Talk:Climate change

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.22RfC:_Oppressive_editing_and_page_ownership.22_at_Talk:Global_warming

As I wrote at the ANI started by 2over0, I support global warming 100%, but I think it is a really bad idea to squelch dissent. Global warming editors have a good reason to complain, for years, one side has been unequally represented on the global warming pages, and editors have been unfairly blocked repeatedly. The behavior has been so bad that journalists have written negative articles about global warming editing on wikipedia.

2over0, let editors vent their frustration here, or it will only lead to bigger drama and frustration later.

Moderating conversations is harder in the short term, but squelching dissent always makes for much more drama and headache later. Ikip 18:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Airing grievances is fine - in fact, that is why we have Dispute resolution. It is only that it is being done here and distracting from discussion of improvements to Global warming. The archived discussion remains available for anyone who would like to start a related thread at any of the several venues mentioned above, or anywhere else appropriate that I might have missed. Thank you, though, for your input - the possibility that it could in the long term be more productive to let the discussion play out here is why I asked. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Ikip, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ikip's comment is based on a fundamental fallacy. S/he says, "one side has been unequally represented", but in the science of global warming, there is only one 'side': the science is now settled; those who try to dispute that are not working, published, practicing scientists, but bloggers, journalists, politicians, members of the public, and a very vocal minority paid to do so by Big Oil dollars. The place where there are two sides to the argument (those who get the science and those who don't) is in Public opinion on climate change. This article is the parent article about the science. There are sub-articles for all the education, politics and discussion that is going on worldwide. --Nigelj (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion. There really is no basis for excluding one entire side of an issue or debate. the fact that you would say that there is only one side, highlights the real issue at this entry. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ikip and Sm8900, seems like some folks are working a POV with no conclusive source support, that's a serious issue with behavior reminiscent of owning the article. Particularly where scientific opinions are concerned. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think that Sm8900 and ZuluPapa5 have lost me in their "opinions" and "POV with no conclusive source support" statements. The article seems pretty well representative of the science behind the issue (which IMO is more useful than a summary of journalists' opinions), and being based on the scientific reports, it is certainly conclusively supported by its sources. Am I just misunderstanding what you are trying to say? Awickert (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Awickert, that comment sounds a tiny bit disingenuous; is it possible that you already do know what we mean? anyway, we mean that a group of editors have prevented this entry from fairly presenting both sides of the debate on this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, then I did understand what you said. But I don't agree. I see this article as fairly presenting all scientific sides to the debate (albeit very much simplified). I don't see it presenting all political sides. And I think that this is OK because the politicians aren't the experts and this covers the science. Is your point that this should cover public controversy in a broader way? (Note that outside the USA, I'm not even sure if I know what the public controversy is.) Anyway, I think that this is the root of the problem - you and ZP5 are saying that others are being biased, while we say that we are trying to be unbiased by including only science and none of the political mishmash. Awickert (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Awickert: pardon me for arguing for a side of the debate that I happen to think is wrong, but you seem to be defending a content fork that is dangerously close to being a POV-fork. If this were my decision to make, the main article global warming would be a discussion of the political debate, and the scientific aspects of global warming would be shuffled off into a sub-section or a minor secondary article called, say, 'Global warming research'. That's because global warming (properly understood) is primarily a social/political issue: the science of global warming was around for a good decade or two before it got any public notice, most people today are not interested in the scientific aspects except to the extent that scientists give thumbs up or thumbs down to particular political points, and the problem itself is a political problem that requires political solutions - scientists' only business here is to confirm that the effect is real, and leave the solution to the effect to the rest of the world. Yet you seem to be arguing that the main article on global warming should be strictly about the science, with no reference to the political debates at all (except for what amounts to a cast-off in the last section). I cannot see any justification for that belief; please enlighten me if I am missing something.

I think the approach best suited to wikipedia policy would be to move the current Global warming controversy article to this page, and merge this page into Scientific opinion on climate change. That would resolve the appearance that this is PoV-forking without doing anything to minimize the power of the scientific perspective. What problems would you have with that? --Ludwigs2 07:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to go to bed, so I hope that this is coherent. (Important to note: I am not one of the main contributors to this article.)

• This article has been strictly about the science for many years, and that since the subject is rooted in public interest in science, having the global warming article about science seems OK to me. But (2 paragraphs down), I do think that we can reach some agreement.

• "content fork that is dangerously close to being a POV-fork": I would disagree because citing a wide swath of scientific publications IMO satisfies WP:NPOV, but I believe that you disagree with me because you believe "global warming" to be more importantly a social phenomenon than a scientific conclusion.

The first bullet is legacy, let's forget that. The second is more important. I think it's better for Wikipedia to be an educational resource, showing people what the professional scientists are doing, than to simply cite newspapers (many of which bungle the facts) for information on an ongoing debate that they probably already know about and may already have an opinion about. I therefore feel that forking this whole article off to a research section would be an unfortunate, and could turn this article from a good, scientific one into a mass media extravaganza.

Here's my thought: In a heated issue, is is better to dispassionately present the facts as the experts best know them instead of reiterating the opinions of commentators (who have varying degrees of qualification to competently comment). So if anything, I would add more information on research to this article instead of less. But facts can also be about what politicians are going to do about the issue, and that is important as well. So I wouldn't mind reworking both the "Responses to global warming" and "Debate and skepticism" sections into a single section about response proposals and related political debate. But this would need to be discussed by everyone here, as it would be a non-minor change.

My view in short: In matters of science in an encyclopedia, science should not be subordinate to popular belief. In matters of politics, facts should be presented dispassionately. Awickert (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

one of these days I'm going to have to put a "Warning! Political Scientist as Work!" sign on my sig. I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but from my perspective the observation that numbers of voices are loudly bungling the issue is an interesting and important fact - more important in some ways than the facts that are being bungled. the scientific debate over global warming is pretty much a done deal; to my knowledge there hasn't been a fully accreditable scientific statement against global warming since the mid-90s. The political and social debates over global warming, however, are just now getting their second wind, and you can expect them to continue for years yet. besides which, the only reason global warming is a public issue at all is because it pits the vested interests of corporate entities, nation/states, and the mass of humanity against each other in political spheres. scientists need to tell us whether global warming is real, yes, but how are scientists going to help us deal with the balance between (say) China's deep interest in industrial growth and the geometric increase in pollution that entails?

matters of science should not be subordinate to popular belief, sure; but the question is which science we are talking about. I'd say this problem falls squarely in poli sci territory, not climatology.

but you're right, it's way too late to debate these things effectively. pick it up again tomorrow. --Ludwigs2 08:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Global warming primarily a political/social issue? If there were no science, then what would the politicians and political commentators be talking about? Scientists aren't giving the thumbs up and thumbs down, they're the ones going to the economist, who go up the politicians, and who ask whether they can get a thumbs up or down on a certain policy. It would be nice if it were the other way around, and the politicians and political commentators went up the scientists and asked: look at my news report or my slideshow, is it remotely accurate? From the news sources, even reporters reporting on "a recent study found such and such", seem to get the facts wrong or misrepresented. However, I think we could do a better job describing the politics of global warming, but I don't think it should be the main focus of this article.

Is having the science be the focus a PoV content fork? Everything is a PoV fork, and maybe it's just the epidemiology PoVed part of me that saying that this mentality is spreading like a disease. How often do we get a proposal to include, say Climategate, and that to oppose would eventually lead to a NPOV violation? Why can't the discussion's subject stick to relevance, or notability, and not move to embittered PoVed editors who warp and oppress and manipulate and lie? (We haven't got lies yet, have we? Ludwigs2, you lie that a resolve is to have politics at the forefront. !. ?. :P. ?.)

You're right, let's assume you're right. To resolve this PoV-fork we'll move Global warming controversy here and move Global warming to GW research merged with Scientific opinion on climate change. Global warming controversy is over 120 KBs long with several PoV-forks that are now being proposed to be moved back (Climate change denial, Climate change consensus). Politics of global warming, well we don't even have enough editors interested in objectively describing an un-objective issue to build it beyond the bare-bones. I think if we followed through, it wouldn't resolve a content PoV-fork, it'll do the opposite. Because then WMC will have a foundation to introduce green party rhetoric, Rush, Al Gore, and on. Look, there's a lot of interest in politics, but not in an neutral or objective manner. If there were, I wouldn't have to ask for the fourth time (see Archive 55), that paragraph four could be improved in the section "Debate and skepticism", and from there we can improve our coverage of the politics of global warming. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs is right. there are major dimensions to this issue not discussed in this entry, due to the ongoing fixated view adopted by a group of editors. the entry should be more encyclopedic, and cover more societal aspects of this issue and topic. -Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... if there were no science around GW, then we'd all be blithely tumbling down the path to our own species' extinction. But we seem to be blithely tumbling down that path even with the science. Heaven knows I don't want to sell the scientists short, because without the scientists the activists wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and the environment would be largely uninhabitable by the end of this century. but it's the activists who are going to avert the disaster if the disaster is going to be averted, because averting the disaster means changing the way people think about their world.

and me, I never lie; I am the soul of goodness and mercy. Also, I have this marvelous beachfront property in Florida for sale if you're interested...

I'm new to this page, so I can't speak to the troubles it has seen (though I can imagine them, given what I know about the real-world political tribulations). But I don't think that primary sources from advocates or critics who aren't scientists have much of a place in the article. as far as I can see it, the article should have this kind of a structure:

• outline of the political debate
• pro and con position statements from notable primary sources (brief and succinct, without much argumentation)
• discussions of pro and con positions from secondary sources
  • scholarly viewpoints
  • notable advocacy position from both sides, clearly presented as advocacy
• position of scientific perspectives in the political debate
  • scientific results, en claire
  • public and private sector politics surrounding the scientific results
• real-world ramifications
  • political problems dealing with climate change (national and corporate counter-interests, mostly)
  • worst and best case environmental scenarios as presented by opposing sides

I think that covers all of the relevant issues and includes all sides of the debate fairly, while controlling the spread of yakkity-yak (material that comes from relatively uniformed primary - e.g. pundit - sources, in all its endless glory). Might need to spawn content forks from some of these; just have to be careful not to let the content forks run way like rabid raccoons. --Ludwigs2 14:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the science. There are other articles about the politics. --TS 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks Tony, but I've already addressed that particular point above. please don't make me repeat myself. --Ludwigs2 15:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's simpler than that: this article is about a globe that is warming. Global warming is the title and that is what it is about. The measurement and modelling of that warming. The only way to measure the warming of the earth is by scientific measurements and computer models. The warming of the earth is not something you can measure with opinion polls or focus groups. All of that comes under reactions to the warming of our globe. That's why all the subarticles are about the politics, economics, public opinion, crimes, conferences, etc. Read the words of the title. --Nigelj (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I had read your earlier comments, Ludwigs2. I'm just concerned that you seem to be persisting in redefining this well established article to be on relatively subsidiary subjects already covered by subsidiary articles. It's a bit like going to the evolution article and proposing that we cover the subject, in that article, from the point of view of politics and religion rather than science. It isn't going to happen. --TS 15:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I can imagine that a political scientist might sincerely think that more people come to Wikipedia looking for material on the politics bubbling around the topic, than for (scientific) information on global warming itself. But that is a matter of speculation, and the phrase "global warming" primarily denotes a physical phenomenon of climate, not a political phenomenon. If we really want to make it easier for readers to find the political material, we can put a "see also" at the top of this article. But even that seems wrong to me. Bertport (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Tony: first off, it is not up to you to decide what is and isn't going to happen on this article; that should be a matter for debate and consensus. I understand the value of hyperbole like that, but please don't make the mistake of believing it's true.

That being said, your analogy doesn't hold any water. Evolution is and always has been primarily a scientific issue; one with strong religious overtones, that unfortunately produce some nasty political conflicts, but the debates there have always centered on issues of pedagogy (the teaching of evolution) and so the entire discussion still falls within the realm of science (since science is one of the primary sources of knowledge for educational purposes). questions about global warming, however, invariably focus on political and social behaviors - it is not about teaching people the science of global warming except to the extent that science is useful to teach people about the ethics of global warming. This article as it stands is a very nice explanation of the science of global warming (and I wouldn't want to change that), but as such it is an entirely secondary point in the greater debate about global warming (which has to do with the questions about what, if any, social or political actions should be taken).

and please, don't insult my intelligence with Sesame Street arguments (Global warming is about a globe that is warming - yeeee...); If I want to play word games I'll do a crossword.

@ Bertport: I believe people come to wikipedia looking for both kinds of information, and I believe wikipedia should provide both kinds of information, and I believe that it should be provided with an appropriate structure. I think it's safe to say that anyone who comes to wikipedia looking for scientific information on GW is doing that because they are curious about the political debates on GW and want information in that context; I sincerely doubt that many people come to wikipedia thinking about the science first with the politics a distant second. if you believe, however that a significant proportion of the 20k hits per day this page gets are from people whose main interest is in the details of of how climatology is done, well... you are free make that argument. --Ludwigs2 17:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's likely that most of the reader traffic to this article now is sparked in some way by the political maelstrom. But that doesn't mean they come here looking primarily for description of the politics. I came here looking for authoritative information on global warming, which means scientific information on the physical phenomena. I am secondarily interested in what Wikipedia might have to say on the politics, and I can easily find that when I look at the table of contents for this article and see a section on "debate and skepticism", and if the summary there is not sufficient for me, then I can easily follow the "see also" links there. This article is about global warming, and the politics are a related topic. The science is, quite properly and obviously, the primary content for this physical phenomenon. Sorry if you think it's a Sesame Street argument. I'm sorry you seem to need this spelled out for you. Bertport (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

well, since you haven't really responded to my argument, the best I can do is shrug. I think I've shown fairly effectively that the proper context of this issue is the political debate, and that the science of it is only one (albeit it interesting and important) move in that greater discussion. that's even implicit in what you said: looking for 'authoritative' information implies the presence of information which is not authoritative, which implies a enclosing, non-scientific environment... people can and will do what you've suggested regardless (scan through for the parts that interest them) whether the focus of the article is on the science or on the political debate, so to my mind that's a non-issue. The important issue is whether we have framed the article correctly with respect to its real-world manifestation, and it is pretty clear that this article fails to do that. Which is why I suggest that this article may suffer from PoV-fork issues, and why I recommend it be restructured as I suggest. Now, if you disagree that the science should be considered as a sub-facet of the political and social debates of global warming, please let me know what reasons you have for thinking that; I've already stated why I think it should be seen that way. let's put your reasons against mine so that we can make an effective comparison. --Ludwigs2 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We have responded to your argument. It's very simple. This article is about global warming, as indicated by the title. You want the article to be about something else. Your interest belongs in another article with a title that matches your topic. Bertport (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

well, I can see that that is your belief. Unfortunately, your belief has no basis in reason (at least none that you've demonstrated), and so I'm afraid I'm going to have to dismiss it as an unfounded ideological claim. Your collective opinion is noted, and I will do my best to accommodate it when I discuss the issue with those who are interested in pursuing a rational analysis of the issue geared towards improving the article. thanks for your time. --Ludwigs2 23:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ludwig2 is completely right. the way that articles at Wikipedia grow and develop is by editors being open to each other's differing ideas about what each article should contain. there really is no basis for any editor or any small group of editors deciding that only their subject matter is acceptable, and everyone else's ideas should be rejected immediately and categorically. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Steve, "Ludwig2 is completely right" followed by paragraph written in such a manner that no one will disagree with, but does not address central point: science or politics or PoV-fork. Discussion is a covenant. Your objective isn't to ensure the comment makes you "right", your objective is to convince the other editors on a specific set of actions. That doesn't seem to be happening. And right now I'm not sure if you want me to address you, Steve, or Ludwig2. For the next 14 comments up there hasn't been a single question. No one is convinced, and no one is asking why. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought we were already having a specific disagreement about a specific set of proposals. so that's what my comment was meant to address. EOM. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion 2

(E/C) As a reply to Ludwigs2's proposals (now far above), in my experience, a lot of people who I meet have vastly less knowledge about global warming than does the average Wikipedian here. Many people don't think that the science is anywhere near a done deal, and the overwhelming majority of these people have the news media as their primary source of information on the topic. My point is that a rehash of this article into what political commentators think, thereby making the science secondary, will remove a place that people can look for well-cited science behind global warming. I'm really afraid that this will instead turn into the exact same sorts of things that they get bombarded with every day by end-of-the-world-is-near radicals and the it's-no-big-deal or its-a-hoax crowds as well. People deserve to know about the details of the science, which is notably absent from a lot of public debates. That being said, this article should (and does) provide links to a number of articles that do cover the controversy, and I think that the coverage of political ramifications and controversy could be improved. Summary: A ton of people are unfamiliar with why global warming is an issue, and we should present facts instead of repeating mass-media stories. Awickert (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to satisfy myself with a brief poke here. discussing GW in terms of its status as a political debate is not, not, not equivalent to making a rehash of what political commentators think. that suggestion is hyperbolic to the point of farce, and it ticks me off a bit that you went there. what I am suggesting is framing the issue as a political discussion which has strong scientific elements (which is precisely what it is in the real world), not opening the page to bunches of mindless commentary that would violate numerous wikipedia guidelines and give everyone headaches. please try to keep the discussion on a realistic and productive tack, thank you. --Ludwigs2 19:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that in my history on these talk pages, once the political debate is opened, all sorts of editors want to add all sorts of content - the slippery slope. I think that my other issue is that I don't in my mind disconnect political debate from advocacy. And I'm going to hop down from my polite high horse and ask you to WP:AGF, because I really intended those comments to be a productive dissemination of my views. I try my very hardest to be polite, and I will not tolerate another attack on my character based on your assumptions. But thank you for further clarifying the political debate section that you suggest; I think I'm going to think about this for a little while and wait for the more primary editors of this page to weigh in. Awickert (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I needed a day-after-christmas nap (which I've now had) and was a bit more snappish than I intended to be. Of course you're right that once the political aspect is opened it needs to be monitored to keep it within reliable secondary sources (because people who don't get the sourcing distinction will try to insert all sorts of nonsense). I don't think that's a deal-breaker, though, since I'm sure there are a lot of reliable sources out there discussing the political debate from a nice, neutral distance. it's fairly easy to tell in this debate when a source is acting as a primary political voice and when it's taking a secondary or tertiary perspective. --Ludwigs2 23:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want an article that states only one side of the story then the article title should make that clear as in, for example, 'The scientific case for AGW'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that case, let's change Geological history of Earth to "The scientific case for Earth history", as a large number of English speakers believe Archbishop Usher's calculations, and their side of the story certainly is being neglected. Awickert (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem, some editors want to put AGW on a par with, say, evolution but the two are nothing like equivalent. There are no serious scientific doubters of evolution, these who question it come mainly from a specific religious background. On the other hand, there is a significant minority of scientists who do not accept AGW to various degrees. These are spread throughout the scientific community. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Martin. There are no serious doubters of evolution. There are many serious doubters of the Global Warming Hypothesis. It is on a par with the Efficient Market Hypothesis which most economists broadly accept, but which is also doubted by many. (For that reason, even the firmest of believers in EMH insist it be called a 'hypothesis'). I love SUV's (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the two of you. There is no serious scientific opposition to global warming, and GW shares that much in common with evolution. GW theory is the best scientific explanation available by far for the climate effects that we currently see in the world. That doesn't mean it's true, of course; it just means that there is no other theory available which has the same degree of explanatory power. all the opposition to GW theory comes from non-scientific venues, and it is all basically of the form "We have no other theory to offer in its place, but we object to the conclusions of this theory". nor do these non-scientific venues state precisely why they object to the conclusions of GW theory, though one gets the impression it is not on any particular methodological ground. --Ludwigs2 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

All right, I still disagree with "The scientific case for AGW" because that makes the science secondary. but I think we can come to terms about evenly presenting scientists' views. Yes, there is a very small minority of scientists who disagree with global warming being an issue, and an even smaller minority of climate scientists who do so. Their publications should be and (as far as I've seen) are presented here with appropriate weight to their significance in the scientific community. If you know of significant papers that are skeptical of global warming, please bring them up. Awickert (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is more to the subject than scientific opinion/papers. This article is titled "global warming". It should therefore be a WP:SUMMARY of all of the major issues involved: the science (which should be elucidated in a subarticle science of global warming), the politics, the economics, the controversy, the effects, etc. We have subarticles for all of the rest, but I don't see how anyone can deny that there are significant political, economic, and other issues to discuss here. This is my objection to "this article is about the science". Oren0 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Oren0, that we should cover broader aspects of the subject, but it seems quite clear on the science that it is not in the same class as evolution and that there is another side to the argument that has not been properly represented here. We should, of course, retain a high standard of sourcing but there certainly is no case for deleting any dissenting opinion on the talk page.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OrenO has it right. There should be space and balance for all sub-topics. I suppect the main topic could benefit from a special wiki project task force. This might make for a good solution after the next RfC from an ANI result. The article is well written, how to expand it (to all realms of reliable sourced study) is what this discussion should focus on. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled returning after Christmas. So is this thread about conduct or about some people's feeling that their particular POV is underrepresented? Where we go next depends what the problem is. --BozMo talk 08:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're on the right track BozMo, however in place of "conduct or POV" try "conduct and POV". Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As you will know by now there is a separate process for the two of these. I hope there isn't a bad faith attempt to push a POV under a smokescreen of pretending a conduct issue here? --BozMo talk 16:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The conduct issue relates to a group of editors blocking an effort to balance the existing POV in this article by a group of editors. could we please try to not get bogged down in the terms and semantics of describing this issue? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was a consensus that the current article was pretty NPOV? Otherwise consensus would establish to move it. But anyway that this is really an attempt to shift the POV is clearer--BozMo talk 12:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

BozMo, what is going on here? did you just start reading this discussion? or do you enjoy making slightly ornery-but-quite-disingenuous statements? did you just get here? of course this whole discussion is about whether this article is NPOV. there's really no reason to innocently state that "you thought this whole article is NPOV." what's next, telling me Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? thanks for pointing out that you feel this is an attempt to shift the NPOV. Hey, can you really see all that from here? :-) :-) Ok, thanks, EOM. ----Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(break):::::::::::::::P'raps I would enjoy your discourse more if you told me where and why you think the article isn't neutral, which you imply you do? Meanwhile I liked the walrus version better :-) --BozMo talk 13:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

:-) :-D hey, many thanks for your tip of the hat to my foray into comic writing!!! I deleted that in the concern that it might be taken the wrong way. thanks, though...all in jest. anyway, i think I'd prefer to simply let the discussion develop for the moment, as it already is in other sections of this page. I was merely adding my assent to some points raised, and have no problem if the main issues are discussed elsewhere. thanks.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the behavior of a number of wiki editors on articles related to Global Warming is one sided, and bad for Wikipedia in the short run, and the long run. I also concur that this article is POV. A great example is the posting above on this talk section which claims that there is "only one side to the science" - it epitomizes this illogical POV mindset. I assume other editors and admins are aware of this article[1] on the topic. A total administrator supervised rewrite is definitely in order, for Wiki's sake. --Knowsetfree (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the politics outweigh the science?

@ BozMo: let me get this discussion back on the track that I started it on. first off, here's what I'm nt trying to do:

• I am not interested in evaluating the conduct of editors, singly or collectively. The only conduct issue I worry about is when editors get stubborn and closed-minded, which makes proper discussion impossible, but people on all side of this issue (and every issue on wikipedia) are occasionally guilty of that
• I don't think it's fair to put it on an emotional level and say that some people's feelings are hurt because their PoV is insufficiently represented. In my view, it's a more analytic problem than that.

What I am concerned about is that this page is creating an implicit PoV-fork by focussing primarily on Global Warming science. Global warming is first and foremost a political issue - it was a political issue long before people began studying it scientifically and it will continue to be a political issue long after science comes to a definitive conclusion about the effect. the only reason GW science has the public attention that it has is because a number of (what I would consider unscrupulous) political figures thought it might be a good idea to attack the science politically. By focusing on the science we get a deeply unbalanced article, because the scientific position is almost uniformly pro-GW.

I mean, this is a great article about GW science as written, but it's a fairly lousy, biased article about the GW debate, which should be the first and foremost consideration. --Ludwigs2 05:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

it was a political issue long before people began studying it scientifically -- tell that to the ghosts of Svante Arrhenius and Guy Stewart Callendar, to name only a couple of the better-known. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If that was intended as a rebuttal, I don't quite see the point. so, you have two (maybe some more) scientists back to the early 20th century positing CO2 production as an environmental factor, science which went largely unnoticed outside of the scientific community until the advent of green politics near the end of the century. at that point it took off as a relatively well-funded scientific sub-discipline (because of social and political interests). and again, soon (I'd argue it already has) the existence of GW will become a well-established scientific principle; do you think that's going to stop the political/social debates? Science will tell us it exists, and as soon as it does, the political world will have to figure out what to do about it. I mean honestly, IMO the primary reason the science is contested is because political actors want to stave off the point where they will be politically obligated to make fundamental changes in waste-handling practices. or were you reaching for something else? --Ludwigs2 06:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was pointing out that the science has a long history; lots of people think it's something newfangled. Pistols at high noon or would you prefer the pig dung? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks for pointing that out. I don't disagree. --Ludwigs2 06:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The above exchange looks like this:

Ludwig - "This was a political issue before it was studied scientifically."

Boris - "No, it was studied and discussed scientifically before it got any political attention."

Ludwig - "Oh, you're right."

So, end of discussion, and now we can move on to other things, right? Bertport (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bertport: thank you for a marvelous misinterpretation of the discussion that manages - simultaneously! - to be self-serving and to avoid the point I made entirely. you should have been a politician (assuming you're not). but in fact, what really happened here is this:

1. Boris asks what strikes me as a nonsensical question
2. I ask for clarification
3. Boris responds that he is just clarifying a detail (one, incidentally, that has no real bearing on the problem)
4. I acknowledge his clarification, because there's no point in getting bogged down on side-points

Your choice here is either to go back to the original statement I made and pursue it properly, or to try to transform Boris' rather off-topic comment into something significant. I'm curious to see which you choose. --Ludwigs2 14:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to boil down to the Sesame Street level of what words mean. "it was a political issue long before people began studying it scientifically" is what you wrote. I understand you also think that the politics is more important, or more interesting, or more (something good) than the science. But this article is about global warming, not politics. There are other articles that exist to cover your interest. Bertport (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

so: it's you're claim that global warming is a scientific issue more than a political issue because...? (this is an opportunity for you to make an actual argument for your position). If you'd like, I'll refactor my original comment to read "it was a political issue long before people began studying it scientifically in any serious way", but I would hope that you would AGF and not indulge in that kind of pettiness. --Ludwigs2 15:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sesame Street. What do the words mean? [2] Bertport (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific opinions are a subclass of politics which attempt to apply objective arguments. Global warming will always be a political issue, until aliens (perhaps from Sesamme Street) get involved. Then there will be a new form of politics. This discussion belongs in philosophy of science. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Physical phenomena are the subject of science, not politics.Bertport (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

both of those statements are a bit off the mark. Physical phenomena are the subject of science (among other things); human action is the subject of politics (among other things); where human action involves physical phenomena both sciences apply, in their respective proportions. generally speaking, where science enters into politics it becomes political, but where politics enters into science it does not become scientific, if that helps any... --Ludwigs2 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that the words "global warming" denote a physical phenomenon? This is fundamental to the discussion, because you are questioning what the proper topic of the article is. Bertport (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking that in the context of the GW debate, or in some simplified abstract sense? pretty much everything you care to talk about can be reduced to a physical phenomenon if you try hard enough, and there is no question that the warming of the globe (to go back to SS reasoning) is a physical phenomenon which needs to be analyzed by scientists. this article, as it stands, does a very good job of doing that. In the context of the global warming debate, however, Global Warming has become a euphemism for something akin to "the degradation of the environment by human action". you can see this because some of the anti-GW arguments don't deny that the globe is warming but ascribe it to natural phenomena, and some of the pro-GW arguments aren't all that hung up with the globe actually getting warmer but look instead to dramatic environmental shifts of any sort. so to answer your question, Global Warming refers to potential physical (environmental) results of human behavior. is that the kind of thing you mean by 'physical phenomenon'? --Ludwigs2 17:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking that in the context of this discussion here. You seem to think that the article titled "Global warming" should be about politics, not about "global warming". "Global warming", as seen in the wiktionary link provided above, refers to a physical phenomenon, not a euphemism for something else.Bertport (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you understand the logical connection between the title and the content of an article?Bertport (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

and I've answered you in the context of this discussion here, so I'm not sure what the problem is. 'Global Warming' (in the context most readers will be familiar with) is neither exclusively not primarily about the science of global warming. The science is fine, but the science (aside from its interest as a purely formal investigation) mostly amounts to "that which scientists can contribute to the political debate". --Ludwigs2 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is getting silly. There are articles about politics and global warming, where your views most certainly will be appreciated. But this article is about the physical phenomenon - just as the Encyclopedia Brittanica one is. While politics is interesting, it is not the base of everything. Science would exist without politics. You are correct in saying that "what to do about what science says" is a purely political issue - but the reverse "science only exists to contribute to politics" is a fallacy. The science on global warming was already in place when the political debate started - read Wearts The discovery of global warming. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to entertain the notion that the point is silly, but I can't yet see any argument that demonstrates that it's silly (and please, no straw-man arguments - no one believes that the science only exists because of the politics). The argument you and bert are making amounts to an editorial claim - to whit: "We as editors have decided that global warming means the physical phenomenon, and so it is." Editorial decisions are necessary, I'm not objecting to that, but editorial decisions should be defensible through some kind of reasoning. I've made a decent argument that the editorial decision made is misguided, and that the decision should have been that GW is primarily a political issue. I am clearly interested in hearing reasonable counter-arguments, but tautological restatements of the status quo don't really satisfy. can you give me something better? --Ludwigs2 18:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(afterthought) put another way: if this article were called "Global Warming (science)", and another article were called "Global Warming (politics)" I'd have a lot less of a worry about PoV-forking. that kind of a set up would be clear. However, with an article called "Global Warming" should be primarily (as I've been saying) about the political debate, because the science only factors in as an important element of that debate. see the issue? --Ludwigs2 18:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You need Politics of global warming, Mitigation of global warming, Economics of global warming, Adaptation to global warming etc etc. There is a whole slew of articles on the policy (and economic) issues. Global warming (per definition) is the physical phenomenon. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

all of which (to my mind) should be content forks of a properly written "global warming" article which outlines the political and scientific issues in proper proportion, no? --Ludwigs2 18:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I do see the issue. The issue is that you harbor your own, unsupportable notion of what the phrase "global warming" means. The dictionary does not support you.Bertport (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

good thing we're not writing a dictionary, then... --Ludwigs2 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(from above) The process by which science advances exists within human politics (ala peer review). Politics is how groups arrive at conclusions. Any discussion undergoing evolution requires an analogous political discussion to evolve. To leave it out, is uncivil and treads on authoritarianism. The science deserves greater weight than the underlying politics, however politics are a factor not to be ignored. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Under verifiability by a reliable source, I am challenging Ludwigs2's assertion that "Global warming" is more of a social/political than science. What you believe the subject is irrelevant to verifiability, this is not a forum. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we're done

I think we're done here. The proposal to rededicate this article wholly or substantially to global warming as a subject in political science has insufficient support, and our coverage of that subject is represented by other articles which can be expanded. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. --TS 01:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Anthropogenic Global Warming

This article is called Global Warming, but it is clearly about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), a particular theory about very recent global warming over the last few decades but one. It's not about generic warming -- for instance, it's not about any other periods of global warming. I think an article about AGW should be called AGW. Greenbough (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's only partially correct. The article is about the recent and ongoing episode of global warming, not about events in the geologic past. However, it is only about AGW in so far as AGW is by far the most supported explanation for that episode. The article also discusses other hypotheses with their due weight. We have had this discussion before. "Global warming" overwhelmingly refers to this current episode in both the popular and the scientific press. It is very rarely, if ever, used generically. Hence, per WP:COMMONNAME, this is where the article belongs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

On-going episode? Are you selectively ignoring the global cooling of the last decade? And if so, why?Dikstr (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I note you agree that the article really is about AGW. I still think it should be called that, but will leave that for future editors. On another point, you mention an "ongoing" and "current" episode of global warming, but didn't the warming trend of the last century peak in 1998? Twelve years ago isn't "geologic" past but it's not terribly "current" and a bit of a stretch for the dictionary sense of "ongoing", no? Greenbough (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q3 seems to be what you are looking for. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

FAQ Q3. Oh you beat me to it, Kim. --TS 02:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at that FAQ. It actually conflates the terms "global warming" and AGW throughout. The words "global warming" have a plain sense in language: warming of the earth. The fact that there have been other periods of the globe warming means the words, in their plain sense, have an application beyond the warming that is is currently* attributed to AGW. [*By "currently", I don't mean to imply that people stopped attributing warming to AGW in 1998. I use "currently" here in the old-fashioned sense of "now".] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbough (talk • contribs) 15:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I support having a specific title, the article is rather large and there should be room for other aspects of global warming. FAQ can change like content. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok how about improving the hat note with. "This article is about Global Warming from the current anthropogenic global warming hypothesis ... or something similar. I noticed there are redirects that use the term anthropogenic. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If a new editor or a writer in a blog uses the term "anthropogenic global warming" or AGW, I can usually predict that the person in question is among the minority of committed skeptics. This is because the term most widely used and understood by most readers is "global warming".

One of the most likely mechanisms, according to the scientific consensus, is anthropogenic CO2, but this article is about the wider context of the current warming trend. --TS 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is true then the lead needs to be changed because it clearly states that global warming is the cause of man (ie AGW). Arzel (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read it again. What it actually says is: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation." --TS 03:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there was coolingno cooling in the last decade: Statisticians Reject Global Cooling. --McSly (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume from your cited link and the wording of your editing summary that you meant "no cooling". --TS 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

He he, this is embarrassing, yes I meant no cooling. --McSly (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The most embarrassing aspect of it is the use of the Associated Press activity as a cogent reference.Dikstr (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

no intent to derail this discussion, but I do want to point out that this debate would be obviated if the article (correctly) started from the political perspective, as I suggest above. in that case, the anthropogenic GW concept could be shown as (a) one of several political arguments offered on the topic of global warming, and (b) the political argument that is best supported by current scientific research. were that the case, no one in this thread would have anything to complain about. --Ludwigs2 03:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Anything else you want to improve by approaching primarily from a political perspective? Evolution? General relativity? Quantum electrodynamics? How about Group theory? Niels Bohr was a goalie, so how about approaching Copenhagen interpretation with reference to the off-side rule of association football? --TS 04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If any of those topics needed it, I'd say yes. but they don't (evolution's borderline, given the stink some people make about it, but I still hold it's primarily a scientific issue).

With respect to offside rules and Bohr... I'm American, and not particularly interested in sports in any case, so if you're going to use socc... errr, metaphors from that thing you people incorrectly call football, you're going to have to explain them to me. Though I do imagine that quantum football would be a very different kind of game... --Ludwigs2 04:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To "(correctly)": Hey! I saw that!

No, seriously, I think the consensus is against you on this one... and if this were not so, then why would climate be such a science budget behemoth? Awickert (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to answer your last question by saying "Politics". . I do understand that a lot of editors disagree with me, yes. I also happen to believe that my position is the correct one, and I have what I think are decent reasons to support that conviction, so I am ethically obligated to advance it. Remember, consensus and majority rule are very different things, for just this reason.

The situation sucks for both of us, believe me; in fact, I'm pretty sure it sucks more for me than for you, because I put up with a ton of shit for speaking out on what I think is right. At any rate, there are (by definition) only three outcomes left here: either (1) someone is going to give me better reasons than I currently have so that I can come to agree with you guys, or (2) you all will start thinking through what I've said and find yourselves convinced that I have a point, or (3) we'll continue discussing it until I get frustrated and bored (which generally takes a while, but will eventually happen). I'd much prefer 1. or 2., if you don't mind. --Ludwigs2 05:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So I think that we both have a component of truth - it is a political issue, and it is also a scientific issue. There isn't much in the way of scientific controversy over it, but Wikipedia covers even non-controversies and the science should be here IMO. The politics are also very important, which is why I suggested that you (we?) think of ways to fix up the second half of the article (the part that deals with the politics), especially because you seem to be knowledgeable about that. I suppose that this is option 4 - an overview article that states that global warming is a scientifically known and socially important. Awickert (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

yeah, the real solution may actually lie in coordination of the various pages that deal with global warming. for instance, I'm tempted to say that I'd like to see a page on global warming science (in fact, this page, since it's very well written) with all of the political aspects stripped away: just the pure science. that would only be possible, though, if it were a subpage in an organized collection of pages that dealt with the issue as a whole. that kind of thing is really hard to manage, though. let me see if I can beef up the political and social sections of this page where they stand over the next few days (that doesn't really satisfy me, since the P&S stuff is currently relegated to the tail end of the article, and I think it's more central than that) but it's a place to start. I'll go slow, and listen to objections (if any) as they arise, so no worries on that account. --Ludwigs2 05:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote Upgrade

Above, I proposed upgrading the WP:Hatnote and want to be sure the text may be addressed here in talk, before proceeding. Taking extra precautions to avoid a dispute.

Opening with: "This article is about Global Warming from the current anthropogenic global warming hypothesis ...

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Object. Ungrammatical to the point of being barely parseable, and contrary to accepted definitions of the term. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please edit in or provide a proposal. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This [3] could be productive with a proposal to improve. I have faith a proposal will be forthcoming for us to parse. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No proposal needed, no "upgrade" needed. We'd best leave the text alone. Bertport (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say "no"? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk.[4] I think there's some meta discussion in this. I'm challenging your proposal as WP:BAIT-like. It's your job to provide the reasons for. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:revert says " if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page." and "Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement." While WP:WAR says "Therefore reverting is 'not' to be undertaken without good reason. ... reverting is not to be used as a way to "ignore" or "refute" an editor with whom one happens to disagree, or to fight battles or make a point. Misuse of reversion in these ways may lead to administrator warnings or blocking." Editors must explain their reverts and work in good faith to improve the content. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of the new probation, please do not accuse other editors of trying to bait others. My experience with ZP5 suggests that he acts in an honorable and good faith manner to pursue the things he believes are in the best interests of the project. I don't know the details of what ZP5 is proposing but I do know that it is not meant to be WP:BAIT. --GoRight (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposed wording is factually incorrect, because it falsely implies that the article is deliberately slanted towards adopting a particular view of what causes the current warming trend. Instead, the article aims (and whether it achieves that end is something we might debate) to discuss the current warming trend: evidence for the trend, what the climatologists make of it, major alternative views, and so on. --TS 07:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

TS, this thread is about improving the hatnote, please stay on topic here. Following your line of reasoning, the hatnote would read: "The article is to discuss the current warming trend: evidence for the trend, what the climatologists make of it, major alternative views, and so' on." Is this serious or can you provide a factualy correct version with attributed truth for a NPOV? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not (as the others here) see any good reasons for changing the hatnote. Its for disambiguation, not for a summarizing the article - thats what the lede is for. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Improving the hatnote should not require anyone to introduce factually incorrect statements into any part of Wikipedia, I should have thought. --TS 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

KDP, WP:hatnote says they are for "what is likely to be clearer and easier for the reader" given the difference between the "current anthropogenic global warming hypothesis" and other scientifically studied episodes, for which the existing hatnote guides (and as discussed above), it is a wiki civil service to the reader to clarify the article with navigation summary, beyond the Global Warming title. TS, what would be a correct statement in you view? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are very hard to understand. If you mean Wikipedia, please don't write Wiki, which is a generic online collaboration approach. Civil service is a particular branch of government that we don't have on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What would be a correct statement? I happen to be quite fond of "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation." This is the opening sentence of the article. It concisely and accurately defines the subject of the article so there is no need to add text to the hatnote. --TS 07:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again TS, please stay on the Hatnote discussion, your initial comment seemed to imply correcting the proposed addition, now you seem to have changed the subject. There's been confusion expressed above about what this article is about, and so as a WP:civil service for a WP:NPOV to Wikipedia, it would seem to be reasonable to improve the hat note. (I can appreciate how folks may wish to prevent this service; however, it is really harmless when done correctly and offers greater benefit to the reader.) I supose I'll have to find a few sources to suport attributing the hatnote improvement. Folks seem to just want to say what's wrong (or change the subject) without any source support, or attempt good faith corrections. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

"AGW" and "Global Warming" are conflated in the media

My reading indicates that these terms are used interchangeably in the media, by many sources. I am concerned that this lack of source precision undercuts the merits of this article from an accuracy standpoint. Perhaps we need an article titled "History of the Global Temperature Change Debate". This would include the "new ice age" contentions advanced in the 1970's along with the the current AGW/GW contentions of today. Does anyone have a good idea when climate change became such a hot potato? I'd say this has been building for at least 35 years, with various assertions about cooling and warming coming into play. Perhaps if we 1st put together a good timeline, we could better see what the current debate is about. 7390r0g (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See Global warming controversy. For a guide to the timescale of the issue, see History of climate change science. --TS 19:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen those both, but the I still think a timeline would be helpful. 7390r0g (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As a separate article, maybe, but that would probably be better discussed at History of climate change science, not here. — DroEsperanto (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with 7390r0g. A new article on the "history of climate change debate", or something like that, would be usefull. A timeline and links to various topics. I've read that the Global Warming Industry receives billions in grant money annually. Surely such a big business can't be described in one, or just a few articles. --Knowsetfree (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ozone layer is going to be destroyed (and us with it) --> Yellowstone Park is going to erupt (and destroy the world) --> Humanity will be threatened by a new Ice Age --> The earth's magnetism will change (and civiliation could well be destroyed) --> Humanity will be threatened by melting ice --> Climate change will make the world intolerably wet, dry, hot and cold all at the same time (and kill everyone).

The global warming article should probably be a stub with a few references to latest scientific journals (which, if they are honest, detail how much we don't know instead of projecting hypothetical global scenarios). Instead we have a bizarre mash of religion and science - where there is not enough empirical evidence to give clear indications on a science that is problematic at the best of times (try getting an accurate weather forecast for two weeks' time). So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I'll make a guess at exactly 283 (and maybe even get a Nobel peace prize for doing so).

In terms of encyclopedic significance? Well, its certainly significant, and the discussion and projections are themselves verifiable, but the actual substance at hand is as ephemeral as ever (but as a media subject, that makes it all the better) --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years

Can this be included in the page: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm ?

It indicates "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years" and "Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere." This was published recently in GPL. Can we include it? Ted Wilkins (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[stike - confirmed scibaby sock - Kim D. Petersen (talk)]

See the last FAQ. — DroEsperanto (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean GRL. This is about airborne fraction, see there. Incidentally, we dont mention the existing reserachon this in this article, so it isn't clear we should add the new stuff (which is too new, but I'm bored saying that) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's interesting how "too new" has become a substitute for discussion of diverse views. UnitAnode 19:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Too new? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Too new" is the argument being used to keep out information from peer-reviewed articles that have been recently published. UnitAnode 19:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

To expand on William's remark: The article in question is not about CO2 in the atmosphere. It's about the fraction of anthropogenic emissions that remain in the atmosphere (i.e. that cause the secular increase in CO2 content), as opposed to the part that is absorbed by CO2 sinks. This paper is in conflict with similar recent studies that indicate that some sinks are saturating and that hence more of the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere (which would lead to an even faster increase in atmospheric CO2 for the same emissions). Anyways, the discussion is beyond this article - I would suggest to add the paper to airborne fraction if it turns out to have some impact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's "in conflict", and it's peer-reviewed, then that "conflict" should be noted in the article. "Too new" is not policy, and it's not acceptable as reasoning for exclusion. UnitAnode 19:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, it is hardly beyond this article, as this article specifically discusses predicted sequestration. Either this should be added, (along with other relevant papers) or the current claim should be removed.--SPhilbrickT 19:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Too new" is an established guideline for this topic. See Q22 in the FAQ section near the top of this talk page.Bertport (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

While "too new" is a problem, in this case WP:UNDUE is more relevant. We don't mention either of these papers - neither the ones that claim detection of saturation nor the new one. In fact we don't have any background about future atmospheric CO2 at all, but defer to the various SRES Scenarios. This is an encyclopedia, it's not our aim to reproduce every detail of ongoing research, in particular not in the top-level article on global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant place for the reference is in the feedback section, where we note that the ability of the ocean to sequester carbon is expected to decrease. Note that's a prediction, and the present paper is documentation that the phenomenon has not yet occurred. It doesn't refute the prediction of the existing statement, but it does provide a helpful context. The original entry was made on 13 June 2007, 47 days after the publication of the paper. It has now been more than 47 days since the 7 Nov publication of the Knorr paper.

While I realize that WP standards are evolving, I don't recall that the waiting time for citation of scientific references has increased recently. In fact, I don't recall any such policy. Can someone point me to the policy and when it changed, as it certainly didn't prevent the inclusion of the first reference.

I respect that it may be too early to be definitive, and thus, I wouldn't support removal of the existing wording, or even adding that it is wrong. I would prefer something that simply notes that recent evidence does not yet find evidence of the predicted slowing. --SPhilbrickT 19:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Unless the new research happens to promote the view of AGW, like this. There are a number of research sources from 2009 that promote AGW, yet they have no problem finding their way into the article. It seems only research which would present alternate views is rejected. Arzel (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This point is not without merit. It seems "new" research is only allowed in if it is research of a certain type. UnitAnode 20:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

<-We currently have a statement about sequestration by the oceans. It has been in the article since June of 2007. The current statement is a prediction about what may happen. There are papers which have attempted to measure what is happening, and they apparently reach different conclusions. The easiest approach is to add a reference supporting the observed decrease and this reference supporting no measurable change, leaving the reader with the factual understanding that the science isn't settled, or we need to expand Airborne fraction and point the reader to that section, or both. The only unacceptable choice is to leave in a prediction that sequestration will increase, without noting that it isn't a settled issue.

My recommendation is to add two references to the present article. If someone researches and finds that many more references are needed to cover the main issues, then expand Airborne fraction and include a sentence or two here noting that the issue isn't settled.--SPhilbrickT 20:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As the SciDirect article states, the new result is "in contradiction to some recent studies". So there is evidence for decreased efficiency of sinks, but it's possibly not conclusive either way at the moment. As said above, this article is supposed to give a high-level overview of the topic (its a small fraction in size of even the IPCC WG1 report), not to provide a detailed running blow-by-blow commentary on developing science. The correct place of treating this detail is indeed in airborne fraction. And I haven't found a statement that sequestration will increase in the article - rather, we have one that biological sequestration may decrease. But then there is a difference between biological sequestration and the simple chemical solution of CO2 in water that is a major primary mechanism of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Our current statement is that the biological sequestration "is expected to decline" - i.e. its not claiming that anything is noticeable now, it's not presenting anything as "settled", and it's not contradicted by the new paper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

or the current claim should be removed - I'm not clear which claim you mean. Can you quote it? And make it clear why it is necessary to include both the claim and the new paper, or neither? And also make a good argument for why the AF is so vital it has to be in? As Stephan says, this is the high-level overview. This article doesn't include everything (indeed, because of the tendency for people to add stufff, it needs regular pruning to keep it manageable) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"And make it clear why it is necessary to include both the claim and the new paper, or neither?" I did make it clear, I'll try again. The current paper says "Ocean ecosystems' ability to sequester carbon is expected to decline" (emphasis added). A study showing that such a decline has not occurred in the last 150 years, or in recent decades, is not a refutation of the prediction, but a useful context. If it was a refutation, I'd argue for the removal of the first and the inclusion of the second. However, the current bare wording leaves the reader with the expectation that sequestration will decline. Maybe yes, maybe no. I think we owe it to the reader to be clear. If someone can argue that this is too detailed for the article, go for it, but if so, let's beef up the Airborne fraction article and point the reader to it. I can't imagine that the ability of the ocean to sequester carbon is so insignificant that it doesn't deserve mention, but if you want to try to make the case, go for it.--SPhilbrickT 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between the ocean's ecosystems ability to sequester CO2 and the oceans ability to absorb CO2? The second is the big short-term sink, the first is a slow long-term sink... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As you should know, the AF assumption is quite important. If you'd like to make a case that it isn't an important element of the global warming calculus, be my guest. But the current article has contained a statement about it for two years. While you work on a case that nothing should be said, perhaps we should remove the existing, no longer reliable wording, then work out what, if anything should be added. Any objection?--SPhilbrickT 22:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you read what I have written? The new paper does not affect our current statement at all. What do you think is "no longer reliable" and why? As I see it, there is no need to change anything. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you read what I have written? That's funny, because I started to say the same thing to you, and crossed it out as not very friendly. I may have answered your queries in my response to WMC, if not, ask again and I'll try again.

the AF assumption is quite important - yes, it is, but it currently has only a very minor place in the article. I don't see why this new paper justifies expanding that place. You are incorrect to state that the paper says that such a decline has not occurred in recent decades (or indeed, over the last 150 years). This is one good reason for not including papers precipitately - they are not as easy to read as you think William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I confess I haven't read the underlying paper beyond the abstract, but the sentence "It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero" seems clear enough. Are you disputing that the authors summary is supported by the paper, or are you nitpicking my quick summarization? I agree that the sequestration trends have a minor place in the current article. That's hardly a rationale for leaving in a misleading statement. Let's improve it or remove it.--SPhilbrickT 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction: The article here says, "Ocean ecosystems' ability to sequester carbon is expected to decline as the oceans warm", the Science Daily piece says, "the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline". Where's the problem? --Nigelj (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj, please read the whole article. The construction is roughly "Some articles say X, but a recent paper says not X." You can't quote the first part as if it is the conclusion of the article. The whole point of the article is to show that a recent study disagrees with the sentence you quoted. Hint, the opening phrase of the final paragraph starts: "In contradiction to some recent studies...".--SPhilbrickT 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Giving mention in a top-level article to a single paper that is in contradiction with the majority of published research on the subject is clearly forbidden by WP:UNDUE.— DroEsperanto (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence seems clear enough to me. But you've parsed it into contradiction with the other, so I'd suggest it isn't clear to you. A study showing that such a decline has not occurred in the last 150 years, or in recent decades is wrong. The question is, can you work out why? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So I was right, you are nit-picking. Don't get me wrong, there's a place for nit-picking. We want our articles to be correct, and sometimes that does require nit-picking. But this is a talk page. Cam Can we talk about how to make this a better article?--SPhilbrickT 00:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but I think it is now clear you don't understand it. Perhaps you would care to propose the exact text you wish to add? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I erred in assuming you had some statistical training. People with statistical training understand that "a trend of +0.7 ± 1.4" and "no trend" are virtually the same statement. To a layperson, they don't sound the same. Am I wrong in assuming you know something about statistics?--SPhilbrickT 01:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Check my publications list. How's yours? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I'll try to remember that in the future. Now I understand why you were confused. No big deal.--SPhilbrickT 14:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not taking this well. Lets be more explicit: I have written papers using statistics in the context of environmental time series. You: well, we don't know, because you won't say. But Now I understand why you were confused is incomprehensible - I'm certainly confused as to what you mean by it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking this well, but when I ask if I'm wrong to assume you know statistics and you tell me I'm wrong, I take you at face value. Apparently you meant the opposite. This is tedious, I'm moving on. --SPhilbrickT 11:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, you are not wrong in what I believe to be your understanding, but not quite correct in the context that it is equal to 0. A trend of 0.7 with a confidence interval of +/- 1.4 indicates that we would be 95% (assuming 95%, may be 90%) confident that the true trend is between -0.7 and 2.1. In absolute statistical sense we cannot say if the trend is positive or negative with any statistical reliablity. I have been doing statistical analysis for 15 years and have several publications myself. Arzel (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What is it that makes this paper especially significant compared to the dozens of other papers published in the field during the past month? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, probably the fact that it has been reported on by reliable sources. Arzel (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See man bites dog. — DroEsperanto (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See, indeed, WP:MANBITESDOG, a shortcut I just created. I draw attention to the following: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." And that, my friend, is Wikipedia policy. Let's not ponce around with prissy guidelines. --TS 01:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please abide by the Talk page guidelines and reserve this page for discussions of improvements to the article Global warming. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to understand why some people have so much emotion invested in denying man-made global warming. It is easy to understand why people deny the age of the earth or evolution, because those ideas conflict with religious beliefs, but there is nothing in the Bible about global warming! I assume they are egged on by media funded by Big Oil, who know perfectly well that global warming will kill millions, but want to make as big a profit as possible before it does. Otherwise intelligent people deliberately misunderstand any current news that can be misinterpreted to support their position. In any case: 1) Science is kept honest by the idea that a result must be reproducible before it is accepted. A new idea is published, other scientists carry out parallel studies and experiments. If their results confirm the original result, only then does it becomes accepted science. 2) The paper in question does not cast any doubt on man-made global warming, because the carbon dioxide produced is not absorbed instantly, but remains in the atmosphere for a long time. Rather, it calls attention to a problem as serious as global warming, the acidification of the world's oceans, as they absorb the excess carbon dioxide. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Is there a point to this rant? I'm not aware that anyone editing this article denies man-made global warming. If there are some, their blunders will be easily dismissed. --SPhilbrickT 02:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody give me a shout when atmospheric CO2 reaches 0.1% In fact, atmospheric levels of CO2 should be more easily identifiable in the article (as this is the backbone of man-made global warming theory). --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There should also be a bit more space given to the carbon cycle for the same reasons (it is only mentioned as a throwaway remark in the article). --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Greenhouse gases section

I just removed a poorly written bit which was discussing the general carbon cycle at the start of the section. Maybe the greenhouse gas section needs a better starting sentence, it currently starts off with the greenhouse effect, but that wasn't it. Maybe retitle the section to "Greenhouse effect" or something more in line with the content focus. Vsmith (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Vsmith, when you removed this [5] and claim it is "poorly written" could you provide some specific changes to improve the writing?

"Greenhouse gases (CO2) are part carbon cycle which is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface."

This writing was a direct paraphrase from the existing carbon cycle article lead. (Note, you removed more then I added.) My intention was to the carbon cycle context for greenhouse gasses. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

First, this diff shows that I didn't remove more than you added - or at most a space.

Second, "(CO2) are part carbon cycle" - no subscript, missing of the looks rather poorly worded. But that would be easy to fix. It was obvious that you were trying to add carbon cycle context, however, I fail to see the direct relevance. Yes CO₂ is part of the cycle ... so? Are the other greenhouse gases part of the cycle? Seemed rather irrelevant to the context of the section - or else implying "more CO₂ is good" ... and I think some have argued that, but this isn't the place. Vsmith (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes for article harmonization, it is part of the cycle so it is relevant because forcing and feedback are acting on the cycle. The cycle is the appropriate context for global warming in this article. The text can be corrected (maybe shortened). The reader can decide what is "good". It may be obvious, must I find reliable source to support the inclusion of the carbon cycle within global warming? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Forcing and feedback in this article are referring to the effects of greenhouse gases on temperature increase within the atmosphere - not the other way around. If global warming has a forcing and feedback effect on the carbon cycle, then that should be a part of the carbon cycle article, not here. As to inclusion of new material, sources are always needed and consensus for inclusion here as well. Vsmith (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is truly a cycle, they all effect each other right. Feedback by itself requires a cycle. The carbon cycle is the material context for greenhouse gases, which then supposedly affect the thermo cycles. By conservation of mass and energy principles, they are both relevant. My point is the mass cycles (carbon cycle) are being neglected in this article for a over emphasis on energy cycles (temperature). (Note, I will leave out the entropic cycles for now.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about the natural cycles, rather it is about anthropogenic disruption of those natural cycles. Yes, in the long term equilibrium will be established at some new (and likely humanly discomfortable) level and the natural cycles will shift and accommodate ... but that's not the topic here. So the carbon cycle isn't that relevant to the immediate problem of global warming. Vsmith (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Need help w/ research

FAQ Q4. If the relevant distinction is not clear enough in the article, please make a proposal in a new section below. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to find where this was predicted in the global warming climate models, because I think we need to clarify, in the article, how such observations are consistent with the science - otherwise people might get the wrong idea and our job is obviously to educate and inform people properly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Hum, no offense, but this has nothing to do with improving the article so it shouldn't be here. To find this information, I suggest using Google. --McSly (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC) See FAQ Q4. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ need serious updating

I'm looking at it and seeing self-described liberal blogs as sources and a lot of inaccuracies. For one, the "isotopic signature of fossil fuels" would also be the same signature as plants - and plants release more CO2 than anything else on Earth (by far). In fact, land use changes and local heating effects from roads could easily speed up their CO2 release and give that same isotopic signature. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What are your specific proposals for the FAQ, and what are the sources upon which you base your proposals? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My specific proposals, for now, are to either remove questions/answers based on unreliable sources or remove those sources. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm all in favor of using the best possible sources. Please be specific about the questions and sources you have in mind. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at it in more detail now and not seeing many reliable sources at all. It would be easier for you to state which ones you think are reliable (it'd be a far smaller list than mine). TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't play games. Name the problematic sources. --TS 22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not playing game, you can look at them yourself, at least 80% of them are problematic - I'm not going to sort through all those links when you can easily eye them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Assume that I lack your unerring eye for liberalism and scientific fraud. --TS 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust says that fossil fuels have the same isotopic signature as plants. I don't know whether that is true but it seems counter-intuitive because fossil fuels are much older than living plants and so the isotopic ratio would be expected to change by atomic decay (that's the basis of radioisotopic dating). The FAQ answer to which Thegoodlocust refers cites an article in Physics Today and I wouldn't call that a "self-described liberal" anything, let alone a blog. --TS 22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

He is wrong. It's true that fossil fuels have the same (or a very similar) C13/C ratio as modern C3 plants. But they have very different C14/C ratios. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant plant based sources - lots of things are based on plants (but older), like limestone. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting speculation. Gather evidence, publish, and I'll take care of notifying the Nobel Prize Committee. --TS 22:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you refuse to point out the specific sources that you consider unreliable there is nothing to be gained from continuing the discussion. I suggest all concerned simply let the matter drop. This is not the place for a tutorial on radiometric decay, the subtleties of carbon fixation by Rubisco, and the like. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> Very well, I will assume as you wish and present the first source "climateprogress.org," which describes itself as "A liberal blog on the science, solutions, and politics of climate change" and says it is "Climate Progress is dedicated to providing the progressive perspective on climate science, climate solutions, and climate politics." TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris has now removed the offending links to which you referred. Any others? --TS 23:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he removed the source, but the new source doesn't appear to backup what it references. Anyway, assuming the question or source is fixed to meet that, the next "iffy" source, but not nearly as bad, looks to be "Grist: A Beacon in the Smog" - according to them they seem to accept publications from bloggers and other sources - I think we could do better and get a real newspaper. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It'll take some time to get the sources built up. Of course, there's nothing to prevent you from finding quality sources yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Experience has shown me that I will simply get reverted - that's why I'm trying to build a consensus here. I could fix the FAQ, but I have little doubt my work would be quickly turned to dust. Unfortunately, WP:BOLD is not encouraged by this working environment. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Grist piece was written by Andrew Dressler, a climate specialist from Texas A&M. I don't see the problem there. He obviously isn't just some silly blogger. --TS 01:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, I tried to include a blog from a scientist, a climatologist, who is a skeptic and that was shot down - why the difference? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you cite a diff or link to the instance you're talking about, we can discuss whether that was appropriate. --TS 03:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It was in the Glacier/Non-peer-reviewed section of the IPCC - I removed the source and used the BBC or someone else instead. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you mean in the article itself? I'd expect to see higher sourcing standards there than in the FAQ. --TS 09:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the FAQs are more widely applicable than just this article

Some of these FAQs are useful points of reference in other talk pages, too. And some of them can (and should, I think) be reformulated into editing policy guidelines for climate change related articles. What do people think about having a Climate Change project? Currently, the narrowest project most of these articles fall under is Meteorology. Climate change in Wikipedia is getting special treatment from right wing media and thus requires particular care. Bertport (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And the "left wing media" has written up the FAQs in these articles - just look at all the left wing blogs in there. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we got rid of the only obviously left wing blog cited by the FAQ. Looking through the references I'm seeing some conservative media such as the National Post and Prison Planet. I see that the Open Mind blog is cited, but it seems to be focussed on things like statistics. --TS 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Check sources 9,14 and 16 - also, the first source was changed, but the new source doesn't support the answer to the question. Also, a lot of questions are just plain unsourced or misleading/incorrect. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Now you've got me really puzzled! The sources in question are The Herald Sun, The Royal Society and Open Mind. I've already addressed Open Mind. The Herald Sun's green credentials seem to be blotted by the 2004 story "Greens back illegal drugs", a hatchet job that got them censured by the local regulators for not checking their facts, and their ownership by the Murdoch conglomerate doesn't suggest much likelihood that they're left wing, either. The Royal Society you may not be aware, is a learned society and not given to political statements, which would only contravene its charter but would undoubtedly alienate a large fraction of its membership. --TS 02:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The puzzle is easy to solve - click on the links. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Assume I've done that and remain clueless as to your point. Please explain it. --TS 04:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to expand a FAQ into an essay, policy, rule, or guideline, you are certainly free to do so. The funny business around Q22 we recently discussed in talk:global cooling leads me to caution that policy creation should not be driven to convenience any particular POV. I'm also leery of policy just for global warming type articles. If it's not a good idea elsewhere, it is probably not a good idea here. TMLutas (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

KDP just tried to source A22 in the FAQ with three separate larger policy statements, none of which actually supported A22 as it was constructed. I commend the idea of actually reading through and seeing if citations actually support the assertions in the FAQ. It's not just a theoretical problem. TMLutas (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think A22 doesn't follow from those policies? In constructing the answer, specific concrete aspects of What Wikipedia is not and Neutral point of view were in my mind: specifically "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and "Due weight". At least we can agree that this isn't a theoretical matter: it is a question of Wikipedia's core policies. --TS 04:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a new section on that below. To start off, it's contrary to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I'm going to do the rest in the new section so all the F22 controversy can reside in its own section. 173.161.30.37 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Bertport: Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force was created a few days ago. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, thanks for the pointer. Bertport (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"What climate pedagogy to make some progress in the debate?"

Can anybody make sense of the recently added section titled "What climate pedagogy to make some progress in the debate?"? It's got me beaten. Is it in English? The bit about everybody living too far away from polar bears is hilarious, but I hesitate to write it off as vandalism. --TS 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The writer of the section, which I subsequently removed, has complained about the removal. I still don't understand it beyond the extent of grasping that it's got Neutral point of view problems and needs editing for coherence by somebody who understands what it's about. Having said that I don't mind if somebody wants to restore the section and clean it up. --TS 00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have written the paragraph extending the section on debate and skepticism. I do not understand why some have reported it was not neutral. The minimum of politeness would to explain otherwise I do not undestand what the collaborative spirit of wikipedia is really about.

I wrote that the current communication on climate change with pictures showing polar bears swimming in melted ice as a proof of climate change was not relevant because:

• there is still some skepticism by people who do not experience sucha changes as polar bears do (the vast majority of human beiings
• there was not a consensus at COP 15, showing the lack of common spirit and common understanding

I show another example of possible communication on climate change, by Robert Kandel, an IPCC expert. I put all links so that readers make their own minds.

So, what is not neutral? What is wrong with that? What religion have I not respected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucAleria (talk • contribs) 09:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Luc, this article is subject to high tension. Watch this talk page for a few days, and you'll see that even minute changes are subject to challenge and reversion. If you want to do something to this article, make a proposal on the talk page first, and see what reception it gets. Bertport (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Global Warming has been mare in controversy to the recent global cooling trends and the release of information that show some of the data climatologists were using was not necessarily accurate. The debate continues and know one will no if this cycle is normal occurance or man made for sometime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byron.goodman (talk • contribs) 15:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQ Q3 I think. --TS 15:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Debate and skepticism

Can somebody please explain why by attempt to start this section with the paragraph that is actually about the section title was immediately reverted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Diffs please. And grammar William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. This is the diff [[6]]. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Look again. That's not a revert. -Atmoz (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph that I moved to the start of the section has been put back at the end. That is my complaint. I have not checked the wording is exactly the same. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you had added the paragraph. Moving it to the beginning was clearly inappropriate. -Atmoz (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly? Would someone care to explain why. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the first paragraph of a section tends to be the most important, and the most important part of that section is the political debate, not the minority of scientists who doubt global warming. May I ask why you thought it was more appropriate at the top? — DroEsperanto (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Readers of this article will expect the section on "Debate and skepticism" to be informative and provide some grounding in the main objections. I don't feel that that is what's happening. "Believers" rightly control 80% of the article, they should not control the 20% of the article dedicated to "non-believers". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That was pretty well my point. The current opening paragraph is not actually about debate and scepticism, the paragraph that I moved to the top was, as my edit summary said. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that some editors are seriously advancing this territorial argument. We're not here to be believers and skeptics, we're here to write the best encyclopedia article. That wouldn't be achieved by dividing editors up into two teams and giving each team a patch of territory. --TS 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQ A22 edit war

On 12/30 Q22 was added to the faq and unfortunately it seems to hold positions that are contrary to policy. After trying to tag it so it was at least referenced by something, trying to rework it in accord to actual policy (and failing miserably in draft), trying to talk to two separate editors who are referencing policy inappropriately, trying to kill it as hopelessly wrong, I've ended up POV tagging the thing and calling for consensus.

FAQs are supposed to be noncontroversial. Q22 shouldn't even exist but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Relevant documents asserted by various editors. I agree with some and not with others but am listing so that we don't have to start from zero.

policy WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTTEXTBOOK WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV

content guideline WP:RS WP:FRINGE WP:TOOLONG

essay WP:DEADLINE WP:RECENT

I'm a bit rushed, if I've missed something, please add to the list. TMLutas (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see what policy you think F22 is contrary to. It looks fine to me, and corresponds to how things are generally done here. Bear in mind that the FAQ *isn't* policy - no-one can refer you to the FAQ and say "you can't do this because its says not in the FAQ" - all it does is summarise previous discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It at least appears to be applying a guideline for the use of news coverage (WP:NOTNEWS) to a fundamentally different category of sources (peer reviewed papers). The relevant section from What Wikipedia is not dealing with Not News is:

"News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews."

Given that the Not News principle is addressing a fundamentally different issue, this would appear to suggest that there is a higher standard, for this article, for the use of peer-reviewed papers than Wikipedia's guidelines would otherwise require.EastTN (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree on the fundamental different issue but really would wish that *somebody* would provide some sort of reference to the policy, guideline, or rule laying out the higher standard. I'm firmly for following the rules that are laid out and discussed to consensus. I'm firmly against following the capricious stuff that just lives inside a large enough group of editors' heads. TMLutas (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, all I meant to say was that the current text of FAQ22 appears to suggest a different standard for peer-reviewed journal articles than the normal Wikipedia guidelines would require. I didn't intend to take a position on whether that different standard is appropriate or not. EastTN (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In direct answer to your question, WMC, it's contrary to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK at the least. There are other things wrong with it but that's a big one. TMLutas (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In an above section, TS, the original F22 creator asked me to lay out in more detail my objections. I replied that I wanted the discussion consolidated here. My reply:

WP:WEIGHT as written is about framing minority viewpoints so that they do not achieve undeserved prominence. It's a great rule and is an inclusive one. I'm coming in from global cooling, a place where if you're going to discuss the topic at all seriously, has to be chock full of minority viewpoints. WP:WEIGHT has recommendations on how to treat minority opinions. They are to add sufficient majority opinion text so that undue weight does not happen. For pages similar to global cooling the majority position should be recognized as majority but does not need to dominate as it would in a page like global warming. If these recommendations were followed, I would be perfectly satisfied.

But looking at A22 and you see a different standard applied, exclusion and waiting for an indeterminate time for things to shake out and publish only what has impact. Where does that come from? It's not from WP:WEIGHT. I'm open to the standard. On talk:global cooling I've been bending over backwards since 22 December provisionally trying to comply with this sort of thing on the assumption that somebody's going to come up with a rule, policy, or guideline that has been well discussed and supports the sort of restriction various editors like WMC, KDP, and SBHB have demanded. Simultaneously I've been asking for references to those rules, policies, and guidelines. F22 is the closest anybody's come up with and F22 didn't even exist on 22 December when I started asking. It was written 8 days later.

As WMC rightly points out a FAQ is just a shortcut of previous discussion and has no rule, policy, or guideline implication. I'm coming close to the conclusion that a significant number of the rules being imposed in this climatology space are mere private interpretations being backed by bullying force. Somebody tell me it's not so and give me a reasonable rule that's been discussed to consensus in the wider Wikipedia community. TMLutas (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The rules you see in action here are the rules of science. Wikipedia's general policies work for just about anything there is, from a boy-band write-up to a breaking news story to a software product. Science doesn't work like these things and never has. Those of us who have been involved in the world of science for decades recognise these basics - peer review, nothing too new, established facts, debatable new theories etc etc. Knowledge of all this is implicitly applied on all normal scientific articles without comment. Global warming is turning out to be unique - it is a piece of science that has impacted squarely with everyday politics and news, and everyday people. For this reason, people come along here and say, "Science? Pah! I want to put some counter-opinion in here - I read about it in [favourite blog/newspaper/etc]". They don't do that on Hooke's law or String theory, so the question doesn't arise. In this topic there are all kinds of sub-articles, like Public opinion on climate change, Economics of climate change etc etc where these debates and opinions are covered and discussed with weight and balance, but this is the one where we have the actual science, and settled science is not a matter of personal opinion, or subject to politics. If you do a science degree at university, you don't get to put your hand up all the way through a lecture on the Laws of thermodynamics and say, "I don't agree. Have you considered X?" It's a bit like this here. This is where you learn the established and settled science, then you go to the sub articles to see how it was built up and what your politicians are debating while they decide what to do about it. --Nigelj (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ in question (number 22), deals specifically with "recent peer reviewed paper[s]" - not someone's "favourite blog/newspaper/etc". Recent journal articles are routinely cited in academic literature. EastTN (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I covered that point. 'Nothing too new' is ever included when explaining the basics of established science to any audience. There are other articles where possible detailed debates within small areas of the subject are discussed, such as Global warming controversy. --Nigelj (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the question. "Nothing too new" - at least as applied to peer reviewed journal articles - does not appear to be one of Wikipedia's standard editing guidelines. The current text of answer #22 doesn't define "too new" and doesn't single out journal articles with results that are unexpected or the subject of debate. The specific language suggests that we would only include a journal article that has "significant impact" or "revolutionizes scientific thought". That would, on the face of it, seem to preclude using as a source a really good review paper that is published in a peer reviewed journal and summarizes the current state of the science. Is that really what we want here? I suspect the intent is to keep out peer reviewed research that, for whatever reason, produces results that are inconsistent with the broader body of evidence. Odd results turn up in any field, due to data outliers, effects that aren't fully understood yet, methodological problems or whatever. I sympathize with the concern. But again, on the face of it at least, it appears that the current answer to FAQ #22 suggests a standard for determining which sources may be used in the article that is different from what Wikipedia's normal guidelines would require, and which may sweep in (or out, rather) more than was intended. EastTN (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There's been an edit war over Q22? Who knew?

Q22 is just a distillation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT. Obviously new and as-yet unevaluatd papers don't get much weight. In time they may gather more weight according to the attention paid to them in the scientific community. This is different from the way things work in the news, where a paper gains news value according to the novelty of its conclusions. Science doesn't proceed by news release, so since our task here is to describe the science of global warming here we don't write about every novel paper as soon as it appears but wait for the scientific community to absorb and comment on the results. This follows from the neutral point of view--how can you determine weight if the paper hasn't been evaluated? --TS 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

TS, WP:WEIGHT is certainly a valid consideration in this context. Had Q22 just focused on that, I wouldn't have commented. But the current text leads with, and seems primarily focused on, WP:NOTNEWS. Having gone back and looked at what WP:NOTNEWS actually says, this seems to me to be a pretty clear misapplication of that particular guideline. The text there is entirely focused on "news coverage [as] . . . useful source material for encyclopedic topics", "routine news reporting" and "breaking news". It never mentions anything other than news reporting, and at a minimum is clearly contemplating something other than peer reviewed papers. Looking back at the discussion above, it seems that the issue we're discussing really isn't how recently a paper has been published; it's whether the results are consistent with what we consider to be established science. For instance, if a new paper is published that extends and updates a data series that has been extensively analyzed before, producing some results that generally reinforce prior work but have some interesting new twist (perhaps showing that warming is happening a bit faster or slower than expected, or geographic variations are somewhat more significant that previously thought, or what have you), are we really saying that it should be excluded from the article simply because it's "new"? I don't think so. If the real concern isn't how recent a paper is, but how consistent it is with the broader body of evidence and whether there are other, similar results to give it credence, then we should say so. But that's a different line of reasoning than what the current answer to the FAQ gives.EastTN (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can sort-of see your point, though in my experience the only reason why we're seeing people coming here to propose adding the latest stuff is that they read about it on some blog or news site. Perhaps the "Not news" reference can be removed without altering the sense of the answer, and perhaps a more concrete way of linking it can be found. The wording from Not News that strikes me as appropriate is: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Combined with WP:WEIGHT, I think that's a good answer to why the novelty of a new paper doesn't make up for our inability, in the early days, to evaluate its significance. Your point about whether a paper is consistent with the body of published, peer reviewed science is a good one and in recent days I had been considering extending Q22 to cover that, but it isn't essential and, indeed, failure to replicate earlier results in itself can be something we'd want to write about once the relevant paper's significance has been determined. --TS 01:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NOTNEWS is completely relevant to things coming from a blog or news site; that seems to be exactly what the guideline was designed to address. It may be possible to establish the notability of a very recent event (e.g., a declaration of war, passage of a major piece of legislation, a significant terrorist attack), but we need to ask whether it's notable, or whether it's just the latest sighting of a random celebrity behaving badly. I just don't think the line "[w]hile including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" from WP:NOTNEWS is the right place to go here. The context seems to make it pretty clear that it's addressing the notability of persons and events; questions of "who were they anyway" and "will anyone remember once the party is over." When we turn to scientific papers in peer reviewed journals, the real issues are WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Both the answer to FAQ 22 and the discussions on the talk page might be clearer and more productive if we'd focus on them rather than on the date of a paper. I understand your point about the difficulty of evaluating a novel result, but that seems to me to fall firmly under WP:WEIGHT if we're dealing with results that haven't yet been duplicated by anyone else. EastTN (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The latest revision of F22 by SBHB is taking a new policy out of context, WP:RS. I've added that content guideline to the original list. SBHB makes reference to the section on scholarship, quoting "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes" but if you take a look at the scholarship section it becomes clear that what is referred to by the word sources is journals, not peer reviewed papers. Underneath the quoted section is an entirely acceptable guideline on what to do with isolated papers, essentially treat them with caution but use them until you get something better. Unfortunately, this does not support the F22 line and so the preceding para was chopped up to give the misleading impression that sources=papers.

Here are three relevant paragraphs from the quoted section on scholarship

• Finished Ph.D. dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. UMI has published two million dissertations since 1940. Dissertations in progress are not vetted and are not regarded as published. They are not reliable sources as a rule.
• The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.
• Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.

Finished PH.D. dissertations are considered reliable yet are very likely to be minimally cited if at all. The middle para could probably be improved to make it more clear that what's being discussed is the acceptability of journals. Finally, the most relevant paragraph is the last and I suggest should be the basis of a proper F22 if one is made. The "needs to have impact" or "needs to be cited" or "we need to wait until there's a reaction" objections seem to not be very congruent with this section of WP:RS. Their defense really needs some other anchor in policy, guideline, or rule and if none is found, should be withdrawn as incompatible with the rules as written.

Alternatively, one could go and try to improve WP:RS and all the rest so that the rules as written are more congenial to the attitude. Nobody seems to have tried to do so, I think for very good reason. TMLutas (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice up to now EastTN's use of WP:FRINGE, sorry about that. I've added the guideline to the list at section top. TMLutas (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to get sucked into one of these endless arguments, but if you can lay your concerns out in a brief and focused way I'll try to respond. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My concerns were laid out in my comment above time-stamped 03:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC) . If you want shorter, the isolated study para (above) is a better model for F22 and the current justification in F22 seems to be aimed at detecting fraudulent journals, not scientific papers that should not be included. TMLutas (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, who mentioned fraud? We're only concerned with being able to evaluate papers on the basis of their acceptance within the scientific community, and I believe that's what the current wording says. There is nothing about fraud in the current wording, nor as far as I'm aware has any incarnation of the FAQ Q22 or its answer ever hinted at or referred to misconduct. This isn't about fraud. Many perfectly fine non-fraudulent papers turn out to have little scientific significance. --TS 14:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

SBHB mentioned fraud when he quoted the anti-fraudulent journal detection section of WP:RS as being relevant to evaluating whether a paper should be used. I don't think it's appropriate, you seem to agree. Good. We're still searching for a reasonable policy to hang F22 off of though I see that somebody new is trying below. Hopefully they're going to have better luck. TMLutas (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also try WP:RECENT.— DroEsperanto (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That'a a perfectly good essay and I've recommended it myself in informal contexts and edit summaris, but I'd hesitate to use it as justification, especially in a FAQ. Essays express opinions, and policies have much more weight. --TS 14:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is a great essay, but it's dealing with different issues: topics that have no notability beyond the tabloid news cycle; swamping a broader article with too much coverage of a recent event (turning the Louisiana article into an article on Hurricane Katrina) instead of splitting it out into a separate article; and swamping a broader article with too much coverage of our current era at the expense of earlier, relevant eras (writing the article on War in a way that makes it seem like war was invented when WWII was started).

How would we want this policy to actually work? Let's imagine that two papers are published next month in the same peer reviewed journal, and each uses a new, innovative approach. Let's further imagine that one is published by researchers at the CRU and comes up with results that are right smack dab in the middle of the current scientific consensus - but the other is published by a different, more recently established research group and produces results that seem inconsistent with most of the existing evidence. Both would meet the requirements to be reliable sources, but the results would be very different.

My sense of the discussion is that we would want to permit immediate use of the first paper, but not of the second. If that's right, then the real issue here is not recentism or waiting long enough to see what impact a paper has. Rather, the real concerns are WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. In this case, WP:NOTNEWS seems to me to be a red herring. The real debate isn't about how old each study is, but should center on how much weight to give it based on considerations such as the ones TMLutas has mentioned: has anyone else reproduced the work with similar results, or is this an isolated result; are any other scholars citing it; is it showing up in standard indexes; etc. I have absolutely no problem with our making these judgments, but we should be clear and honest with ourselves about the basis we're using. EastTN (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets just cut to the point here. Faq 22 was instituted to limit any new research which would be contrary to AGW proponents, such as the recent research showing that CO2 has not increased in proportion over the past 160 years. A quick view of the article shows that recent research which further the AGW viewpoint is not subjected to the same scrutiny. This is nothing more than an attempt to further control this article by AGW propenents and nothing else. Arzel (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

From AR4: "There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 .... This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period." Le Quere 2009 and Knorr 2009 both find small but statistically significant trends in a still very noisy signal after removing the variability associated with El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and volcanic activity. But meh, have it your own way. You want to think the FAQ question was tailored to exclude results that we know more or less conform to AR4, that's fine with me. --TS 16:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not intend to accuse anyone of bad faith or intentional misbehavior, and I apologize if anything I've said suggests that. My basic points are that: WP:NOTNEWS addresses a fundamentally different set of questions; the real issues here are WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE; and both the FAQs and the discussion about specific sources would be clearer and more productive if we'd focus on those instead of how recently a peer-reviewed paper has been published. I have no problem making judgments about the way to give specific sources as we do it in an even handed way - I just think that appealing to WP:NOTNEWS is a red herring when it comes to peer-reviewed papers. EastTN (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cutting to the point is not helpful here. I have my own suspicions as to why F22 was written but they're irrelevant. I've spent half a month on global cooling demanding exactly this sort of policy justification for the same sort of behavior there and got a lot of silence and half the same justifications that have been skewered in this section. People on both sides of the issue are rising above ideological self-interest here. That's no small thing and should be applauded. I wish it happened more often. TMLutas (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your actions at global cooling are an excellent example of why we need to deal with issues like this. You wanted to include material in the global cooling articles that was (a) unpublished (still in press), and (b) which you hadn't read, and which clearly did not say what you tried to use it to say. That's one of the best arguments for letting experts evaluate the impact of new ideas first, before we add them to articles, rather than letting editors (who may not have even read the articles in question) try to insert information "hot off the press" (or rather, these days, the PDF-generator). Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tut, tut, the only person who said he never read that paper was KDP and that didn't stop him from speaking out of ignorance and saying how irrelevant the 12/3 paper was based on his reading of a *different paper* published earlier in 2009. I was and still am trying to limit usage of the paper to stuff that is not behind a pay wall because I wanted to forestall a whole different line of unfounded objections (I still do). That is different from saying I haven't read it and your assumption is unsupported by anything other than an underlying assumption that I'm working at this in bad faith. I also agreed that the paper shouldn't be used when in press as soon as you raised the issue. I was and am willing to wait a decent interval if there was some sort of willingness to specify when it would come out of embargo. The answer I got back from multiple editors was not helpful, not clear, and not actually based on existing rules, policies, or guidelines. In fact, it looked a lot like what F22 is just running in a different talk page a week earlier. In any case, the current proposed edit omits the paper entirely and will continue to do so until a decent consensus has been achieved on it that satisfies WP:WEIGHT. And global cooling still doesn't have a section covering the 2000-2009 period at all, a period that arguably has had more interest in global cooling than the prior decade. TMLutas (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I like your two papers test case but I'm not sure why you would not use both papers, appropriately weighted. I've got a global cooling paper. I can reasonably see it being shunted off to a page like global cooling and not be used here. You can't fit everything in a main article like global warming and weighting is so far out of balance that its use to start in specialized pages would be more appropriate because the appropriate balancing weight would require so much majority text to reflect the imbalance that the resulting article would immediately be split and thus WP:WEIGHT could never be satisfied. This inclusive approach is not what F22 proposes and so it needs to be reworked to match the current rules. Let's say adding WP:TOOLONG along in with WP:WEIGHT so that minority views that would require more balancing text than is left in the article length before mandatory split (>100k). Right now the GW page is 98k long. So if my minority global cooling paper asserting that the globe's been cooling since 2002 required 0.5k to cite and more than 1.5k in mainstream stuff to satisfy weight issues, the minority paper shouldn't be used at all because it would cause a mandatory split. But in global cooling, currently at 32k in length, the appropriate 3k of offsetting references does not cause a split so the paper could be used there without objection. TMLutas (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess my real point is that whether we include one, both, or neither, the decision is going to based on issues of WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and whether the material would fit better somewhere else. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply, and really has nothing to do with the decision.EastTN (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me second the objections that WP:RECENT doesn't exactly fit. It deals with overburdening an article with recent developments at the cost of older examination, not the complete exclusion of recent content that F22 foresees. I agree with WP:RECENT I just don't think it fits. If you disagree, it would be helpful to be more specific. After all, the essay also contains a defense of recentism as well as talk against it. TMLutas (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the current phrasing of FAQ22 does a pretty good job of summarising what matters here. There's no way we could stay on top of the literature here. It's not possible. So we need some way to pick and choose what to include. The normal way to do that is to defer to expert sources. What sort of a reception does an idea get in the literature? It's not like there's a deadline, it's not like there's any rush to include the latest stuff hot off the press. A published paper is the beginning of a discussion, not the end of it. Science is self-correcting. We need to let it do its job. It's not like this is an uncontroversial field where a paper on X may be the only thing that's going to come out for the next 2 years. Anything that's really interesting will attract attention. We can - and we should - wait for secondary and tertiary sources to evaluate the science, rather than making WP:OR decisions as to how seriously we should take the latest "news". Guettarda (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The current version does look okay to me, and I don't find any of the contrary arguments based on the notion that it ignores, rather than expresses, Wikipedia policy at all convincing. In any case, if existing policy as written allowed the random addition of unevaluated new papers, we'd just have to extend policy to say that, actually, that isn't such a good idea after all. --TS 18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the page become a "random" collection of "unevaluated new papers." I also don't think we have to extend policy to prevent that: WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE are adequate to address the issue. My issue here is that FAQ 22 does not, as currently written, reflect what we're really doing. The question is not one of time - if it were, we could simply pick a minimum period time, like 12 months, and say that to ensure we can properly evaluate it, no peer reviewed paper will be referenced in this article before twelve months after publication. Based on the comments about what people are trying to avoid, though, that's not what we're looking to do. We are trying to exclude papers that are unusual or of relatively minor importance (WP:WEIGHT) and papers that are so far out of the mainstream of science as to be essentially valueless (WP:FRINGE). If that is the case, we should come straight out and say so instead of relying on a policy that's intended to screen out reporting of minor celebrities who don't rise to the full 15 minutes of fame and ephemeral events like this week's high school homecoming. EastTN (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My arguments that it is contrary to policy are laid out in detail above at the following timestamp 03:52, 5 January 2010 and again in summary form at timestamp 10:13, 5 January 2010 . I know that it's getting hard to pick out individual arguments in this sea of text but I assure you, you've missed real objections. TMLutas (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we're straying far from territory on which we can make common ground. The current version of FAQ 22 refers by quotation to the following fragment of Reliable sources guideline:

Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources states The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. Brand-new papers will have accumulated few if any such citations, so we don't ordinarily base our writing on very recent works.

Does anybody disagree that this gets to the nub of the question and is a direct quotation from a relevant guideline? If you disagree, exactly what is the objection? -TS 10:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a significant improvement. I might also be inclined to change "We can't include all of them, so we wait to see if papers have significant impact" to something along the lines of "We can't include all of them, and must consider WP:WEIGHT in choosing which sources to reference." I think that would do a better job of communicating the real issue, and would work well with the text quoted from the guideline on reliable sources. EastTN (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I see WP:WEIGHT as a related but different consideration. The reply as it currently stands talks about criteria for including new papers, while WP:WEIGHT talks about minority views. Those are only minimally overlapping sets. A mention of WP:WEIGHT is appropriate but it should be broken out into a separate sentence. How about something like "We can't include all of them, so we wait to see if papers have significant impact. We also have to take into account the appropriate weight to be given to various viewpoints." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I still think we're talking about a single underlying question. WP:WEIGHT naturally focuses on what doesn't deserve attention (it links to the same spot as WP:UNDUEWEIGHT), but the real issue is deciding if something is a notable view or a non-notable minority view. It's the same test whether a paper falls on the notable view side of the line, or on the non-notable minority view side of the line. I'd be more comfortable with something like "We can't include all of them, and in choosing which sources to include we must give careful consideration to the appropriate weight to give each one." When we say a new study should not be included, we're not really saying that it's too new, we're saying that including it would give it too much weight.EastTN (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My objection is the same as my objection to the other guidelines, the policy/rule/guideline referred does not actually support what is claimed. WP:RS section 2.1 para 4 is the location of the quote. The quote is taken out of context. If you look at the full context it's clear to me that "source" is not a paper but a journal. Isolated papers are addressed in the next para, are more relevant, and are handled in a manner inconsistent with the F22 approach. TMLutas (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change, add link from the word impact to the article impact factor. I believe that the scientific measurement term impact factor is what is meant by impact. Any objections? TMLutas (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Object. I interpret the word following the dictionary meaning "influence; effect" or "the effect or impression of one thing on another." In any event there is considerable skepticism regarding the use of impact factors to evaluate or compare journals. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you similarly object to the use of WP:RS to justify the F22 standard using impact factor criteria on individual papers? Because if doing it for journals is controversial, doing it for papers is even more so and that's what the current text is saying is not only current practice but that it's so accepted that it's noncontroversial. If you look at the impact factors section on misuse, counting citations on individual papers is considered scientific misuse yet here that concept is in the current A22. TMLutas (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV of GW article

Please open a new discussion with specific detailed suggestions for improvement in a new section below or create a sandbox version for discussion. This page is for discussing improvements to the article Global warming, not for general discussion of the subject. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding an {{POV}} tag at the top of the GW article. This will add the GW article to the Category:NPOV disputes. This talk section can serve as a springboard to add specific content to the article. Mytwocents (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Sounds like a silly idea to me. -Atmoz (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Very silly. I just explained why in some detail in the thread above. There are only two views with regard to settled science: Those who understand it and those who don't. Claiming that an article on settled, mainstream science is unbalanced because it doesn't give enough weight to discussing the fallacies of 'those who don't' is just silly. --Nigelj (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Second the POV Tag Motion - The polarized POV must be neutralized for the reader to understand. In addition, NPOV changes just like the science does. Above, I've found evidence that the article does not adequately address the scientific views on carbon cycle effects on Global Warming. As well, the article's comparitive revelance to the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" hypothesis could be better attributed. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Raise specific issues here first. Discuss them with your fellow volunteer editors first. Make specific suggestions for improvement first. Failure to engage at the talkpage is disruptive and may lead to blocks. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Seems like double standards here. My recent change was reverted within 15 minutes but still no one on this page can tell me why. Many editors believe that this article is biased and represents one POV but that must be discussed here first. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I've been discussing my concerns here after being reverted. The POV tag is necessary to reinforce the POV disputes occurring in this talk page, there are at least two sides in the dispute and at least 3 issues underway with multiple editors involved, the POV tag may pave the way for further dispute resolution methods should talk be stymied. I applaud Mytwocents for taking about the tag before moving to post it, the right way to go for peaceful resolution. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I support a POV tag on this article - this entire tree of articles is pretty bad from a POV perspective. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) This article as it stands, written from a scientific perspective (which I believe to be appropriate), does not have a POV problem. There are a fair number of editors who want it written from another perspective, that's the problem, and not one likely to lead to a resolution (just look back through the last few years of discussion on this page). Mikenorton (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I support the tag. The article fails to address a lack of concensus on the issue.--Baina90 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) How about you make a small, good faith effort to impove it? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I support the tag. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC) On what grounds? All I've seen from you is complaints of talk-page stuff. What edits have you made to improve the article that have been reverted? William M. Connolley (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I propose that we close this thread unless somebody comes up with an actual POV problem and shows that it hasn't been honestly addressed here. NPOV tags are not to be applied for frivolous reasons. --TS 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I think that may be premature. That Mytwocents and others have expressed POV concerns is considered strong evidence that the tag belongs, and should not generally be deleted until there is consensus on the article's neutrality. (Please review WP:WPOVD for those of you unfamiliar with how POV dispute resolution works.) I'm sure Atmoz was simply unaware of this when he/she removed the tag. Atmoz, perhaps you could restore the tag you deleted, please? There is, of course, an expectation that edits will be made or discussed here to back up the addition of the tag... --DGaw (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I think the reason is that the views of sceptics are not given the weight the sceptical editors want. But then you can then also put a POV tag on the article on evolution. The number of biologist who are sceptical of evolution and support intelligent design is of the same order as the number of climate scientist sceptical of AGW. The number of scientists who are not biologists who are sceptical of evolution and support intelligent design is larger and also of the same order as the number of scientists who work outside of climate science who are sceptical of AGW. Count Iblis (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I do, however, support leaving this section open to raising specific issues. Please, this is not a vote. The {{POV}} tag is not to be used to dispute the topic itself, only our coverage of it. If the depth of the differences of opinion regarding the present article is too great to be addressed efficiently as individual changes being suggested on this page, the editors who express concerns above might like to create a temporary sandbox for discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC) The removal of the {{POV}} has refactored the debate. I would contend that with 56 archived debate pages(and counting) and 21 FAQ's that there are a multitude of issues that have been raised. In the end, it is still easier to delete than to create. And there's the rub. Just the thought and work to add a specific tag (no text) was undone within 10 minutes of posting, with 1 click of the mouse. Is this page POV and forked until bled white? Of course it is. Specific issues? These spring to mind for starters. No mention of Climategate, Al Gore, population control, the left wings embrace of GW as springboard for it policies, the intense news media coverage of the science and political debate. I would ask that the {{POV}} tag remain at the top of the article through January. If for no other reason. as to serve as an overarching notice that the POV of the GW page is, indeed, under discussion. Mytwocents (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Climategate? Gore? "the left wings embrace of GW as springboard for it policies"? What does that have to do with the price of hot milk in Timbuktu? Seriously, global warming is not some communist fantasy invented to take over the world. It's a physical phenomenon with basic mechanisms that have been known for over a century. It's been subject of intense study before any politico ever jumped on the bandwagon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Debate and skepticism (2)

This section followed the closure of the discussion "NPOV of GW article"

This discussion closed down before I could arrive with a specific proposal for an improvement to the article. I think it needs a section on "Dissent" that actually treats this factor as significant. The problem I've repeatedly had was that I came here hoping to find rebuttals to various arguments I'd seen in the press. The fact that they're missing, and there is no obvious link to them, leads me to wonder if my belief in AGW is mis-placed. I'm not sure how valuable it would be to place a POV tag on the article, but something needs to change. And it needs to be going on within the article, offers of a sand-box version of a new section are inadequate. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How is your wish to see the article contain rebuttals to common misconceptions related to the Neutral point of view? --TS 15:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a "Debate and Skepticism" section already in the article. In what way would your "Dissent" section differ from this? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does not need to contain rebuttals. But it must answer the needs of visitors like me to quickly find where the substance of particular debates can be examined. From the NPOV angle, the dissent section must treat the beliefs of the dissenters as being significant, even if they're not of the main-stream. The article on Evolution manages to do a fine job eg I can search it for "Creatio ..." and instantly find what I'm looking for. What's the hold-up here? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientific dissent has to be given due weight which seems to me to be about where the article is at. What significant scientific viewpoint do you feel is not being given its due weight? --BozMo talk 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than these somewhat vague terms, could you offer some examples of "various arguments I'd seen in the press"? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick zip through evolution confirms my recollection that the article contains no rebuttals to creationist dogma and treats the subject of creationism solely as a religious belief based on creation myths. You've apparently misread both this article and that one. --TS 16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - BozMo I'm not well enough up on well-informed opposition to GW/AGW. But when I hear that in 2008 Dr Will Happer said: "I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect ... Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science" then I go to the web and start investigating.

I found that Happer has published 200 papers and "In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him". Lastly I come to this GW article, expecting to find links that will take me to a discussion of his objections and either rebuttals or at least sources for further investigations. Instead of which I find that this man's educated objections are simply ignored. Rather than coming away baffled, I post to the Discussion page and discover that "the believers are specialists, Dr Will Happer is not a specialist, therefore he can be ignored - and don't even think about trying to improve the article so others get better service from it". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - William M. Connolley I've posted several times of my own experience/s, which is seeing an anti-GW argument in the press and coming here expecting to be quickly led to either a discussion of the point arising, or a rebuttal of it or some other confidence-filling blurb that tells me that matters are under control. Currently, every exchange I see makes it appear there's funny business going on - and perhaps more significantly, every time I search the article for the topic that's caught my interest, I can't find it. F'chrisake, guys, if your allies come away with the impression this/these article/s are POV and under censorship, what effect do you think it has on the great unwashed public?!
Here's another puzzler for anyone who aspires to be writing a good article or thinks you've already written one. Europe, China, India and perhaps Florida are all shivering under a cold-snap right this moment. Can GW really be going on? Has warm air from here gone to the Arctic to be replaced by the cold air from there coming here? Shouldn't googling for GW and clicking on en.wikipedia be the first step to finding out the answer?
I put it to you that if I come away baffled, unhappy whether my question is to the point or off the point, then there must be a problem with the article. And I've told you one of the obvious places, the section on Dissent. It's highly suspicious that Martin Hogbin (perhaps a dis-believer?) has his edits to that section reverted by a believer. Particularly when the believer is plainly wrong, the statement "Some global warming skeptics in the science or political communities dispute all or some of the global warming scientific consensus ..." belongs at the beginning of the "Debate and Skepticism" section the way Martin Hogbin said it did. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - TS The article on Evolution might upset creationists expecting their views to be given equal weight with those of Darwin. The dissenters have a valid objection that the section Social and Cultural Responses is badly titled. But "Intelligent Design" is mentioned and it is possible to navigate from there to pages which, I presume but have not checked, lead somewhere meaningful. But in one respect, dissenters there have an equal grumble to that of dissenters here, since "intelligent design" comes at the bottom of the section when it should obviously be at the top. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent-- We could add a 'Global Warming Controversy' section that would point to the subarticles.
X Global Warming Controversy
X.1 A minority of scientists oppose the global warming consensus
X.2 Politics of Global Warming
X.2.1 Al Gore
X.2.2 Environmental criticism
X.3 Contribution to global warming by deforestation
X.4 Global cooling theory in the 1970's, 80's
X.5 Climategate Mytwocents (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

All of the above are discussed elsewhere. Please bear in mind that this is an article about a scientific subject, not a political debate. --TS 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - Mytwocents I can't tell how well that would work until I see it in action. But the fact that I can't imagine it only underlines what I'm saying above - the section covering the "non-believers" must not be interfered with by "believers". We're not even being allowed to see how much extra value could be added to this article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - TS This article fails at the scientific level contrives to look as if the science is POV and incomplete. I know it does that, because that's what brought me here I came here expecting to be convinced and was disappointed. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Then surely you should be proposing improvements to the main treatment of the science. --TS 17:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I will defer to those who are more expert than me on both the science and the writing of a good article. However, I came here primarily to check that I have no differences with the science. The problem I have is that there are flaws in the writing such that the article doesn't deliver the goods. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• As you yourself have just implicitly observed, one doesn't have to be an expert in science or writing to identify flawed writing on science. I'm afraid I must tax you further at this point: please identify the specific flaws that you have noticed. --TS 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, your only example of a failing so far is that we do refute Happer's argument from (his assumed) authority, and that we do not discuss the weather (we do cover this in the FAQ Q4). Looking at Happer's senate statement, he does not seem to believe in positive WV feedback - we discuss this in the Feedback section and link to the main article at Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor. What more do you want in this article? An encyclopedic article is not the place to list all spurious arguments and discuss them in detail - it's a place to present the current understanding of a topic.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a limit to the number of times I should have to repeat myself - the article does not help people find answers to any of the kind of details that will tend to bring them here.

And I've told you at least part of the answer - stop interfering with the "Debate" section. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me summarize this: We are not here to be an FAQ for strange questions arising from this topic - there are lots of useful sites on the internet that does this. We are here to present the current understanding of the topic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In theory it could be possible to have an article Misconceptions regarding climate change, but in practice we've got enough contentiousness that it would be unwise to beg for more. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindented somewhat)

I think Malcolm is looking in the wrong place. The New Scientist has a rather good set of articles answering common questions on global warming, and they cover some of the questions in considerable depth while remaining accessible to non-specialists. It's here. Perhaps we could add it to our External links section. --TS 10:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for the list of special policies in operation on this topic before. My question mysteriously disappeared leaving my usual usual sunny disposition a bit fazed. I could start my own list of guidances - how about this for starters: "these encyclopedia articles are not intended to answer the questions of readers"? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a "Dissent" section in this article in order to make it more NPOV. Until there is one, I suggest that the "NPOV" tag be added to the top of the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're looking for global warming controversy, there is loads of dissent there William M. Connolley (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And besides the article already has a Debate and skepticism section. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone my aunt met on the train said their grandmother had heard Terry Wogan on the radio say something about Global Warming and I came to this article to find out what he said and whether it was right and a rebuttal if needed. This article isn't doing its job if it doesn't include every quotation by the Togmeister: he had 9 million listeners you know. A wellwisher

We arent' talking about Terry Wogan here. HistorianofScience (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Noticed Steven Mcintyre was listed as a prominent climate sceptic - I can see he is a critic but I'm not sure he's a skeptic of AGW - e.g.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-warming-scam-ctd.thtml

Stephen McIntyre October 3rd, 2009 3:26pm

While there is much to criticize in the handling of this data by the authors and the journals, the results do not in any way show that "AGW is a fraud" nor that this particular study was a "fraud".

There are many serious scientists who are honestly concerned about AGW and your commentary here is unfair to them.

In retrospect, the "hockey stick" studies that I've criticized have been used by climate scientists, journals and IPCC to promote concern, but the most important outstanding scientific issue appears to me to be the amount of "water cycle" feedback, including clouds as well as water vapor. This controls the "climate sensitivity" to increased CO2.

In my opinion, scientific journals reporting on climate and IPCC would serve the interested public far better if they focused on articulating these issues to the scientific public at a professional level than by repeatedly recycling and promoting some highly questionable proxy studies that deal with an issue that interests me, but which is somewhat tangential to the large policy issues.' PeteB99 (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Found another bit http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/18/back-from-georgia-tech/

On a number of occasions, I was asked (in different ways) whether I endorsed IPCC findings. I’ve said on many occasions (including the preamble to my talk at Georgia Tech), that, if I had a senior policy making job, I would be guided by the views of major scientific institutions like IPCC and that, in such a capacity, I would not be influenced by any personal views that I might hold on any scientific issue. Many people seemed to want me to make a stronger statement, but I’m unwilling to do so. In the area that I know best – millennial climate reconstructions – I do not believe that IPCC AR4 represents a balanced or even correct exposition of the present state of knowledge. I don’t extrapolate from this to the conclusion that other areas are plagued by similar problems.

I would change the article to remove Stephen McIntyre but I don't think I can edit it yet - is that cos I'm a newbie or cos the article is protected (this is my first contribution to wikipedia !) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteB99 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

PeteB99 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

inconsistency in intro

The intro defines global warming as the rise in temperature since the "middle of the 20th century". It then gives a figure for the rise between the beginning and end of the 20th century. By the definition used this figure has no place in the article and certainly not in the first sentences because half of the time period is outwith the key period.

Clearly the figure needs to be replaced with one giving the rise from "the middle of the 20th century" and not from the start.Isonomia (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree but also believe that this inconsistency has no effect on the meaning of the passage, only on cosmetics and triviality. The time scale mentioned is to highlight the acceleration of global warming in recent years? Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I'm probably about to step on a land mine by saying this, but the reason this opening is confused is because it tries to talk about global warming as a fact instead of as a theory. what it really should say is something like "Global warming is a theory that tries to define and explain apparent increases in the average temperature of Earth's oceans and near-surface air. These temperatures increased globally by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century, with an accelerated pace since the mid-20th century, and are projected to continue rising." --Ludwigs2 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Like Evolution in other words, which remains a theory no matter that it's the central pillar of the life-sciences and has made predictions we now recognise as having been validated. I don't believe we've seen the predictions of GW (or AGW, anyway) come true yet. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure we have. We have not seen all the prediction come true (yet), but we see stratospheric cooling, we see polar amplification, we see the Suess effect and ocean acidification (both in the larger set of predictions), we see glaciers retreating and ice mass loss on Greenland, we see sea ice retreat.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How many of those are predictions that were made ahead of evidence for them? Darwin predicted that the origins of man would be found in Africa many years before the paleantologists stopped looking for them in Asia. In fact, many years before they started looking in Asia. Yet Evolution is still considered a theory - AGW is the same. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

One example: global warming as a result of CO2 emission was predicted by Svante Arrhenius around 1900. Evolution (just like global warming) is both a fact and a theory - may I suggest you go read scientific theory? Science has nothing better to offer... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just check that there is no one against changing the first sentences to make them more consistent? Isonomia (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast. Which way are you planning to agreeise them? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're starting to vote on the italicised nonsense above, it fails after the 4th word: Global warming is not a theory; it's a measured, observed fact. A bunch of undecided/creationists chewing the cud together does not a consensus make. --Nigelj (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj: please let's keep our terminology clean and clear. there is observable evidence that the globe has been getting warmer; that is not in question. That observable evidence supports the theoretical claim that some unusual process of global warming is occurring. Wherever scientists talk about ongoing phenomena and make predictions about future (currently unobserved) states or events, they are engaged in theory. This is neither a derogatory term nor a problem - this is the way science works. In science, there are neither facts nor opinions; there are theories, and there are measurements that can support or refute theories, nothing more. I personally happen to think the theory that there is some abnormal process of global warming is fully supported by the available evidence - it's the best theory we have that explains what we see - but it is still unquestionably a theory. --Ludwigs2 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this is about I's comment of 16:23, 6 January 2010. Since this is now redundant, I've collapsed it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to have this collapsed, please, since his comment was clearly about my suggestion (the only thing in this section that is italicized), and my response was cogent and useful for future reference. this just saves me the trouble of posting it again later when the point arises again (as I suspect it most assuredly will). --Ludwigs2 21:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But the Efficient Market Hypothesis is so-called because it is a hypothesis. There is academic consensus that the hypothesis is correct, but it is still called a hypothesis. HistorianofScience (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Your proposed version makes the mistake of confusing "global warming", the observed fact, with the proposed theory explaining it. Doing so is like saying hurricanes are a theory, while rather the way we explain their causes is. In any case I think that this discussion is a digression from the original topic, which is the about the timing of the temperature increases, and the rest should probably be collapsed. — DroEsperanto (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

yeesh, you people and collapsing - relax a bit! there's no hurry.

back on point, I'm afraid you've made the mistake of confusing an inherently ambiguous set of empirical findings with a fact. The average global temperature has risen somewhat over the last 100 years - that is an empirical observation that cannot be denied. The moment you step beyond that to make projections, consider adverse effects, discuss causation, or in any way transform that empirical fact into a meaningful ongoing phenomenon you have entered into theory. to use your example, a hurricane is an observable phenomenon and if all you're worried about is wether you're going to die, that's probably good enough. The moment you start trying to predict the hurricane's strength or direction, or the number of hurricanes in a season, or etc, you've entered into the realm of theory, because it's theory that lets us make such predictions.

now, if you would like to keep this article strictly focused on the empirical observations, then we will need to discard any speculative discussion about trends, potential effects, causes, and the like (which currently make up about 1/2 to 2/3 of the article). I'm ok with that if that's the way you want to go. --Ludwigs2 00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an established scientific theory, and shortening the article is seriously not a good idea. Major changes are obviously a no-go without a good argument.Julzes (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Julzes - reductio ad absurdem. I currently have no serious intention of shortening the article, I'm just trying to get a proper perspective on theory vs. fact. I take it from your 'established scientific theory' phrase that you have no objection to the revision I offered near the top of this section? --Ludwigs2 03:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Close. "...empirically observed phenomenon and the theory around it..." should replace simply "theory". It is not a theory that global warming has been occurring over a now-considerable span of time (with a recent lull).Julzes (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I'm going to be bold and fix the very start of the article. It may take some hours before I actually make a change. It will refer directly to the graph at the top, I expect a full paragraph in place of the first two sentences, and there will be mention of the recent lull I referred to (with a source). I'm going to use 'Climate-Change Science' and 'Climatology' in the most intelligent way I can. 'Global warming' is not a theory at all, but a short-hand for a phenomenon observed by climatologists.Julzes (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, I'll wait and see what you do. I reserve the right to edit it, though... --Ludwigs2 05:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to post the text here before I edit it in:

'Global warming' is the commonly used shorthand for recent climate change, an empirically established and theoretically predicted increase in the Earth's average temperature over the last century (focused on the near-surface part of the atmosphere and the oceans). It's largely the scientific purview of climatologists, but, because of the complexity and urgency of the subject matter, is also heavily dealt with across scientific disciplines. The two run charts and the colored map at right show how temperatures have changed from what they were in the recent past. The changes are projected to continue, with a great deal of current uncertainty in specifics. At the very present, the data indicate we are in a lull in warming that may be similar to what occurred between 1945 and 1976 (click on first graph). However, the science has not advanced to the point where we can make such projections, though simulations have shown that numerous lulls will occur in a long-term trend of warming.

This will replace the first sentence, and I will pretty much leave the rest of the text alone. A good introductory paragraph, it seems to me. I await comments. Sourcing this shouldn't be an issue. You can see me fix (what will be) the second paragraph in a small way now (Just dating the IPCC report).Julzes (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Too complex and with too much information that isn't a summary of the body. The whole "lull" thing as well as the walk-thru of temps is speculative, and unsupported by sources (as well as likely wrong). Images are illustrations, and shouldn't be explained in text (thats what the caption is for). So all in all - not a good change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's source is in Science Magazine. The amount of the lull now being experienced won't be available for years. The part on simulations is not disputable. I'll consider what else is said.Julzes (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) well, the two objections I would have to this off-hand (one trivial and one not) are that (a) it's a bit informal and wordy, and (b) it's inaccurate. 'Global warming' is not a shorthand for actual climate change, which 99.9% of the people on the planet would not recognize. I mean, we're talking about 1° Celsius over a century - perhaps 1/25 of the seasonal variation in temperature in temperate regions - completely undetectable to the casual observer. not to mention that 'empirically established and theoretically predicted' is somewhat odd phrasing, inconsistent with normal scientific usages. If you want to go this route, I'd suggest something like the following:

'Global warming' refers to scientific observations of a global increase in average oceanic and near-surface atmospheric temperatures, and to theoretical constructs which try to explain that increase in terms of human-derived or natural causation. It falls primarily under the scientific purview of climatologists, but because of the complexity of the subject matter other scientific disciplines have noteworthy investments in the debate. As shown at right, these observations have recorded an accelerating increase of 1° Celcius over the last century - a dramatic change by climatological standards, though the climatological record does show other trends and lulls which make definitive prediction difficult.

The more detailed sections of what you wrote can be dealt with later in the intro, or possible more effectively in later sections that get into the meat of the subject. --Ludwigs2 08:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a little on the balanced-rather-than-accurate side, but I'll easily concede mine has problems too. Arrhenius predicted the rise, so it's not to be seen in the terms you present.Julzes (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Arrhenius was a theorist, without any of the global-scale empirical evidence that we currently possess, so I'm not sure what your point it. I'm also not sure waht "balanced-rather-than-accurate" means, or whether it's a compliment or insult. can you clarify? --Ludwigs2 10:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, neither one. Balanced-rather-than-accurate means what it says. Yours is good with simply 'explanations for' in place of 'constructs which try to explain'. Big semantic difference. I'd choose it over my own, almost. Arrhenius fits in the theoretical history that shows the constructs work.Julzes (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm not seeing what it is you think is inaccurate in what I wrote. can you clarify? --Ludwigs2 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments - the proposal is to use the same period over which to state temperature rise as that used in the definition of global warming. That definition is "rise since the middle of the 20th century", so the figure backing this up should use the same period. 79.71.129.112 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with this page sometimes, almost every thread gets sidelined. To me the figure does a good job in providing a context for the most recent changes (the "since the middle of the 20th century" bit). I don't see any need for there to be a precise match in the way that you describe, and I think that it would actually be less useful if there was. Mikenorton (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You can argue all you like over the best way to drive a nail with a wrench, but I'm still going to suggest you get a hammer. The inconsistency arises because editors are trying to avoid calling a theory a theory (for some reason that I have no knowledge of). I think the approach I gave above resolves the issue nicely, and once I get some more feedback from Julzes (and anyone else who cares to comment), I think it will constitute a significant enough improvement to merit editing it in. don't you? --Ludwigs2 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give you some feedback. Here is how I believe the first paragraph should read:

'Global warming' refers to observations of a global increase in average near-surface and oceanic temperatures. Theoretical developments, beginning with a prediction by Svante Arrhenius in [year], have separated out anthropogenic and natural factors and shown that at least since the middle of the last century the primary causation has been the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by man. The subject primarily falls under the purview of climatologists, but, because of the complexity of the subject matter and an increasing urgency, other scientific disciplines have made noteworthy contributions in what is now an essentially complete debate with skeptics and denialists. They can be expected to continue to do so in refining predictions, assessing the past, and educating the public and policy makers.

You have nothing close to consensus for what you want, and editing what you want just isn't going to succeed. That much said, and realising that my paragraph is probably not going in either, we should improve on what's there. I don't really have the time for more than what I've done on this subject right now.Julzes (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

alright, let's all take a deep breath. I don't particularly want anything from this page - I like global warming as a scientific theory (and I dislike it as an empirical reality, though there's not much I can do about that). I'm just trying to get the article to be accurate, which it currently isn't. I actually like your revision (though I think it gets too far into the details too quickly - introductions need to be generalized), and I'm not particularly trying to start a fight. Is this page so strung-out that every effort at improving the article is viewed as an attack? --Ludwigs2 20:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read Scientific theory yet? Just to be sure that we are clear about the difference between empirical, deductive, scientific theory and the common use of the term like, 'I know you have a theory that I left them indoors, but I'm sure I left my keys in the car'. --Nigelj (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I teach scientific theory, for whatever that's worth to you. I have checked out that page; some of it is sensible and some of it is a mess. --Ludwigs2 21:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you should understand that the observed temperature increases (which we commonly refer to as global warming) is an observed fact, NOT a theory. The CO₂/AGW model we use to explain this (which is not itself called global warming). Again, the words "global warming" do not refer to the explanation, but to the observed phenomenon, and therefore it is a mistake to say "global warming is a theory". Global warming is not a theory, and the theory is not called "global warming", but rather the AGW model or something like that. I fail to see what is inaccurate in the lead. And the frustration isn't coming from this page being "strung-out" and us seeing "attemps to improve the article as attacks", but rather because it appears that our responses are being ignored. — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to slide into professor mode, here? The observed temperature increase (more generally any single set of empirical observations) has literally no meaning outside of a theoretical context - it's just observations. you're making the UFO error, here - you see something, and instantly jump to a conclusion about what that something factually is without recognizing (or critiquing) the theoretical underpinnings that make that jump seem reasonable. The power of the statement "The world is experiencing global warming" doesn't come from the empirical observations, it comes from the scientific theory that allows us to treat the empirical observations as examples of an ongoing process, and from the way that empirical observations support that theory better than other theories. When you focus expressly on the empirical observations you cause two problems: (a) you create confused and confusing language as you try to import theoretical concepts without revealing them as theoretical (and you have to import theory to make any sense of the issue at all). (b) You leave the science and the article open to all of the critiques you (I assume) hate, because without the theory giving it structure, anyone and their pet monkey can come along and say "well, I'm going to interpret this empirical evidence this way," and you've blocked the article from saying (the way a scientist would) "but that theoretical model doesn't conform to the evidence anywhere near as well as this theoretical model does".

You are essentially stripping the scientific argument of its greatest power by trying to limit article content to something that can be managed politically. To which I can only say... Dude! Let the science do the work.

And yes, this will be on the final. --Ludwigs2 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I walked away from my last edit, not realizing it never made it due to e/c. I see where you're coming from, Ludwigs2. I agree with your last post. You might argue for my paragraph without the last sentence plus required changes in the rest of the article.(?) I think getting too deep on the idea of 'scientific theory' would be as big a mistake as not mentioning it. This encyclopedia article is for everyone, not just science historians, so just having the article state that the theory is accepted as right might be best. What I said is that some people have declared the debate over, some people have changed their minds in favor of the correct side, and some people have become quiet. This can be documented, and it marks the end of a debate. How most of the article changes from now on is of minor interest to me. It's in reasonable hands.Julzes (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, Julzes I'll work from that standpoint. DroEsperanto, do you want to debate this further, or can I start editing along these lines? --Ludwigs2 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, please do not make any edits to the article without getting consensus on the talk page first. So far, you have not said anything that sounds like your edits would be an improvement. Multiple editors have explained their objections to your line of thinking above. Bertport (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bertport, it's a bit difficult getting consensus if no one is willing to discuss the issue reasonably. for instance, I have indeed said a number of things which (potentially at least) would make significant improvements to the article, and yet rather than discuss them you simply poopoo the ideas without comment. honestly, if I want to be contradicted without insight or explanation I have a 14 year old nephew who is willing (nay, eager) to oblige; I don't need to come to wikipedia for that.

If you have a specific, valid criticism, please offer it so that we can discuss the matter - who knows, maybe I'll learn something from you. if you don't, then why are you contributing? Contributions like this that lack any real value or insight just put me in the position of having to ignore you, which doesn't sit well with me. --Ludwigs2 05:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Ludwigs2 is seeking consensus for something approaching what I said. Saying that he should not make any edits before getting a consensus in light of that seems to be an attempt to clutter up the basic issue, that being that the article's lede (along with other parts) could use some improvement in wording and updating in content. The issue of consensus here is something of a red herring. More edits will be made to the article as time goes by, and there will always be someone saying that there is no consensus.Julzes (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, do get the level of consensus you know you must for real changes in the article. Asking one person's opinion about beginning to edit is a little hasty. Work out what you're trying to do with this page with other editors before starting.Julzes (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

hey, I'm trying. but if no one wants to discuss the issue then I'm going to have to be bold and make the changes, and then ask for clarification from anyone who reverts (and I'm sure there are already a number of people watching this page like hawks, ready to revert any and every edit they don't like). Unfortunately this is standard practice on contentious articles - no one wants to discuss anything, because everyone is angry and frustrated with the conversations that have happened in the past and suspicious of anyone who smells like an 'opponent', even a little bit. so I will simply plod away trying to make proper discussions and improvements to the article. the trigger-happy people will jump on me, and then they'll jump on me again, and again, until eventually they figure out that it's not really an effective tactic with me, and that I'm not trying to make their lives difficult anyway. then they'll settle down enough so that I can work with them to make the kinds of improvements I want to make. it's sad that that's the way it has to be, but I do understand.

you can all take that as a statement of intent, incidentally... --Ludwigs2 08:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support a change to the lead. Of the two suggesions offered, I prefer the general tenor of editor Ludwigs.

Hence replace: Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

with something based on this:

Global warming refers to scientific observations of a global increase in average oceanic and near-surface atmospheric temperatures, and to theoretical constructs which try to explain that increase in terms of human-derived or natural causation. It falls primarily under the scientific purview of climatologists, but because of the complexity of the subject matter other scientific disciplines have noteworthy investments in the debate. As shown at right, these observations have recorded an accelerating increase of 1° Celcius over the last century - a dramatic change by climatological standards, though the climatological record does show other trends and lulls which make definitive prediction difficult.

(Then the three remaining paragraphs seem to follow quite naturally and can stay the same, for the moment)

Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century. The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions. Some other uncertainties include how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Most studies focus on the period up to the year 2100. However, warming is expected to continue beyond 2100 even if emissions stop, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, probably including expansion of subtropical deserts. Warming will be strongest in the Arctic and will be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects include increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, species extinctions, and changes in agricultural yields.

Political and public debate continues regarding global warming, and what actions (if any) to take in response. The available options are mitigation to reduce further emissions; adaptation to reduce the damage caused by warming; and, more speculatively, geoengineering to reverse global warming. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Much inferior to the current paragraph, clumsy, and historically wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Gasification, Respiration, and Flatulence

Why not add "...such as breathing (respiration), fossil fuel burning (gasification) and deforestation..." to the lead? Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Because breathing doesn't have an impact on the rise of CO2? (please see Carbon cycle). Flatulence (i assume you mean emissions from ruminants, where flatulence is actually a minimal part - since most comes from "burps") only has an impact because the gas emitted is methane (which has a higher greenhouse effect than CO2), once it degrades down to CO2 it is a regular part of the carbon cycle. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming conspiracy theories

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

---

A redirect to Global warming conspiracy theory has been created.

---

This article should probably exist if it doesn't already under a similar title. -Atmoz (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia rarely considers conspiracy theories to be notable topics in and of themselves, and such cannot (almost by definition) be reliably sourced. Besides, we all know that global warming is an attempt by an alien species to convert earth to a planet they can easily colonize and inhabit, so any other theories are obviously wrong. --Ludwigs2 05:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming conspiracy theory already exists. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Last sentence of Geoengineering section

I've been bold by raising the final sentence of this section from what I saw as a C- to what I see as B- with the intent and indication that it will be an A by the week's end (say, Sunday, actually). If anyone would like to collaborate (or take over, with expertise) in this, it's welcome. Keep in mind, as I have, that there is a separate article on the subject. Also, WP:Recentism could be an issue, both in my choice of word 'recently' and in theory. I see what is needed involves, aside from the best writing possible, numerous footnotes going back at least to early 2008 (the earliest I've seen that fits the theme). It might be good to cross over the linguistic divide on this one and go global. That would certainly be over my head.Julzes (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sourcing. My initial concerns were of weasel words (who exactly are these "various significant players"? What makes their opinions representative?). WP:V-related, is it true that "no geoengineering projects have ever been initiated"? And regarding the text itself: what is "at a higher urgency": the suggestion or the studying? The phrase "and for their different externalities and costs (even with the possibility of single-nation unilateralism in mind)" also confused me a bit. — DroEsperanto (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Projects have not been initiated that fit into the category of geoengineering, as it's currently defined; though it would be hard to prove that as a negative, and one could say that national park systems (and other things) are geoengineering light in a way. I'm doing an improvement of the edit, right now. It should be a little clearer. Substituting 'short-term' for 'stopgap' changes the sense, but there are other problems with the sentence anyway. Note that what's intended for the footnotes is more extensive than what I've done so far. There has been a little of a sea-change since a period in which geo-engineering was being pretty much ignored (mostly for good reasons), and the footnotes might document this.Julzes (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Now, I'm really not all that happy with the edit accomplished so far, but I believe it is a little more informative and accurate than its predecessor. I'll mostly be accumulating more sources. Keeping the size and basic content of this section pretty much where it is at present--with the exception perhaps of the definition of geo-engineering (There is no such thing as the natural environment, in my opinion, any more)--seems about right for the foreseeable future. I'm going over to the geo-engineering article to see how much work it needsJulzes (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article on geo-engineering appears to require no help. I have a pet solution, by the way: A single-machine carbon-sequestration (in a specific place actually). It'll cost a lot of people money, but I also expect the superwealthy to do it.Julzes (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1. The diff looks okay.[7] Some problems, "In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that[...]" actually the IPCC concluded this in 2001 as well, in their third assessment report,[8] and perhaps before then also (the older timers can tell you).[9] Sounds misleading.
2. Remember that the section "Geoengineering" section here is a summery of the article Geoengineering, I don't know about you, but keeping the two sync, or in fact just canabalizing important pieces of the other article, may make your life a lot easier.
3. The "See also" in this article was actually moved to the two articles Glossary of climate change and Index of climate change articles and the navbox at the foot of the article (see Template:Global warming). As you can imagine, there are a lot of link that can go in there. The Navbox provides collapsible organization based on subject, and the two articles provides organization based on language. If you object to the system, then I want a good reason, because choosing which out of the hundreds to list can be a serious neutrality, notability, and organizational problem—that has been discussed before (e.g. see [10], [11], [12]).

ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't object, and thanks for asking. I see the problem if the older reports said the same exact thing as what's in source number 1. If you're at all interested, I and a couple of other people are trying to sort out the first two sentences of the whole article above. I have one recommendation, another person has another, a third downed my idea but didn't actually recommend anything.Julzes (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of feedback

The section on feedback incorrectly notes "A positive feedback is a process that amplifies some change". This is necessary, but not sufficient. (Positive) feedback is when the action of some agent A causes a process B which then amplifies or strengthens the action of A, which causes further change in B etc etc. I.e. the amplification has to be 'fed back' to its source, otherwise it is merely amplicification, not feedback. Most of the effects noted in that section are not examples of feedback, but of amplification. For example, CO2 has the effect of increasing temperature. This has an effect on the state of water vapour, which increases the temperature still further. But for the increase in the effect water vapour to be feedback, it would have to cause a further increase in the amount (or the effect) of CO2. But it doesn't, or does it? I'm not challenging the science, just the definitions.HistorianofScience (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that the variable under discussion is "warming" not "CO2". All of these processes are driven by the warming in turn do more warming. So they are a positive feedback on warming. In terms of definition you are right that "A positive feedback is a process that amplifies some change" is not a definition but it is an explanation which kind of works in the context. --BozMo talk 12:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point is irrelevant. The sentence in question looks like a definition. "A positive feedback is a process that amplifies some change" looks like a definition to me. If that wasn't intended, it should be changed so it doesn't look like a definition. If it was, it should be corrected. A definition should supply both necessary and sufficient conditions for anything satisfying the definition. This 'definition' does not, because amplification on its own does not entail feedback. Only when the amplification is 'fed back' to its sources, do we have feedback. HistorianofScience (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

All of these start a feedback loop: higher temps -> { more water vapor -> higher temps } (stopping because the forcings are logarithmic) But that aside, the literature calls these feedbacks, which is what we go by. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to my point above that the definition "A positive feedback is a process that amplifies some change" is insufficient as a definition of feedback. The example of water vapour you give is certainly an example of feedback, properly so-called. HistorianofScience (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the definition should be fixed. It is easier to fix it than to argue about it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more fun to argue about it. Seriously, what should the definition be? The article positive feedback has one but it defines it as "a situation where some effect causes more of itself". Possibly correct, but it sounds awkward and idiosyncratic. Any suggestions?HistorianofScience (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've make an attempt. Let me know what you think. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. "Feedback is a process in which changing one quantity changes a second quantity, and the change in the second quantity in turn changes the first." I think that's not bad. (But I note that the Feedback article you link to has a less impressive definition).

"Feedback is important in the study of global warming"

Now for another of the claims in that section. "Feedback is important in the study of global warming because a warming trend often produces effects that lead to further warming, creating a feedback loop that is difficult to control."

1. Why 'important in the study of global warming'. Why not omit 'the study of'? For the next part of the sentence is clearly not about study, which involves thought and language, but about physical effects, which are real

2. Why 'warming trend'? Shouldn't 'trend' be omitted. To suggest there is a trend begs the question, that positive feedback exists.

3. 'feedback loop that is difficult to control' - Kim Petersen said on another page that the feedback does not increase indefinitely, but simply ends at a higher equilibrium, because of a 'logarithmic effect'. I didn't understand the logarithm bit, but I generally understand the idea that positive feedback may decrease as it continues, until a new equilibrium is reached. If that is true, this should be explained.

Indeed, I think the whole sentence needs changing to one that makes the real point which is, I take it, that the effect of feedback is to amplify and extend the effect of the original anthropogenic cause, so that higher temperatures are caused than without feedback.

Another reason that feedback is important, and in this case important to the theory rather than the physical process, is that without the assumed feedback the anthropogenic effect would be somewhat less than current models propose. If we take 'anthropogenic global warming hypothesis' to mean the hypothesis that significant and possibly damaging effects will be the result of human activity, then the hypothesis crucially depends on assumptions about feedback. HistorianofScience (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You make good and thoughtful points, but I tend to want to stick with what we've got, and maybe change the article on feedback. 1) I thought about whether or not to include "study of". I decided to include it, because the reading "feedback is important in global warming" seemed to me to suggest that we are trying to achieve global warming. 2) I said "warming trend" instead of just "warming" because global warming is a trend, rather than a progression. That is, it gets warmer, then it gets colder, then it gets warmer again. But the trend is toward increasing average temperature, even though the weather today is cold. 3) the bit about "logarithmic effect" probably refers to head radiated by the planet, but since the planet will be uninhabitable before the new equilibrium is reached, I don't think the existance of a new equilibrium is a major practical consideration. I should also point out that a global warming trend is not a theory, but an observed fact. The theory says that it will continue. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the section is far better now, so let's leave it for now. I want to understand the 'equilibrium' idea a bit better. Are you sure that the current consensus is towards runaway warming, rather than reaching a higher equilibrium. Thanks. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

HisorianofScience, your statement #1 appears to me to be a sound grammatical point. The sentence should read either something like "An understanding of basic feedback processes is important in the study of global warming because ... " or "Feedback is important in global warming because ... " , or a similar expression of the involvement of feedback in climate change. The latter is more concise, and preferable, as you indicated... Kenosis (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

@Rick - the 'logarithmic' effect is explained here [13]. It means the feedback effect lessens as the temperature increases, so a new equilibrium will be reached, presumably not at disastrous levels. By the way Rick, nothing is an 'established fact' in science. See my user name. Everything in science is a hypothesis. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

@Kenosis - I agree, of course. HistorianofScience (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, calling it a "logarithmic" effect would be a misnomer, and should be left out of the article. While there may be some logarithms involved in certain specific calculations, e.g. power calculations vs. pressure calculations of specific atmospheric components, to refer to the overall set of feedback dynamics as 'logarithmic' would be very misleading to those who understand logs. Overall, IMO, Rick Norwood's copyedits today are an improvement to the section... Kenosis (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a great improvement. However I think some explanation of equilibrium is necessary. The article on Radiative_forcing says "The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect". This is surely important. HistorianofScience (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Now we're getting mighty close to, e.g., the Gaia hypothesis. The so-called "logarithmic" aspect of CO2 accumulations is somebody's approximation and neglects other compensatory mechanisms not yet fully understood by researchers. I'd advise staying away from the use of the word "logarithmic" in this article. As to tendency of climate to seek "equilibrium", this process too is not yet fully understood--to date there are only hints of how these compensatory mechanisms interact with one another, let alone what the overall results of the combined interactions might turn out to be. Though it's under intensive study worldwide, researchers today still do not understand the full range of feedback interactions. Best, I should think, to leave it at what the reliable, secondary sources say about the topic. What we know today, is that there is (1) current warming overall, which correlates to large-scale anthropogenic activity, and (2) there are various feedback mechanisms at work in the process, several of which are introduced to the reader in this article. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, IANAE. HistorianofScience (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the Climate sensitivity refers to an equilibrium. Presumably there has to be one? HistorianofScience (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course there is equilibrium or homeostasis, a balance of many forces at work in climate overall. What is happening with GW is that the "equilibrium" is changing, hence "global warming " or "climate change " (as differentiated from more specific, shorter-term "weather variations"). It is this change in the equilibrium or homeostasis of this extremely complex system that is of major concern today. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

I've gone ahead and revised the opening to this section, both to clarify and to add in homeostatic feedback. That should address some of the concerns here. --Ludwigs2 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The description of 'feedback' is getting further and further from reality. There are not three types of feedback (positive, negative and homoeostasis). 'Damping' is a defined term to do with feedback systems, and is misused in the text. There is a lot of talk about 'factors' that is unrelated to normal usage. Where does "the environment is largely a homeostatic feedback system" come from? Is that related to any science, or all science, or is it a spiritual belief? I think it's important that people who want to explain things to others understand them themselves first. Perhaps starting by reading feedback would help? After a while it will be necessary to go back to a clear description, written by, if not an expert, at least someone familiar with the subject. --Nigelj (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This sentence is awful. "Feedback is important in the study of global warming because, while the environment is largely a homeostatic feedback system, certain kinds of changes can theoretically produce positive or negative feedback trends that may lead to dramatic changes in climate. " HistorianofScience (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) hey, I just did a quick rewrite to clear up some grammatical and conceptual problems. if you dislike it or think it's inaccurate, I'm open to suggestions/revisions. the idea that the environment is largely a homeostatic feedback system is neither religious nor absurd - the environment has maintained a remarkably stable set of physical properties (temperature, atmospheric content, etc.) for millions of years due to assorted physical and biological processes (one might compare Mars or Venus, which - as I understand it - have seen dramatic climactic changes over the same time period), and many of the feedback systems you talk about actually describe homeostatic systems, not positive/negative feedback systems. what is with you guys? --Ludwigs2 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually this whole change is awful. The irony of a 'grammatical change' leading to such poor grammar - and if Nigel is right, poor science. I would like to revert to Norwood's version.HistorianofScience (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Already reverted before reading this section. -Atmoz (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

awful is not a particularly helpful term. could you maybe say what you find awful about it? I'm not seeing anything except that you seem to be offended by it somehow, which is odd. --Ludwigs2 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Replace 'theoretically' with 'be easily shown by theorists to have the potential to', and I wouldn't find it to be a bad sentence.Julzes (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten this bit.[14] Comments/questions/complaints? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I'll point out the obvious that Stefan–Boltzmann law is not a negative feedback process (it's a damper on runaway heating, not an actual cooling process). --Ludwigs2 05:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you not see that "a damper on runaway heating" neatly fits the definition of negative feedback? (And while we're at it, a "cooling process" per se does not.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

well, looking at the wikipedia definition of the word (negative feedback) I suppose it fits. Not precisely the way I would define it - I'd tend to see negative feedback as more of a canceling process rather than a mere attenuating one (which I suppose also explains the kneejerk reaction above to the term homeostatic, since that concept is built into the negative feedback definition here). my bad; I withdraw the objection. --Ludwigs2 05:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate history destroyed

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

---

The raw data underlying the instrumental temperature record has not been destroyed.

---

Apparently all the climate history data was lost (Destroyed). The graphs here were made after that. Is it possible to find a graph from before the data was lost?--92.28.135.31 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption is wrong. "All climate data" was not destroyed. Why would you think so? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You are probably referring to the fact that Norwich University acquired raw data from elsewhere (i.e. they got digital copies), pre-analysed it, and then discarded the huge amounts of original raw data (which presumably still exists in the original place) as no longer useful to them. At least that's how I understood the situation, but it seems that some blogs have misrepresented it. I wonder what motivated them... Hans Adler 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

1) homeostasis 2) established fact

1) There is no reason to think that Earth's climate has the homeostasis found in evolved systems. On the contrary, the climate of Earth undergoes wild swings over geologic time. The current swing is the wildest ever, and nobody knows for sure if it will, in the long run, swing back, producing an ice age, or continue, turning Earth into an unlivable planet like Venus. The best we can do is, in the short term, try to save as many lives as we can.

2) The distinction I was making between "established fact" and "theory" is this: that global warming has been observed over the past decade (fact) and is predicted to continue in the next decade (theory). Those who profit from global warming, and their dupes, seize on every statement that science is never certain to claim that if science is uncertain, we might as well do nothing. In the words of a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, "the scientific jury is still out". Yes, I understand the philosophical point. But just because Einstein has displaced Newton is no reason to pretend that we don't know anything, and that an object in motion is just as likely to suddenly stop as it is to continue.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Spiffy. Explain the holocene then William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We are living in the holocene, and have enjoyed a fairly stable climate during that period, but over geologic time the Earth's climate has undergone great changes, and there is no reason to assume that our good luck will continue, especially if we keep dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. To ignore global warming is like the fellow who fell off the top of a skyscraper. On each floor, as we went by, people heard him say, "So far, so good." Rick Norwood (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)