camp switch" cases only on the basis of the level of certainty and I dont find this argument very strong).

@KPD : The only way you can differentiate Christy's quote from Lindzen's quote is by interpreting other comments made by Christy as supportive of the IPCC, but that remains your interpretation. Yet, Christy's document is essentially, if not wholly, dedicated at criticizing the IPCC, so your interpretation seems far-stretched, at best. And in case more needs to be said, here's some more Christy context [62] :

• "Changes in surface temperature have also been a topic of controversy. The conclusion in IPCC 2001 that human induced global warming was clearly evident was partly based on a depiction of the Northern Hemisphere temperature since 1000 A.D. This depiction showed little change until about 1850, then contains a sharp upward rise, suggesting that recent warming was dramatic and linked to human effects.[3] Since IPCC 2001, two important papers have shown something else.[4] Using a wider range of information from new sources these studies now indicate large temperature swings have been common in the past 1000 years and that temperatures warmer than today’s were common in 50-year periods about 1000 years ago. These studies suggest that the climate we see today is not unusual at all."

Citing Soon and Baliunas is not usually seen as indicative of someone that supports the IPCC on criterion 2. I dont want to spend more time on this, as it was discussed and settled already anyway. You have provided no logical ground to exlude Christy while keeping Lindzen and others in. Further, you acknowledge that Christy disagrees with AR4, which, with proper context and all the rest, is indicative that he disagreed with TAR too. Christy appeared in TGGWS and in Glen Beck's Exposed: The Climate of Fear. The evidence is there and you refuse to add it up. Since requiring absolute clear-cut rejection of the whole IPCC conclusions is not this article's purpose (it would be empty), re-inclusion seems in order. --Childhood's End 21:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

CE as i've said before - i have been actively looking for specific quotes from Christy, to add him to this page. But Christy is always very carefull not to step over that line. I believe that there is a reason for that - apparently you do not. Again - try not to mix your feelings about whether or not Christy belongs into this. He may - but our feelings are not relevant. Note the timing btw. of the comment on S&B, the controversy about that paper hadn't even begun to develop then. (that started July 2003 - see Sallie Baliunas or the myriad of other mentions of this). The other thing to note is that the NAS report settling the UAH and RSS differences hadn't been done yet. --Kim D. Petersen 21:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

KDP, you're not 'mining' for quotes are you??? "actively looking for specific quotes from Christy"67.141.235.203 14:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm inclined to think that you're the one mixing your feelings herein. Your failure to find a specific quote that clearly repudiates the IPCC is a result of your refusal to add up the evidence and put the quote into the whole context. Christy is in disagreement with the IPCC's statement of criterion 2 no matter how carefully worded are some of his quotes. You're alone not recognizing it.

"add up" - that's i believe a synthesis and original research. None of which belong. --Kim D. Petersen 23:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This can only apply to your position since you need a far-stretched interpretation of Christy's document to reach a conclusion that "no one knows" may 'perhaps' mean that he does not oppose the IPCC on criterion 2. --Childhood's End 13:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the more I think about it, the more I feel that your point about 4AR vs TAR does not hold. If Christy disagrees with 4AR about human influence, you must presume that he also disagrees with TAR unless clearly stated otherwise. This is because if he has no reason but the level of certainty to switch camp from TAR to 4AR, you would be assuming that his reasoning is '66% is low enough a probability for me to support the IPCC, whereas I think the odds are lower than 90%'. This comes to assuming that he gives his support upon gut feelings, which is obviously unscientific. Of course, now, if he had a scientific reason to support TAR but not 4AR, that would be relevant. But you provide none so far and levels of certainty alone cannot hold. --Childhood's End 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It would only be a gut feeling if the 66% and the 90% where based upon gut-feelings. Since they aren't and each is based upon scientific research, you can easily agree with the former evidence, and disagree with the latter. --Kim D. Petersen 23:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll compromise here and admit that it is a possibility, albeit very remote, that someone may have agreed with a 66% certainty based of TAR's evidence and disagree with a 90% certainty based on 4AR's report. I find it remote because the evidence from TAR to 4AR has necessarily improved to support going from 66 to 90, while remaining of the same nature.

Nevertheless, aside from this issue, your removal of Christy is still a denial of all the evidence that is available that he disagrees with TAR and following your reasoning, Lindzen is out, and we havent checked others. --Childhood's End 01:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Recursive argumentation? [63]]. --Kim D. Petersen 02:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the IPCC's TAR was not 66% confidence, as you put it; it was rather "66% to 90%" ("likely"). Your way to present things out seems dubious. You really have no ground to believe that Christy supported TAR and suddenly switched camps after 4AR. You merely keep repeating that his document supported TAR, while his document was actually wholly dedicated at criticizing the IPCC process. Speaking of recursion...
Now, to summarize:
1- The question was "If global temperatures are increasing, to what extent is the increase attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity as opposed to natural variability or other causes?"
2- The IPCC answered "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [64].
3- John Christy answered "no one knows", period. He then even added that "the evidence from our work (and others) is that the way the observed temperatures are changing in many important aspects is not consistent with model simulations."
4- So far that's a pretty clear opposition, but you think that Christy's "However, with extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere there should be some impact on global surface and atmospheric temperatures, but the exact extent is unknown" can be construed as meaning that he does not necessarily opposed the IPCC's position despite the fact that he answered "no one knows", while you know that almost everyone agrees that GHGs do have "some impact" on temperatures and that it is essentially an empty statement that does not contradict his "no one knows".
5- Overall, you're looking for a statement that says "humans have no influence" while what you should be looking at is opinions about the likeliness of human influence suggested by the IPCC.
This does not make much sense and I invite you to better support your position to the effect that "we do not really know whether Christy opposes criterion 2" despite what he answered to the said question and that he actually opposes 4AR. --Childhood's End 14:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

CE you are arguing in circles. Try asking WMC or RA if they know how much of the increase is attributed to GHG emissions - ok? I'd bet that they'd say - noone knows - the best estimation (with 90% certainty) is between X and Y %. (WMC, RA: corrent?)--Kim D. Petersen 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Where X is what again? More than 50 ("most of")? That does not sound like "no one knows"... --Childhood's End 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

50-100%, it seems. I don't think anyone really argues 100% though, but that is what most means anyway. ~ UBeR 23:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Would actually be 25-100%. (most of the warming Anthro: 50%, most of this is GHG: 50% => 25%). So there is plenty room for "noone knows". --Kim D. Petersen 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -Name: Scientists opposing the "mainstream" scientific assessment of global warming

The title of this article used to be "List of scientists opposing global warming consensus". that page now redirects here. The current title is unacceptable. The word "mainstream" is POV pushing and is against Wikipolicy. The old title included the word "List" which is what it is. The article needs to be put back on the "List of scientists opposing global warming consensus" page and not redirected here. I would do it myself if I was familiar with the procedure. --Britcom 07:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:POV-PUSH --Britcom 23:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The proper procedure is listed here Wikipedia:Requested moves. However before you request a new move you should at least familiarise yourself with the arguments used in the original move. Check the archives, one discussion I found is Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 4#Title Discussion but there may be more. BTW, I notice from your user page you appear to be a global warming 'sceptic'. As you might realise, AFAIK the primary reason for the move was because of the opposition to the original title from other global warming sceptics. From what I can tell, most who agree with the mainstream scientific view/consensus view were either neutral or opposed to the move Nil Einne 13:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the tag again. Given the substantial prior discussion, you should gain support here on the talk page first. In fact, I agree with you that the old title was better. The page was moved because some editors felt "mainstream" was less pejorative than "consensus". I personally think "consensus" is more descriptive and admits a shorter title. One piece of new information is that previously we had not referenced reliable external sources explicitly stating that there is a consensus; but that's now documented here. For these reasons (length and descriptiveness) I would support a...

• Move to Scientists opposing the global warming consensus, but I suspect most people are tired of arguing about this :-) --Nethgirb 08:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Prior discussions are irrelevant when it comes to clearly delineated Wikipedia policy, editors may not ignore Wikipedia policy and editors may not remove dispute tags as long as there is an ongoing dispute. This qualifies as a dispute. --Britcom 10:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose move it is difficult to understand the importance of any consensus without it being main stream. No doubt there is consensus among Intelligent Design adherents that it is science. That does not negate the fact that consensus among the rest of the scientific community, i.e. mainstream scientific assessment, is that ID is not science. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The current title would be acceptable if the word "mainstream" were omitted. I would like to see the words "List of" in the title in keeping with the Wikipedia precedent. --Britcom 10:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've re-removed the tag. There was endless discussion about this move; you don't seem to have anything new to say nor do I see anyone supporting you. Although... I don't recall caring a great deal about the mv either way. And I don't care much about the "mainstream" in there - its pretty well implied by the rest William M. Connolley 10:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing the tag before the issue is resolved is not allowed, you are breaching WP Policy.--Britcom 11:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "mainstream" is listed as a Weasel word in Wikipedia Policy WP:WEASEL. It is therefore not an acceptable title. If you want to keep the word, you are going to have to get Wikipedia to change its policy. This article must comply with Wikipolicy just like every other article does. If anyone here wants to argue about the policy, I suggest you talk to Jimmy Wales. --Britcom 11:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are arguing that the title is automatically invalid because it includes "mainstream", then I think you are wrong (for example, Mainstream economics). If you think you are right, I suggest you report this to WP:auotmatically invalid page names and get it changed. Otherwise, I suggest you stop trying to bludgeon us with policy William M. Connolley 11:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL lists mainstream among words which "often qualify for weasel words by vaguely attributing a statement to no source in particular", but of course we have many sources documenting what is the prevalent view. --Nethgirb 11:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Well now, thanks in large part to that little stunt that some people here thought would be funny. I have decided that this article needs my full attention. So I am going to be editing here regularly. Now the first thing we are going to discuss is the meaning of this tag:

Now first off, is there anyone here who has not read the Wikipedia page on what weasel words are? Here is a link in case you haven't read it. WP:WEASEL Next, we will be discussing the meaning of the word "mainstream" and how that word can be used or abused on Wikipedia. --Britcom 13:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you will. We already have, have come to a consensus, and have named the article accordingly. Unless you display an understanding of this consensus, and present new arguments, I wont. --Stephan Schulz 13:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Britcom, if you had actually bothered to look at WP:WEASEL, you would have found that it's a guideline, not policy. Sean William 14:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can explain how an overwelming majority of all scientist in this field do not constitute the "mainstream?"14:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not mainstream, at least not anymore. See Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics; Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research, 15 May 2007. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to consult some better sources. --Nethgirb 06:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

---

By using the word "mainstream" in the title, it betrays that the writer is attempting to characterize the dissenters as "outside the mainstream"(likely for political reasons rather than scientific reasons) but in fact in science there is no mainstream. Science doesn't work like politics (although I am sure there are many who wish it did). Science relies on empirical evidence shown in duplicable experiments. Honest students of climate science will readily admit that science doesn't yet have the technology, nor the historical data, nor the comprehensive data collecting mechanisms to understand the climate variables of even a small region of earth, much less the entire planet, and the lack of such abilities in science means that anyone who claims that they can predict what the climate of the planet will be, or even if it will change predictably, should be suspect.

Such predictors and prognosticators have cropped up periodically and preached "doomsday" or "catastrophe" many times before with no fulfillment of their "prophecies" to date. Whenever one claims to have knowledge certain of future events, red flags should go up in the mind of the reader and such claims should be 'prima facie' evidence that the claimants are outside the "mainstream" of science if there is such a thing and are attempting to "divine" future events through theory, rather than extrapolate from a solid basis of demonstrable scientific evidence. Especially when they attempt to suppress or discredit those who have legitimate concerns about the validity of their conclusions rather then engage them in thoughtful debate.

I therefore conclude that the word "mainstream" has no place in a serious article about any kind of science subject, and I base that conclusion on the inescapable logic that the word, in this subject matter, is misleading and tending to confuse the layman about the debate that is raging in the scientific arena that has now spilled out into the media and international politics thanks to some high profile environmental enthusiasts. In addition to that it is clear that the word "mainstream" is a Weasel word according to WP:Weasel and that it is in fact being used in the "weasel" way because it is not a term that is normally associated with the subject matter and is (at best) inaccurate. --Britcom 15:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, some observations

1. The scientific community applies the scientific method to advance our view of the world.
2. This means they debate a certain explanation of what we observe, i.e. AIDS, evolution, earthquakes, global warming, et cetera.
3. Following that debate and lacking arguments against the proposed explanation the scientific community adopts that as established scientific view.
4. The latter is also known as consensus.
5. Mainstream refers the what is considered the majority view.
6. Mainstream science refers to the fact that a certain view is shared by the majority of scientists.
7. Any view not supported by the majority of scientist is therefore outside the mainstream, but can still be consensus within that group.

Case in point:

1. Most working within the medical community accept HIV as causal agent in AIDS. Because of that therapy is based upon preventing and eradicating infection with HIV.
2. There are people that oppose this view and state there are more/other factors in contracting AIDS (i.e. diet, anti-HIV mediacations, et cetera). Therefore they argue against the use of antiviral agents.

Although both positions represent consensus within certain groups, only position 1 represents the "mainstream." That is, most, if not all, within the medcal community (which is the mainstream) agree (consensus) this is the best explanation regarding the aetiology of AIDS. And you are right that, by implication, position 2 is therefore outside the "mainstream." Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is the accepted definition of "mainstream", it is bullet point 3, that runs into trouble, because the evidence is inconclusive. There is evidence for the competing hypotheses and since they are on a continuum, the resolution may well come out in between. What is being called the "mainstream" believes the models have the skill needed to decide the issue, the heterogeneous dissenters, don't believe the models have that skill and the question is still open.--Africangenesis 16:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

1. We just had a report issued by the "mainstream scientific community" stating that global warming is influenced by human behaviour. This means there is consensus among the mainstream.
2. As to any ongoing debate. The principal charactaristic of science is that debate is never finished. Unlike dogma -i.e. religion, politics, et cetera- science is open to reevaluation of its views when presented with new evidence. To claim debate proves there is no consensus ignores the fact that on every scientific subject people might do new studies and come to new conclusions but that until a new consensus has been reached through the scientific method any current consensus is just that: consensus. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If "influenced by human behavior" was the criterion, then there would probably be no scientists listed on the artcle page. Evidently you have also dropped your "lacking arguments against" criterion, in favor of "the IPCC owns the consensus".--Africangenesis 17:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the scientific community decided there were insufficient arguments opposing current consensus, i.e. "lacking arguments against." Not sure what If "influenced by human behavior" was the criterion, then there would probably be no scientists listed on the artcle page. means. Clearly current consensus is that global warming is influenced.

Also we should keep in mind here that we are editing an encyclopedia here not a scientific journal. The article is supposed to be understandable by the general public at large.--Britcom 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, that does not mean we should increase the non-existent controversy by presenting layman's use of terms as the scientific view. Mainstream stands for majority, most, widely supported, et cetera. Consensus only refers to people agreeing on something but not that they are mainstream. To point out this, and adhere to an accurate description of the fact that the only controversy is between science and politics, seems more than fair to me. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's guidelines: "Often, people who are convinced that some statement or other is true naturally want to see it mentioned in the articles where it is relevant; however, statements such as these tend to jump out at the reader as obvious opinion-stated-as-fact and quickly get rooted out." Included in Wikipedia's list of examples to avoid is the word "mainstream". Now are we going to continue to defend the "obvious opinion-stated-as-fact" (Wikipedia's words not mine)? --Britcom 15:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to come late to the game... but why not call this article "Scientists opposing the IPCC assessment of global warming"? After all, reading the first line of the article, that's what the list appears to actually cover. — PyTom 03:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that while such a title is technical correct, it completely misses the point. The idea of this list is that these people disagree with the mainstream/consensus scientific assessement of global warming and we use the IPCC report to sumarise that assessement. Nil Einne 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)