Talk:Climate change

Important notice: This is the talk page for the article Global warming. Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Global Warming FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this page please take a moment and have a look at some of the frequently asked questions before starting a new topic of discussion. Also bear in mind that this is not a forum for general discussion about global warming. This page is only to be used for discussing improvements to the Global warming article. Thank you.

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February–August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February–April 2005 April–June 2005 May–October 2005 October–November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January–April 2006 April–May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August–October 2006 October–November 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 February–March 2007 April 2007 April 2007 (2) April 2007 (3) April 2007 (4) April 2007 (5) April 2007 (6)
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

What, no "Criticism" section?

This is the first Wikipedia article I've read all day that doesn't have a "Criticisms" section. Given that this is still such a (socially and politically, if not scientifically) controversial issue, I would think you should have something. _{Preceding unsigned comment by user:153.2.246.33}

Are you seriously trying to equate the global warming controversy to the global pencil and global doorstop controversies? Bjquinn (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I just heard about this 15-year-old girl who has a web page debunking, at least human-caused global warming, called PonderTheMaunder.com, I think. She collects all the articles and stories she can find to debunk the idea that we are causing climate change. She says that all her friends believe in human caused global warming, but they can't tell her why -- it just social dogma. This girl doesn't believe it and she *can* tell you why.

My co-worker this morning argued that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens pumped more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that we have since the beginning of the industrial revolution -- it's a nice story, is there any truth to that at all?

(because they are also 15 year old girls and they don't do regular research on the topic) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.112.116.69 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC).

No, its b*ll*cks. If you pause for a moment, you can work out how you could have realised this for yourself: that the graph of CO2 level in the atmos is smooth, and has no huge spikes corresponding to volcanoes William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The graph has been "smoothed" so naturally spikes from Mount St. Helens or Mt. Pinatubo would not show up. What about bark beetles in British Columbia. Their destruction of forest has released more CO2 than the last five years of human caused emissions in Canada.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the Keeling Curve. You can very well see the 5 ppm seasonal variation and even month-to-month changes. So any substantial volcano impact would have shown up as well. I'd like to see a source about the "bark beetles" before I comment on that. But whatever the details are, the ecosystem is, in the medium term, very closely balanced with respect to CO2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And let's not forget Michael Chrichton's speech "Space Aliens Cause Global Warming", arguing that the "science" behing global warming is on no more firm footing that the speculation that there *must* be life on other planets.

I'm sure there's a good joke in there somewhere, but nothing else William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, I expect more from Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.33 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, and what do we make of this comment by Bottle:

Bottle says:

9:32 AM

Hey, can we stay on topic? Which is, "Global warming is caused by the cosmological constant."

Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we stay on topic here? 153.2.246.33 has a good point, but Mr. Connolley bites the newcomer and makes him feel like an idiot. First, please be WP:CIVIL. Nearly every post you have made in this section, Mr. Connolley, could be seen as uncivil and counterproductive. First, you bite him, then when others come to assist him you point the discussion in another direction so that the main issue cannot be brought up.

Why don't we have a criticism section? - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? This article reports peer reviewed research and the conclusions of scientists based on that research. Much of the "criticism" is politically or commercially motivated, without a scientific base. We also have the article Global warming controversy. Anyway, personally I dislike "criticism" sections. They are often one dimensional responses to complex issues, and break up the logical flow of articles. IMHO they are lazy and amateurish editing tools. Better to handle criticism by integrating it into the appropriate sections of the article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that "Global warming controversy" article is very much the sort of thing I was looking for. Perhaps it should be listed here under "See also:" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.32 (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is already linked thrice: once from "public debate" in the lede, once from the infobox in the heading, and once from the collapsible topic overview at the bottom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's because Wikipedia is biased and only has criticism sections in articles that aren't liberal. This definitely isn't the only article that's this way. BTW I tried adding a well-written and researched criticism section with several *cited* quotes from actual scientists and my edit/hard work got undone. Way to go Wikipedia! Mentalhead (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your "sources" were two articles from Newsmax and a WP:SPS book sponsored by a right-wing think tank. Try the peer-reviewed scientific literature... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very biased. You should have found reliable sources if that seemed to be a problem. If everyone was unbiased Wikipedia would be much better and a lot more professional. Mentalhead (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not supposed to allow personal beliefs to interfere with our editing, but I'll make an exemption here to help move things along. I'll be among to the first to admit that I am skeptical of global warming (at least of its anthropogenic influences). But Stephan, William, et al are correct in the stances they are taking here. Wikipedia is built on the foundation of reliable sources, and rooted in verifiability, not truth. Agree with it or not, but this is what is most widely accepted by the scientific community; thus, it is what Wikipedia is supposed to document here.

Unlike most Wikipedia contributors (myself included), Stephan and William are actual scientists, and we cannot underestimate or belittle the contributions of members with such qualifications who take this project seriously enough to spend their time here. If it seems that they are biting the newcomers, it may be because they are addressing issues which have been raised here countless times, and have on many occasions faced personal attacks or worse along the way simply for having the animosity to disagree. Wikipedia tells us to assume good faith in our fellow editors, and not to assume "bias" in those we disagree with. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion here, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. As a collaborative project, anyone is encouraged to contribute. But as a general rule, one can expect to receive the degree of respect and civility that they display to their fellow editors. It makes for a more pleasant editing experience for everyone. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate them trying to help but since they have such strong stances on the issue I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for them to be in charge of the article. Unless of course we had someone who believes the other way with just as much power over the article. Mentalhead (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN, nobody is "in charge" of this or any other article, or at least should not be. On Wikipedia, contributors are free to edit whatever they want, and are typically drawn to articles on subjects in which they are interested or those which fall within their area of expertise. People may disagree with their beliefs, but they are simply applying Wikipedia's established policies to the article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not asking this to mean anything, but what do you mean when you say that William and Stephan are actual scientists?

To answer your question, I mean that they are Wikipedia contributors who happen to be scientists in real life whose work is concerned with the subject at hand. I do not fit this description, and doubt there are many contributors here who do. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very confusing for me (who gets to be considered a scientist in this and who doesnt) but I suppose it's not important. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to avoid a misunderstanding: I'm a scientist (see [1]), but not a climate scientist. William is a climate scientist. Our other resident climate scientist is Raymond. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, whereas I agree with your description of how material has to be included in WP, I take exception with Michael Johnson's comment above. There are several authoritative scientists who disagree with the mainstream of peer-reviewed papers. The reason why they're not in so far is essentially decided on an interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. As with any rule interpretation, it is liable to be 'soft' and subjective, and this is this interpretation that, good or wrong, has so far been 'applied' by a group of editors.

So, there could be a criticism section in this article per WP's rules. Gravity has one. It all comes to how WP:WEIGHT is interpreted, and who interprets it. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are alternative models of gravity that have been and are published in leading peer reviewed journals. The article on gravity like this article on global warming does not mention some crticism that do not make it into the peer reviewed journals. So, MOND is mentioned (ther are many peer reviewed publications about this topic) but not a theory by Yilmaz (who was unable to get his theory published because it was seen to have a fatal flaw by most physicists). Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find the article is fully referenced to reliable sources. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a definite need for a criticsm section. The fact that one editor is a scientist and administrator all the more should give it weight. Any editor/administrator could feasibly serve his own interests by wiping out different points of view. Perhaps one who is so clearly biased should not be considered an "authority" and all relative verifiable facts be presented whether pro or con. As it stands, this article is very biased to the point of religious ferver.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "criticism" section. Alternative explanations such as solar variation are woven into the narrative as they should be. In fact they are over-represented in the article compared to their presence in the academic literature, contrary to the provisions of WP:WEIGHT. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just echoing the original comment about no 'criticism' section. It could be called something else though (doesn't have to be called that). Something that at least gives the other side a fare shake. I for one haven't seen enough evidence to believe that global warming is occurring on a grand scale that is caused by the burning of fuels and being able to read the thoughts from both sides would be helpful for me. Strawberry Island (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but we don't pretend that there are two equal sides to every issue. This article presents the evidence, and the evidence is compellingly one sided. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I will retract my statement above in the general sense that such section doesn't exist. Reading the first couple comments in the next section "AEB (criticism section)" shows that such articles/sections do exist on Wikipedia. So now my general complaint is from what I can tell none of these are referenced very clearly in the opening of the article nor clearly marked in the TOC. Strawberry Island (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I support adding this to the end of the intro of the article (this isn't perfect but I'm trying a state at it, improve by all means).

---

Controversy still surrounds the global warming debate. There are a number of articles that cover this topic.

Main articles: Global warming controversy, Politics of global warming, and Economics of global warming

See also: Climate change denial

---

Strawberry Island (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are links to both Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming in the last sentence of the lead. The rest of the articles are linked in appropriate places throughout the article. Adding an addendum to the lead isn't a very organized way to link to related articles. We've tried having links on the right-hand side up on the top, but it was simply too cluttered and awkard. Personally, I think links throughout the article and the link template down at the bottom take care of the situation in the best way possible. However, I think the template at the bottom of the article should be default-shown instead of a default-hidden. - Enuja (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds very reasonable, there is nothing following the template so I don't see why not? I went ahead and expanded it.
— Apis (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

AEB (criticism section)

A Criticism section IS needed, I am willing to work on the section myself, but am requesting help from other members, and am here and now asking other Wiki contributors who disagree to pledge that they will not vandalize the new section, but take complaints and concerns to the talk section. Almost every article on Wiki (that garners criticism) HAS a criticism section, global warming should be no different. Creating a page on the controversy is needed, but it does not replace a well-researched and appropriate criticism section.

By the way, labeling all scientists that disagree with the whole global warming propoganda "oil company lackeys" is both incorrect and libelous. For example, this from the Sydney Morning Herald: "Professor Easterbrook disputed Mr Gore's claim that "our civilisation has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this". Nonsense, Professor Easterbrook said. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century".

Getting personal, he mocked Mr Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. "I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company," Professor Easterbrook said.

"And I'm not a Republican."

So, who is willing to help with the Criticism section? Supertheman (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out before, special criticism sections are discourages. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article_structure and Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section. In this article, we describe all scientifically viable viewpoints with sufficient weight and reliable sources directly in the main prose. By long-standing consensus, we we restrict this article to the science. For the political debate, see global warming controversy. We also rely on what is considered the most reliable set of sources, peer-reviewed scientific publications and consensus reports. Your example is thus doubly missing the point - first, the unpublished (in the scientific sense) opinion of Professor Easterbrock as reported by the popular press is not a good source, and, since we do not even mention Gore or use him as a source, the criticism would be a straw man, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is most certainly NOT straw man:

1. Professor Easterbrook (not brock) provided *factual evidence* about climate shift - research that has been published (long before the article here on global warming was, in point of fact).

2. Gore *is* mentioned on this talk page, and frequently, so your assertion that criticism of Gore is straw man (here on the talk page) is false.

3. We are not talking about "political controversy", we are talking about peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and plain, climate data.

4. While your citation of the Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section is germane, the fact remains that this is not worth the hard drive it is stored on as it pertains to that actuality of Wikipedia articles. Criticism sections are rife in almost every (controversial) article, which sets forth a defacto standard, expected by Wiki readers. Also, while Criticism sections might be "discouraged", they are in fact necessary because of the habit of a few, dedicated contributors to erase, edit and otherwise maneuver content they find distasteful out of existence. Point being, while criticism sections are "discouraged", they are not disallowed and a significant minority of contributors desire such a section on the page, and it is not the providence of the majority to squelch such an effort.Supertheman (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whomever is or isn't mentioned on the Talk page is immaterial, I'd like to say. I could mention Hitler all I want here, and that doesn't make him referenced in the article itself. That's really all besides the point, though. This article does need a criticism section, if only due to the fact that there IS a large amount of criticism and controvery surrounding global warming. That is noteworthy, just as it should also be noted that both the validity and neutrality of much of this criticism is in question. How about instead of bickering back and forth like this, you actually propose a draft of a criticism section here in the talk page. That way it can easily be viewed, edited and discussed before being inserted into the article. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is Scientific evidence against Global warming, we aren't just posting a section on political debate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratanuva66 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it would hurt anyone if we post evidence both supporting and against global warming. Mentalhead (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We do. The leading contender is solar variation theory, which is discussed in the article. In fact it's over-represented here compared to its weight in the scientific literature. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a link should be placed linking to the Global Warming Controversy page. Somewhere noticeably visible rather then in the bottom of the page with all the references and the See Also section. Where, I'm unsure, but it's an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.67.7 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a link in the lede, anchored on public debate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-NPOV and old climate data

I'm a bit new to making changes to controversial wikipedia articles. I and others have requested changes to be made with respect to the non-NPOV stance of this article (i.e. I don't need the overall tone of the article to agree with my point of view, but obvious and major proof of recent global COOLING trends for example might be germane to an article on global warming.) -- due to all this I would like to motion that we work on bringing this article some balance.

A little NPOV, just a LITTLE, would be nice. Editors should not be threatening to block people when they try to inject some dissenting opinion into a controversial topic. Global warming is a controversial topic, but one wouldn't think so from reading this article.

Thanks!

bjquinn (talk)

You need a reliable source that shows that any recent cooling is significant in relation to global warming. The topic has already been discussed above. Jason Patton (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Significance is a POV. I'm merely showing data from reliable sources (in fact, the same sources that the article uses to indicate global warming). The data currently cited is old. Why would anyone resist updating this article with the most recent information from the very sources the article currently cites?

bjquinn (talk)

Significance of a trend in climatic data is determined by climate scientists, whose peer-reviewed works are cited in the article. If you want to make an updated graph that shows the entire span of the dataset, that might be acceptable. Otherwise you need a source to show that the 20 years your graph used are significant in the context of the current global climate change since it is not representative of the entire dataset available. Jason Patton (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Then I propose to start out with we update the first paragraph where it states - "The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005." This should be updated with the data for the hundred years ending 2007. There are myriad sources for that data. I propose to make no additional comments to the sentence, paragraph, images or the rest of the article at this time. I simply would like to change the above mentioned numbers into line with data ending 2007. If I change that, citing an appropriate source, will my changes be scraped? bjquinn (talk)

I think that's reasonable. I haven't seen any source that says the 100 years ending 2005 are any more significant than the 100 years ending 2007. Oren0 (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the current data comes from the IPCC, who releases reports rather infrequently. Which other sources would be acceptable to the editors of this article? Bjquinn (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you would require a source as notable as the IPCC. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd propose to use the IPCC's sources then.  :) Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS, etc. How about those guys. Are they notable enough? Bjquinn (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, and by no means intended to be a citable source, I would offer my own obsservation. Putting a line through the 1906-2005 Hadley data gives a slope of 0.737 C/century (consistent with the 0.74 in the article). Putting a similar line through 1908-2007 gives a slope of 0.754 C/century. In other words a steeper trend because 1908-1911 were among the coldest years of record, while 1906-1907 were somewhat warmer. Any credible estimate of the systematic error is going to tell you that the uncertainty in the trend is larger than the differences we are talking about, but I wanted to point out that updating the window is by no means guaranteed to lead to smaller numbers and in this case is perhaps as likely to be as large or (slightly) larger. Dragons flight (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a rolling 100 years should either not be considered significant or should be supported by additional time periods to give the reader multiple perspectives on the data. 100 years is a fairly arbitrary choice for a time span and combined with the fact that 1908-1911 were abnormally cold (as Dragons flight mentioned) I believe it skews the results. I'm not suggesting we do 1912-2007 to make up for it, but perhaps we should supplement the arbitrary 100 year period with additional data, even (or especially) in the opening paragraph. Bjquinn (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I mentioned below, the "temperature anomaly" seems to be a fairly standard method of measuring temperature differential. HadCRUT for example derives the anomaly from current temperature increase over the average of 1961-1990. This would lend much more statistical significance to the number we present on the article. The current statistic uses no more than two data points - 2005 and the abnormally cold year 100 years before it. I think it's irresponsible to try to establish trends with only two data points. Bjquinn (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Significance is determined by the data. Not by the most prominent opinion. If so most prominent climate organizations are predicting a "lull" in warming for the next few years. That's not relevant? If a tenth of the data sample, the past ten years of cooling or null warming, is irrelevant then climate science really is a different kind of science. But catastrophic global warming is just around the corner, I assure you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.143.91 (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Those who determine significace are not Wikipedia editors. Nor do Wikipedia editors draw conclusions from the data. We use reliable sources, which are quoted and referenced. If that means data is a little out of date, so be it. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that NASA is a reliable source. If I add that to the article, will it be scraped? Bjquinn (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be fine depending what the NASA reference says. If it says "based on North American data only" and is a cleaner at NASA writing in the inflight magazine of "cheapair" then we might have a problem. A review of lots of data sources is probably better than one but in principle you are 100% right that the 100 years to 2007 is better than to 2005. --BozMo talk 14:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If significance is not determined by a wikipedia editor, then what authority does such an editor have to block a quote or picture from a reputable source? Bjquinn has a point, the data in this article is misrepresented. Very few question the data on climate change but the interpretation of that data is controversial. Interpret it however you choose, the fact is the Earth has cooled in the last 10 years and from this article you would think all research stopped in 2004. It has been 3 years and there is dissenting opinion. If it is not possible to reach a neutral tone then at least link to a global cooling page and allow them a non neutral tone to balance this one. Otherwise, this page is a blight on the open source community. -BLeavitt

All you need to do is find such dissenting opinion in the leading peer reviewed journals like Science of Nature. Count Iblis (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

See below, how about this article? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf - which says "we make the following forecast... North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade" Bjquinn (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if taken completely out of context that would seem to be a dissenting opinion. You left out the last half of the sentence: "...as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming." Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not taking it out of context, I was getting to the point. Let's put the whole sentence on the article then. YOU, sir, took out the other half of the sentence which clearly states (both out of context AND in context) "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade". As I've often been told here, this article is about GLOBAL WARMING. Whether it's anthropogenic or not isn't the point I'm trying to get at. Bjquinn (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) This is early 2008. How are results from the 2007 IPCC report old or out of date? The IPCC report is drawing from the published data available at the time it was written (mid to late last year), so it's absolutely fine to include more recent published data and analysis (but you are unlikely to find it, since the last IPCC report was so recent). We don't need to use just Science and Nature as peer-reviewed sources. There are other peer-reviewed journals out there, and any reputable one will do. I think it makes sense to update the article; but I also think we have been updating the article. Instead of complaining that the IPCC doesn't release reports often enough, make sure all of the IPCC references are to the 2007 report. If you read a news story, find the peer-reviewed article that the news story was based on, read the article, figure which sub-topic of global warming it's about, edit that Wikipedia sub-article, then go to the summary section in this article of the article you've edited, see if the information in the sub-article you changed is in this article, and change it here as well if needed. It makes sense to update this article whenever possible, but work from the bottom up. Change the details, then change the summaries to reflect any differences in details. - Enuja (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The article states the following: "The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005." It's the "hundred years ending in 2005" part that's out of date. In fact, there shouldn't be much resistance to this change since if you look at the data straight from the sources (i.e. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly), 1907 and 1908 were significantly colder than 1906, so the temperature drop and 2007 won't affect the final number much, yet it brings the article up to date. Bjquinn (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While I don't have a strong opinion which chunk of 100 years we use, the recently released 2007 IPCC report includes the up to 2005 data? Why? I'm not sure, but maybe because recent data gets updated and corrected more often than old data. If we use the more recent chunk of time, we can't use the IPCC as a reference, so those two things together make me wonder if updating that particular data is really the best way to go. Again, there are pretty good arguments on both sides, but this, to me, is really a non-issue. The two possibilities are essentially indistinguishable. What we actually need to try hard to stay abreast of is the published literature, not some one hundred year moving window of data.

Please be with your language; I certainly hope the editors here aren't resistant to change things because the data or analysis doesn't make them happy. We should update everything for the same reason; there is good peer-reviewed new stuff out there. It really, really shouldn't matter which "side" looks better from new stuff. - Enuja (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to consider using data periods other than 100 years. Unfortunately, it just so happens to be exactly the 100 year window (not the "temperature anomaly", or last 10, 20, 30, 50 or 5000 years) that make the global warming theory look most viable. It so happens that the years of the late 1800s and early 1900s (the years recently targeted by the beginning of the rolling 100 year period) were abnormally cold. As Enuja mentioned, maybe it doesn't make sense to specifically update the IPCC data (since there's no update since 2005), but if the IPCC has no recent data, I think we'd be well served by adding another source with more recent data, if not replacing the reference to the IPCC data altogether, or moving it down the article. In addition, if we did this, perhaps there wouldn't be any necessity to specifically choose the 100 year window, since it was an arbitrary time window chosen by the IPCC anyway. I think the "temperature anomaly" is the generally accepted measurement of global warming. Bjquinn (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bj: To return to the beginning of all this: This should be updated with the data for the hundred years ending 2007. There are myriad sources for that data. I propose to make no additional comments to the sentence, paragraph, images or the rest of the article at this time. Now you discover the obvious: it makes no difference. So you need to pick different time intervals to find this mythical cooling trend. But there is no cooling trend, so its a waste of time. Adding junk from Watts won't work, for the obvious reason William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if it makes no difference, then let's update it and start a precedent of keeping that rolling 100 years current. Secondly, not all four of the generally accepted temperature data sources agree exactly. It makes more of a difference on some than it does on the others. HadCRUT3 tends to make things look "worse" than the other sources do. Lastly, I'd like anyone here to tell me that a single statistic with only two data points (i.e. ANY rolling 100 year period) is relevant or responsible. I'd again like to propose that we consider alternative ways of portraying the actual temperature change. Other people here have agreed with this sentiment. Also, you accuse me of needing to find different time intervals to find a cooling trend. One could also say that your time intervals have been selected just as conveniently to find your "mythical" warming trend. Bjquinn (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement that "Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the [last] hundred years", has never consisted of simply taking a difference between two data points. The IPCC and others filter out the short-term weather fluctuations before defining the change in climate. Dragons flight (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guv but you've lost the plot. Here's a reminder Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png. The warming is obvious. So instead of only a single statistic we could display, errm, a graph of the actual data... oh, wait... William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Then I propose we remove the sentence in the first paragraph about surface temperature increasing and instead refer them to the graph to draw their own conclusions. Also, we should move up the longer term graphs (i.e. "Ice Age Temperature Changes") lest a reader think that this sort of warming is geologically unprecedented. Bjquinn (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to forget the article is the text. Illustrations, including graphs, illustrate the text. Let the reader read the article, note the references, then draw their own conclusions. And also this article is not about temperature changes in previous geological eras, it is about human induced temperature change occurring now. My opinion? No, the opinion of the organisations and scientists referenced in the article. If you disagree, find better references. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested insertion of new paper into recent section

*I'm* not the one suggesting that the article is not the text, Mr. Connolley is. I suggested improving the text, so he said it wasn't necessary since we have graphs. Then I suggested eliminating a one-sided statistic since Mr. Connolley thought the graph says it all, and now you say it's not necessary since it's all about the text. I suggest you recommend to me a better reference than the temperature data sources themselves. And that you figure a way out to agree amongst yourselves the best way to prevent me from being able to make any modifications to this article, rather than contradicting yourselves. Bjquinn (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, how about this article from NATURE (because that's basically the only valid source, or so I've been told many times) that believes that global warming is on hold for a while and which says "we make the following forecast... North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade" - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf Bjquinn (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Its cr*p. You need to learn to be more... skeptical. See here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's crap then, is it? My how the tables have turned! I've been scolded a dozen times by people telling me that I must find a "reliable source", or specifically a source from "Science or Nature" - a peer reviewed source. I've watched others here be scolded a dozen times for linking to something that came from a blog or something like that. And now I find a reliable source, an article from Nature no less, and I'm responded to by a link to a blog post??!? I will not read that blog post you link to any more than you would have read a blog post I had linked you to, or if I had linked you to NewsMax or something. This is absurd. I've been told here several times that it's not the personal opinion of the editors that makes an edit stand, it's the reliability of the source. There's something wrong with Nature now then, is there? Because it contains something you don't agree with? If you contend that this source is not reliable enough to be used as a source on this article, then I contend that ALL statements whose source is Nature will have to be removed from this article. This is hypocrisy of the highest order. Bjquinn (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you asked what people thought, I replied. Its a poor paper. It is, however, unquestionably a WP:RS; that alone doesn't mean it gets to go in though William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need to make room somewhere for the recently published prediction that the next decade or so is going to be at a flat global temperature as a shorter-term oscillation masks the current anthropogenic warming. I know William Connelley doesn't like to include recently published papers, but, since it takes quite some time for refutations to be published most of the time, I strongly disagree. We should consider all papers published in any one journal as equally reliable, no matter if the paper is from 1908 or 2008. Papers often need to be put in context, (include papers with the opposite conclusion, toss out old papers when a bunch of new ones change the story, include in the text the date of publication for something so fresh off the presses that it hasn't been vetted outside of the peer review process) but that's not too hard. - Enuja (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as there is a little time for the scientific community to respond (not the case for hot of the press publishings), adding new papers is fine. Otherwise, it should be done with caution. But, I'd agree with your general idea. It should be put into context at the least. Aaron Schulz 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Admittedly, I think a fairly important part of the context (and the context I think you're referring to) is that the article does NOT attempt to refute anthropogenic warming. It merely states that the projected anthropogenic warming will be temporarily overwhelmed/offset by unrelated factors. However, I DO think that it would be fairly germane to an article on global warming that a recent article in Nature thinks there won't be any of it for a while. And, respectfully, let's not go overboard with the "context" and playing down the article TOO much - after all, as I've seen suggested numerous times here - technically, there's a sub-article for what causes warming. This is an article on warming itself, which may, according to this source, be nonexistent in the short term. But in principle I think that we are in agreement. Bjquinn (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me suggest a way to put this - suggestions for improvement are welcome. How about something like this - "One study suggests that 'global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.'" It's not very creative, but it's directly from the source, I believe it includes the full context, and is an appropriate summary, being the concluding sentence of the abstract for the article itself. I don't think burying this link deep down in the article is appropriate. Perhaps it's not necessary to include this in the leading paragraph, but such a major projection from a reputable source should at least be above the "contents" block. Bjquinn (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you are over-inflating it. It should go nowhere near the lead. Its not a major projection. Its a fairly minor one that happens to have had the luck to hit Nature. It also has some rather major flaws. This paper should not go in without context; a bare minimum is the papers own admission that its "forced" prediction has wrose skill than the "unforced" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, ok so does anyone *other* than Mr. Connolley have an opinion? Bjquinn (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Sure. My view is that it the world won't come to an end if we wait to see how much impact this paper has. Being a reliable source is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion here. There are hundreds of journal articles published on climate change every year; they all satisfy the definition of a reliable source, but there's no way we can reference every one of them. Let's see how it shakes out -- Will the paper become a classic? Will it be refuted? Or will it settle in as one more worthwhile but not revolutionary article out of thousands? If I had to make a bet I'd choose the third option, but let's wait and see. See Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the world won't end, but I seriously doubt there would be so much hesitancy to include a source if it indicated that global warming was on a sudden dramatic rise. I counter that the world won't end either if we do include this article, and after all, if you go check, the article was received by Nature on June 25 2007, and accepted on March 14 this year. It's not like it's the latest hot-off-the-presses sports score or something. Nature waited almost nine months to accept it, and a month and a half more to publish it. Bjquinn (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of mentioning it in Global Warming#Recent. We can expand the paragraph on El Niño and write about this study and perhaps other studies about fluctuations in the climate that are important over a time scale of several years. Count Iblis (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I guess that's a reasonable enough place to put it. As badly as I wanted it above the "contents" block, after I reread the opening paragraphs, I couldn't think of a way to reference this article without badly breaking the flow. I think a reference to this source would be a reasonable balance against the references to NASA data, which have been targeted (by skeptics, anyway) as a bit revisionist and more world will end tommorrowish than some of the other temperature data sources. Does anyone have a problem with pretty much outright quoting the source as I suggested above, or is there an easier-to-read paraphrase we can agree on? Bjquinn (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been any response for a while. I acknowledge that there has been a couple of negative reactions to using this article, but the majority seems to be willing to add it. If I add it into Global Warming#Recent, and basically quote the source outright (as I've suggested above), am I going to draw a revert? Or, I'm certainly up for suggestions on how to otherwise improve this reference or Global Warming#Recent in general. Bjquinn (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you quote the source, use quotation marks. Otherwise, we as wikipedia are violating the copyright of the source. It's much, much preferable to paraphrase than to quote. - Enuja (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this for a paraphrase - "One recent study suggests that temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations may offset the expected human-caused warming during this period." This sentence should perhaps be added in Global Warming#Recent right after "... the strongest El Niño in the past century occurred during that year" and right before "Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect". Bjquinn (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in here. I'm in favor of adding it. It comes from the same journal as most of the other material on this article. (Although that journal should not be given any more weight than any other scientific journal.) The opinion of the individual who claims it is "cr*p" is irrelevant. This article should not be about someone's opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I would like to add this, but I'm hoping to solicit more input on how to word it. I had initially wanted to opt for the direct quote (less issues with controversial wording, etc.), but Enuja suggested that it's much better to paraphrase than to quote. That's understandable. I offered a possible paraphrase, but I find it more awkward than the direct quote. I found myself struggling to say it any other way as well as the quote itself. If there aren't any suggestions (or other objections) for a while, I'll just add it (as described a few posts above. Bjquinn (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Add what? And how would you calculate it? Whats your methodology - and what would your sentence look like? These are all unanswered in the above (although i could be wrong). Are you just going to subtract two yearly averages or are you going to reflect a moving average etc. etc. Try making an actual suggestion here first. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you have obviously not read the entire thread (although I can understand why, since it's quite long). Perhaps I should change the title (~DONE). If you read the previous 10 posts or so, you'll notice that the issue has now become how to word a reference to the article in Nature that projects no warming for the next 10 years or so, after which point anthropogenic warming is expected to again overwhelm the natural climate variations that will cause an expected decadal-scale cooling. The original suggestion had all the problems you mentioned, and this article is a better-sourced way to indicate related trends. Bjquinn (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing the introduction to the article, to reflect a single paper, that has received mostly flac amongst scientific commentators, and that only supports very short term fluctuations (and continued warming), as opposed to reflecting the literature up to that point, is definitively a no-go, considering the undue weight you would put on it. So i'm rather surprised that you would even consider it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i have read the whole thread. At no point in this thread do you actually answer my questions. But lets assume for a moment that you did... Whats the problem in summarizing it, and answering my questions? (i changed the headline back - as that is what people where commenting on. Not your new revision). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, ok, I only changed the title for your benefit. It wasn't for mine. Again, still no offense, but you must NOT have read the whole thread. If you did, you'd notice that for the past week or so, the suggestion has NOT been to change the introduction to the article, it's been to add a single sentence to Global Warming#Recent (you can see proof in my post from May 8). Further, to answer your questions - Question 1 : "Add what?". This is answered in my May 3 post - an article from Nature that can be seen at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf. Question 2 : "And how would you calculate it?" This is answered in many previous posts (take the May 3 or 8 posts for example) which indicate that there is, in fact no calculation to be done. I won't calculate anything, I'll simply use the article as my source. Question 3 : "Whats your methodology - and what would your sentence look like?" Answered in a May 5 and May 8 posts of mine, I have thus far suggested two options - either a direct quote ("One study suggests that 'global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.'") or a paraphrase ("One recent study suggests that temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations may offset the expected human-caused warming during this period.") Question 4 : "Are you just going to subtract two yearly averages or are you going to reflect a moving average etc. etc." See answer to Question 2. I've accepted Enuja's suggestion that this be added in the Global Warming#Recent section due to concerns (that you have also expressed) that it deals with short term trends. Global Warming#Recent is an appropriate place for such projected short term trends. As for the claim that the article "has received mostly flac amongst scientific commentators", that's a subjective statement that you'll have to find a reputable source for. The topic of this thread has shifted slightly due to requests others have made of me to use only reputable sources for my information. The result is indicating the same potential trend (short-term cooling or temperature stability) using a different method (an article from Nature projecting out 10+ years instead of recent raw NASA/HadCRUT3/Satellite data, which many commentators on this thread had a problem with). Have I missed any of your other questions? Bjquinn (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Its become painfully obvious that yuo're desperate to get some mention of cooling into this. Now that you've realised that the data don't support that, no matter how tortured, you're puffing up this rather poor study. I doubt it should go in at all; if it does, it should go in with some balance; the obvious balance is RC William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, why not? It's painfully obvious that you're desperate to get some mention of warming into this. It's a peer reviewed study, just like I was told I had to have. I haven't discovered that the data doesn't support cooling, I've just discovered a reputable source that expresses a similar sentiment, which is (as everyone here has suggested) a better idea than my original, due to the inherent complexities with just making up my own stuff out of raw data. I'm afraid that you've posted a link to your blog again. You've got to be kidding. Bjquinn (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What is so special about "global surface temperature increase might be temporarily offset over the next 10 years" that it should be mentioned? Anyway, any study would have to be weighted against what the other sources are saying so that a single source isn't given to much weight.
— Apis (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, ok so if 10 year trends aren't important, let's scrape the past couple decades. How's everybody feel about that? Seriously, when a source indicates severe global warming (even if it's from a blog), the standards for inclusion here are surprisingly low. For an article that indicates temperature stability, it's not good enough that it's from Nature, as long as we have a blog post at real climate or some other "reputable" blog that discounts it. Besides, there are hundreds of sources already included in this article that point to the conclusions you're trying to make. I think adding this one sentence isn't going to upset your "balance", but the source itself is important (after all Mr. Connolley's blog bothered to try to discredit it). I've been told in this thread to find a "reputable source", which was a deterrent to my attempts to make changes. I guess the assumption was that I wouldn't find one. Well, I did, and now suddenly it's "oh wait, no, see what we meant was, it has to be a reputable source that Mr. Connolley doesn't think is cr*p and that we can't find a blog post discounting it, and that also indicates apocalyptic global warming". This is the definition of one-sided. Bjquinn (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) No, William Connolley, a blog post is not a good way to add context for a new study.

Bjquinn, I'm sorry I haven't been more helpful with putting this new article into the paper. In order to make wording or context suggestions, I'd need to carefully read the Global Warming#Recent section and all of its references, and I haven't had time to do that recently. As a suggestion, the context that William posts in one of his blog posts (this [2] Science article) might be good to use. But I have no comment on actual wording until I do some work I simply don't have time for right now. Hopefully someone else does, or you should just be bold and put it in yourself (but, from a quick glance, your paraphrase is still much too similar to the article's text). - Enuja (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking again at the Recent section, I don't think this article fits. It looks like it would fit better in Global warming#Climate models, adding to the existing one-sentence paragraph on clouds in models (broadening the paragraph to include ocean circulation). Another thing to do would be to go to the Global climate model article and these new sources there. I haven't even read all of that article, though, so I can't help you with which articles should be where in that article. - Enuja (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? It's true that the article comes to the conclusions it does because of the model it chooses to follow, but it seems that the impact of the article is more geared towards projected short term warming rather than being a revolutionary climate model itself. Maybe the "recent" section isn't appropriate simply because "recent" implies past, not future. We could reword the name of the section to "short term temperature variation"/"short term warming" rather than "recent" or something like that, to cover both recent past and near future. Otherwise, possibly a "near future"/"future warming in the short term" section would be appropriate, where we could of course refer to several other studies in addition to the one I've brought up (of which most would be pro-warming, I'd assume). Bjquinn (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion copied and pasted from User talk:Sirwells

• • • • • More Discussion Follows***** (belongs here, Enuja tried and derail this debate by claiming it is "germane??" to the article. huh?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be "not germane", actually. I'm leaving this here, although I'd like to restate that I don't think a conversation about consensus and science is directly relevant to building this article. This is background knowledge needed to build the article, but it is not about the article, so much of it shouldn't be on the this talk page. Enuja (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm replying here instead of on Talk:Global warming because I don't think this is germane to the article. It is not naive to think that scientists report the actual results of their experiments instead of falsifying them. Falsified data is very rare, and people figure it out when they can't replicate the results. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja (talk)

No, but it is naive to think that a scientists who is being paid to study, for example, the effects of man-made global warming on the population of rainbow trout, would not be predisposed to believe humans are causing man-made global warming. --Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you think the consensus of the IPCC comes from in the first place? It comes from reading the literature. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja (talk)

It comes from cherry-picked literature, written by, in many cases, the very same people who write reports for the IPCC. I have yet to see any raw numbers indicative of there being "overwhelmingly" more scientists who "believe" vs "don't believe". The IPCC was tasked by the United Nations to prove that AGW is a significant problem. That is exactly what they did. There is not a single source being used as proof of consensus which is backed by any data in the form of surveys or polls. This so-called "consensus" is a house of cards which will eventually come crumbling down as the earth's climate continues to not get warmer and in fact get cooler as the current studies (which people like you have blocked from gettig on wikipedia) our now predicting.--Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a huge number of working climate scientists have serious problems with the IPCC: however, they think it is far, far too conservative. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja (talk)

Oh Really? Let's see this list of the "huge number of climate scientists" who think the IPCC is too conservative. For that matter, let's see the list of scientists who even mildly agree with the IPCC. Because I've looked all over google and there is none. The IPCC reports includes a list of a small handful of actual authors. --Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Here you have all the lead authors for the AR4 WG1 report (The Physical Science Basis) [1], here are the ones for the WG2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) [2], and finally those from the WG3 (Mitigation) [3]. Quite a lot more than a handful.... for the WG1: there are 22 coordinating lead authors, 118 lead authors and 28 review editors. (plus of course the regular authors (contributing authors - 53 for chapter 5 alone) and all the reviewers). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You can find the complete list of authors for the WG1 report after the glossary in this pdf [4] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see your few hundred and raise you 22,000. http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I think that this was added by Sirwells during the move of this section from the user talk page to here. Enuja (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, they support the conclusions of the IPCC, because at least (and probably more than) what the IPCC says is true. If you do, in fact, have recent polls of scientists that say that their is no consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change, please bring that information to the relevant pages. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja (talk)

I'm not the one claiming there is a consensus, therefore the burden of proof is not mine to bear. But if you insist, I suggest you start by looking at the most recent polls documented on wikipedia. (2003 I believe). --Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you mean when you say that it is obvious that the majority of climate scientists (or people with equivalent area education) don't buy the IPCC. I do not of any data that says this, much less any data that makes it obvious. (Lists of people's names are pretty useless, and not relevant.) added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja (talk)

How convenient of you to say that, since "lists are meaningless" excuses you from having to provide any actual proof of your above statement that "a huge number of ...scientists... think IPCC is too conservative. " I guess I should just have faith right? I mean that is the essense of your arguments. Can you relly not see the resemblance to religious doctrine in your logic? It's really very simple, show me some PROOF of an "overwhelming consensus". If you can't, your just another global warming zealot.--Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you've got new data and published analysis, please share it with the other people who edit these pages. - Enuja (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC) added to User talk:Sirwells

What would be the point of that, the global warming wiki gatekeepers would show up within minutes to ensure the article remains in it's current biased state.--Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't work in a climate field, my boss did his post-doc on a grant that existed to get people with directly opposite views about a system to work on it together to figure out what was really going on. Science really is about testing hypotheses, and people really do use money from grants to test things, not just to support existing consensus. Where everyone agrees, future research is actually really hard to get funding for. Luckily for climate change funding, we don't understand everything about the climate or about the future. - Enuja (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC) added to User talk:Sirwells

What did your boss research? Was it controversial? Where is the grant to get people with opposite views on global warming to come together? --Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I try not to discuss my past, other people's past, or my opinions on article talk pages. It simply isn't relevant. - Enuja (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You were the one using your boss's research as an example to try and somehow convince me that research grants don't mostly go to people who have already made up thier mind about AGW. If you are now saying it's irrelevant, I suggest you should not have brought it up in the first place. --Sirwells (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you figure out who knows enough about climate change to be part of a scientific consensus or controversy? The only methods I can think of are "who publishes on climate change" "who is a member of related scientific society" and "who goes to relevant scientific meetings". What criteria could we use? A poll of a randomized sample of authors and society members would be good. Bray and von Storch, 1996 looks to be the most recent of that sort (although it doesn't look randomized). The only good, up to date information that exists on what scientists think about climate change is statements published by scientific societies and the IPCC report itself. - Enuja (talk)

Credidibility of CSIRO / Victoria University research.

The following research is being reported by the CSIRO and its main conclusions seem somewhat extreme. Can someone who is expert or familiar with this work comment with regard to its respectability prior to consideration for inclusion.

http://www.csiro.au/news/KyotoProtocolConference-CETF.html

The research – to be published in the journal; Global Environmental Change – provides five key conclusions:

-CO2 emissions grow by 3.1 per cent per annum over 2004–2030

-Atmospheric CO2 concentration levels >900 ppm CO2-e are achieved by 2100.

-Even if severe emission cuts are implemented from 2030, warming of 2.2 – 4.7°C could occur by 2100, whereas if the current high emissions path is followed, the most likely range is 3.4 – 7.2°C

-Four key vulnerabilities assessed with high risks of adverse impacts for coral reefs, ocean circulation, melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and species extinction

-The current policy mix cannot adequately manage these risks, which can be reduced but not eliminated by early global action over the period 2010–2015. Theo Pardilla (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

At a first glance, it looks like good work to me. Both CSIRO and VU are major and recognized research institutions in Australia. Global Environmental Change is published by a recognized science publisher and papers seem to be highly visible[3]. However, we should at least wait until the paper is actually published, and, if possible, until there has been some time for discussion, before we incorporate it as one post-AR4 opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK we should at least wait until then, thank you. Theo Pardilla (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just the kind of environmentalist trash that does real science a lot of harm. "if we carry on like we did in the past .... " Hasn't anyone heard that the cost of oil is soring - hasn't anyone an ounce of common sense and can realise that as oil prices increase the amount of fossil fuel consumption will decrease, and doesn't anyone realise that almost every oil field outside the middle east is near exhaustion, and doesn't anyone realise that the credit crunch is about to drop the western oil-guzzling economies into recession (i.e. reduced energy use)? Does anyone that contributes to this article have a real job and know anything about economic realities outside University? 88.111.115.56 (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename article

Shouldn't (more) appropriate title go like: global climate change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.76.122 (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No. See WP:COMMONNAME. While GW concentrates on just one effect, it is the name under which the current climate change is best known. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Climate change" a bit like having an article on "sea level change" - except the whole article is about the way the flood is coming and we will all be drowned by what is really a natural phenomena called a tide. No, keep the title and turn the article into a historic commentary on the hysteria that surrounded a miniscule upward swing in global temperatures at the end of the 20th century. 88.111.115.56 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I get the formatting wrong...

Let's revisit this... Global Climate Change is becoming the scientific and popularly dominate term, replacing global warming. Additionally, global climate change is a more fitting description since local effects may not include warming on an seasonal or multi-year basis. As the popular rhetoric adjusts so should the heading of Wikipedia's preeminent article on the subject. Let's rename this section to Global Climate Change. It truly is a matter of when we make this adjustment, not if.New comment by 24.21.184.251 (talk · contribs) 06:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC) advocating rename article

If there was a major change it probably should be renamed yes. But I don't agree there is any. And I don't agree about your suggestion being more fitting either, "global warming" is pretty much what it's about, small variations aside.
— Apis (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Climate is up for GA

I'm leaving a note on this page, since it is one of the more active climate articles on wikipedia. So far, no one from the meteorology or tropical cyclone projects has come forward to review it after four weeks. One of you all should have enough knowledge to know if it is ready or not for GA, and if not, why. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick look shows some omissions, factual errors, and grammatical errors. Pretty good overall, though. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to avoid confusion: This article should indeed not receive GA status, as the community has already recognized it as a featured article, and has confirmed this status in a review. The article climate is under GA review. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the off topic discussion that either belongs here or not at all. I personally don't see how this thread requires anymore discussion. Jason Patton (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The GW article should be delisted as a GA. It is too biased.209.59.50.192 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of discussion I removed before. This thread is not about global warming's quality status' (which is FA, not GA, see Stephan's post above). Anyway, if you think the article is too biased, then I invite you to improve it, keeping WP:RS and WP:FRINGE in mind being that this is a scientific article. Jason Patton (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Entire article should be scrapped. It's being used as a propoganda tool. --Sirwells (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by the global warming deniers... but I like to believe there still is some hope, so lets keep it a little while longer.
— Apis (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong sir. The 'deniers' aren't the ones standing-by like stink on sh!t, ready to instantly 'undo' anything and everything which may cast doubt on thier global warming gospel.--Sirwells (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This article summarizes what can be found in the peer reviewed literature. "Gospel" coming from the scientific community has been proven to be far more reliable than non peer reviewed "gospel" :) Count Iblis (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Added request for citation in Global_warming#Adaptation_and_mitigation

I have added a request for citation for the following statement, as it contradicts all the statistics that I have on climate change.

China may have passed the U.S. in total annual greenhouse gas emissions according to some recent studies.

The article that is provided as a reference for that paragraph says nothing about recent studies, and only includes the following line, which is hardly the same thing as the statement above:

Rapidly growing China is poised to overtake the United States as the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases

Either a proper reference should be provided (and should highlight the contentious nature of this claim), or the sentence should be changed to reflect the given reference, or it should be removed completely. I don't like to jump in change articles that I don't regularly contribute to as I don't know the history of them, but hopefully someone who is familiar can decide the most appropriate course of action. Cheers, JenLouise (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry just realised that this sentence was referring to total greenhouse emissions for the two countries not emissions per capita (per capita, the US emissions are about 20.6t compared to China's 2.2t according to information from the UN). Therefore the statement above is not so contentious, but still needs an appropriate source for the "recent studies" it mentions. Cheers, JenLouise (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for brief synopsis of U.S. global warming policies in Environmental policy of the United States

I'm trying to fill-out the newly-created Environmental policy of the United States#Global Warming article, and I was hoping someone could help me by creating a two or three paragraph blurb on what the United States has done in relation to global warming. Kyoto, feet-dragging, potential for carbon cap in the upcoming election, etc. Thanks in advance! johnpseudo 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone post some proof?

I don't understand this global warming dogma. I can tell that no one with a science background has written in this section. It describes that global warming is an average increase in temperature, but that is about far as it goes. Is anyone else picking that fact up? It doesn't even explain the act of global warming. Probably because there is no consensus. Every time I ask someone the process of global warming, I hear a different theory. I know green house gases is an easy answer, but the "how" doesn't get answered. Let me think of a few theories off the top of my head.

Rays of light, bounce off the oceans, come back up and get trapped by the CO2. Rays of light, go into the ocean, heating it, this heat rises and can't escape because of the CO2. The CO2 in the atmosphere filters out the Earth's long wave radiation, which in turn, changes which radiation the Earth blocks from the sun.

That was just a few running through my head that I've heard lately. Since there is such a consensus (according to Al Gore), I'm sure someone can clear that up for me. After we clear up that, we can get to the proof. The actual study and information that shows greenhouse gases are responsible for warming. I noticed most of the "proof" posted is just correlated information and the "effects" of global warming. Granted, you have to post the effects of global warming in this article, but it doesn't constitute proof. Do I really need to show the fallacy in correlated "proof"? All I seem to get is the "greenhouse gases went up and temperature went up, therefore greenhouse gases made temperature go up." That's not science. That's retardation.

Hope someone can come up with the proof. I've been waiting for too many years for it.

Cheers! --Capitalist Shrugged (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Science does not do "proofs". Proofs are relegated to the realm of mathematics. Science offers theories (supported by various degrees of evidence) and observations. The basic mechanisms of global warming are covered in the article - you might want to dig deeper, e.g. into Attribution of recent climate change and Greenhouse effect. We know about the greenhouse effect for a lot longer than we can accurately determine the temperature of the Earth - Arrhenius identified the basic mechanism over a hundred years ago - not from correlation, but from understanding the basic properties of CO2. The Sun is about 6000K, and hence radiates primarily in the visual wavelengths. Earth atmosphere is mostly transparent at that wavelength, so incoming radiation hits the ground and warms it. Earth is about 280K, and hence radiates primarily in the infrared. CO2 is opaque to this wavelength, and hence the infrared radiation cannot easily escape if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. This creates an imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation - and the Earth warms. There is a remarkable consensus about this. Don't take Al Gore's word for it, check Scientific opinion on climate change. And don't expect easy answers for complex scientific problems. There is a reason why we have universities and those offer science classes. Despite your impression, several scientists, some of which specialize in climatolgy, have contributed to this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What Stephan Schulz failed to mention is C02 has a relatively narrow absorption spectrum in the infrared, primarily at 10 um and a little at 2 and 4 um. For this reason "green-house" warming from a doubling of C02 can only account for nominally 1 degree C of warming. To produce further warming the models assume a relatively modest warming of 1 degree will increase water vapor concentration in the atmosphere and since H20 is more abundant then C02 and has a much broader (integrated) absorption spectrum in the infrared it is therefore a much more potent greenhouse gas. And bingo, 1 degree of warming from C02 multiplies between 2 and 6 according to the IPCC and you get 2.5 to 6 degrees of warming from that initial doubling of C02. They call this “climate sensitivity” or a positive feedback from an increase in anthropogenic green house gases.

This sounds very good in theory. The problem I see from this, and tell me where I’m going wrong here, is as follows:

1) The climate record has no evidence of dangerous positive feedbacks from C02. In-fact temperature change precedes changes in C02. Or as Richard Lindzen put it, you’ll find no one claiming cancer causes smoking.

2) The physics suggest the climate probably has negative feedback from things like precipitation systems, as Roy Spencer believes. Meaning, more green house warming from C02 causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which causes more precipitation. And those in the “energy balance” camp, its possible the extra energy in the system can be contained in those precipitation systems. From the newer NASA climate instrumentation spinning around the earth compelling data has been generated in support of negative feedback mechanisms. While I have seen no evidence of positive feedback.

3) This one is my favorite: It just sounds ridiculous! The implication is the climate system will go into run away feedback (i.e. Hansen). Kind of like pointing a microphone directly at a speaker, or a super critical nuclear explosion. If the climate was really sitting on the edge of a cliff, it probably would have fallen over by now from events like tectonic plate shifts and giant celestial impact like what killed off the dinosaurs. Plus that, C02 can only absorb so much energy. Once those absorption bands saturate the warming effect of green house gases roll off logarithmically. Kind like 10^-8 torr is as much of a vacuum as 10^-3 torr, except to maybe the ion gauge, or your experiment inside, but to humans, a point of diminishing returns, it sucks just as much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.143.91 (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalist Shrugged, you have quite accureately summed up the whole global warming debate. I searched a long time and eventually found a paper that actually made a scientific case to support a link between CO2 and warming (and found about a dozen papers casting doubt on that link). The paper is decades old, is very seldom quoted and is kept hidden by the global warming evangelists which is just about all you need to know about it as "proof". Basically, global warming is simply the assertion by those who believe in this religion that a period of warming at the end of the 20th century was caused by the evil of mankind. The fact that temperatures have been declining in the 21st century, is conveniently ignored, as is the scientific requirement for proof (global warming is a special type of "science" where no proof is required) The reason you don't find much credible on the page, is that no decent scientist will waste their time on this subject. Bugsy (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see your "dozen papers" that go against AGW. Oren0 (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oren0, I have just listened to a whole question and answer session of politicains by the public about energy and global warming was not mentioned once. When oil prices are starting to rocket and the credit crunch continues to bite, who gives a damn about global warming? It was fun whilst it lasted but whether we like it or not, whether you believe the world is cooling or still heading for a massive 2C meltdown the public aren't interested any more because they have found some much more critical and they are ignoring us! 88.109.233.83 (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming is the product of too many industrial companies polluting the world in gas. This is a very important subject of the world today. Every time something happens, like hurricane or tornadoes, the world's population becomes very paranoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.136.55 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

New Images

new version with axes labled --New Image Uploader 929 (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Image:CO2_increase_rate.png because I don't think it communicates relevant ideas for the article. It's also quite confusing; what's on the y-axis? Is the x-axis time?

I also think it would be good to discuss the ice trend images before adding them into the article, but since they have labeled axes, I'm personally leaving them in for the meantime. It is imperative to say what the anomaly is relative to, though. - Enuja (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I uploaded a new version with axes labeled. Is that better? New Image Uploader 929 (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I now (and after reading the NASA text) understand what this is: The year-over-year increase of CO2, plotted over the years (i.e. its not concentration/year, but concentration change/year). With the current labels, the image is still very confusing. I wold suggest to put in explicit axes and put the labels on the axes. It also needs a better description, I would say. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I labeled the axes better just now; I will try to implement your other suggestions. New Image Uploader 929 (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better. I would also also add a vertical axis, though. And I would caption it as e.g. "Variations in the yearly increase in CO2. In the 1960s, the average annual increase was 37% of what it was in the period from 2000 through 2007.".

There is nothing wrong with the ice trend images but I still propose to remove them. This is an overview article, only the most important data and figues should be in it. Everything else makes it confusing. Also, we already have the glacier ice thickness graph. I think that one is sufficient. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 10:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the whole section on feedback has no illustration then. New Image Uploader 929 (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not like every section has to have an illustration. There are plenty of illustrations in the article already. Also, I feel showing a graph of the melting Arctic does not illustrate the ice-albedo feedback well. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 13:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and removed them. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Effects of live stock

I think that the relative contribution of different anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases should go into Attribution of recent climate change instead of into this higher level article. User:Tressor recently added this [4] paragraph to the Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere section. Do other editors think this paragraph belongs where it is now, in Attribution of recent climate change, or somewhere else? - Enuja (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignore it - he's another Scibaby sockpuppet. Raul654 (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I thought for a second you meant that Enuja was a Scibaby sock. That was sort of mind-blowing. Then I figured it out. MastCell ^Talk 06:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Time to put up or shut up on Overwhelming consensus

Resolved

I've been skimming down the comments regarding the consensus, and it is very clear that no substantial proof is being offered to support the assertion of an overwhelming consensus despite the repeated quests for same. As such, it is clearly breaking quite a few policies and so the article needs to stop referring to this consensus as a fact and at the very least start using phrases such as "it is widely believed ... it is thought that .... there is an overwhelming consensus".

It is time that this phrase was made compliant with Wikipedia policy by either being supported by factual evidence or being amended to reflect the lack of factual evidence. Bugsy (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Covered in the FAC Raul654 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If | this is what is called "evidence" then it is at best an opinion about an opinion, an opinion that there is a consensus rather than real evidence of a consensus and out of date opinion to boot. It is no longer current and clearly doesn't take account of the recent downturn in temperatures. And you are effectively saying the article needs to be amended to make it clear that there is no current evidence to support the claim of a consensus.

Let me be more specific. Whilst it is quite possible that some important person at some point of time might have believed there was an overwhelming consensus, recent evidence of a cooling in the 21st century may well have caused some or even all of those holding this view to change. Without knowing the origin of this assertion that there is a consensus, and therefore without being able to know exactly to what it refers, it is impossible to know whether it is accrate to describe it as an actual current consensus, as oppsed to a consensus at some point in history.

Either the consensus must be backed up by specific facts which can be validated and can be dated. Or it must be justified as an opinion held by certain people and expressed at a certain time, so that if these people were to change their mind, it is possible to correct the article.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP and let those who want a wikipedia compliant article correct this hitherto unsubstantiated claim. Bugsy (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote in question is sourced and the source has a date. Looking at further sources, we have quite a number of statements by major scientific bodies supporting the consensus in 2007, despite you imagined "evidence of a cooling in the 21st century". If you have similarly weighty sources opposing this, bring them up....or in your words, "put up or shut up". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources are linked in the article. Yes, a lot of people come to the talk page and complain about the idea of consensus about anthropogenic global warming. These people have not read the sources, or do not agree with the Wikipedia policies about verifiability and reliable sources, or at least don't agree with the policies in so far as they include scientific societies as reliable sources. No, not too many different people argue with every single new complaint on the talk page; most people keep silent and only speak up when they are needed. However, everyone who has this article watched is always speaking up in the sense that we've come to a consensus on the existing language and continue to edit the article back to that language. Personally, I have serious problems with using the same word that the source uses; I think this article should be in its own words. However, the sentiment behind the wording is supported by reliable sources, and I've accepted that I'm in the minority about the stylistic choices. Since the current wording isn't plagiarism, I'm willing to go along with the stylistic consensus. - Enuja (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(Raises Hand) I've read the sources and I agree with Wikipedia polices about verifiability and reliable sources, but I agree with Bugsy. The citations do not offer any proof, just opinions with no evidence to justify those opinions. I know of at least 31,000 scientists who say AGW is either non-existanct or insignificant. How many scientists constitute the so-called 'consensus'? Oh, that's right, no one has the slightest idea. Also, one should not confuse a consensus of scientists who work for the IPCC (or other political organization) with a consensus of all scientists with knowledge of climate change. --Sirwells (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Oregon Petition, which now claims to have 31,000 "scientists", defines scientist to include anyone with a Bachelor of Science degree, which is not the way most people would use the term "scientist". Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Gee. I guess your right. Looks like only about 9,000 have phD's. [5] Um, how many scientists constitute the so-called 'consensus'? Oh, that's right, no one has the slightest idea.--Sirwells (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• What counts are peer reviewed publications, not mere opinions of, say, some economist who claims to have knowledge of climate science. How on Earth could be verify that the scientist in question knows more about climate science than my grandmother? So, the only relevant scientific opinion is in the peer reviewed publications and in the conference proceedings. Count Iblis (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's nice. Will someone please point out to me which peer reviewed publication is claiming there to be a consensus.--Sirwells (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• We use reliable sources because it is highly non-trivial to come to our own judgement. You may not understand how the national academies, or the meteorological societies, or authors of survey papers arrive at their conclusion, but that does not invalidate them. I could just as well demand to get General relativity explained in elementary arithmetic...

  And I seriously doubt your 31000 scientists. Please be more specific. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(Raises Hand again) I would also like to challenge these so-called 'reliable sources' directly. Since Enuja, Stephen Schulz, Iblis and others seems to think us "deniers" have a lack of understanding of wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Let's examine them shall we?

Source #1, The Royal Society's Guide to Facts and fictions about climate change. According to verifiability and reliable sources, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also, "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." This 'guide' by the Royal Society has not been published in any journal, it has not been 'peer-reviewed', and it clearly does not adhere to wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Furthermore, wikipedia's policy states that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." The RS document offers no support, in the form of fact checking, whatsoever to it's claim, rather it relies on the opinion of the authors. Further, it was authored in part by Sir John Houghton FRS, former chair of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This obvious conflict of interest alone should render the document as questionable as it relies heavily on propoganda from the IPCC. Finally, the RS document states that "the overwhelming majority of scientists....agree on the main points.", but it does not specify what those main points are, nor does it even imply that these 'main points' are precisely the same as the 'IPCC's main conclusions.' Yet the wikipedia article is currently saying "the overwhelming majority....agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.". So apparently we also have a quote being misrepresented in a way to make the wikipedia article very misleading.

Source #2, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER Essay written by Naomi Oreskes. Here have an ESSAY which also violates wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Just in case some don't know. An essay is piece of writing, written from an author's personal point of view. A simple browse of Sciencemag's Special collection section places this article in the category of 'commentary' As a reminder, wikipedia's policy on neutrality indicates "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." So why is a someone's opinion being used as a direct citation as an attempt to establish fact?

Also, as a reminder, wikipedia's verifiability and reliable sources policy indicates that "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require exceptionally high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." The claim of a so-called consensus about global warming is quite exceptional, especially given the fact that it is being made in defiance of overwhelming evidence that tens of thousands of scientists do not agree with this so-called 'consensus' viewpoint, and that more and more peer-reviewed papers are being published which directly contradict the so-called 'consensus' view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Publications by scientific societies including the Royal Society and the American Academy of Science are precisely "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This is why, in my explanation of why so many comments on the talk page have a problem with the "overwhelming consensus", I included the phrase "or at least don't agree with the policies in so far as they include scientific societies as reliable sources". In my personal analysis, the IPCC's publications themselves are also exactly and precisely "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The IPCC is a consensus summary of information published in peer-reviewed journals. The IPCC is a better source than a single peer-reviewed article is, because it's a compilation of the information from lots of different peer-reviewed articles. It's become really popular for global warming skeptics to trash the IPCC as partisan body with a pro-Anthropogenic global warming agenda, but that analysis is simply false. Among climate scientists, the IPCC is seen a sluggish and conservative ( = skeptical ) review of the literature. The claim of a scientific consensus in the presence of political and grass-roots opposition is not an extraordinary claim at all. It's quite common and believable, especially in the context of scientific literature that argues about the extent, sensitivity, and feedbacks of anthropogenic global warming instead of arguing about the existence of the mechanism and increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases). - Enuja (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Society document being cited as evidence for a consensus was not publisheded by a third-party, nor was in peer-reviewed. It was self-published. You also did not address any of my other points above. Particularly the one about how Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. Besides this, I suspect all of the global warmists blockers well know they have all blocked and denied many opposing and credible sources from getting in for far weaker arguments. --Sirwells (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources directly supporting the information as it is presented means that the source needs to, in fact, state that there is a strong consensus about the reality of global warming. That part of the policy is to prevent us from citing "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (even if it were a reliable source) for saying that there is a consensus supporting the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

The Royal society is a reliable third party that published a global warming guide. You are correct, the guide in question is not in a peer-reviewed journal. Enuja (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. Verifiability makes a distintion between third-party and self-published sources. The Royal Society document being cited as evidence of consensus falls into the category of a self-published source (it's basically a pamphlet which appears on thier own website). Thus it has not undergone any of the scrutiny involved in third-party checking facts which wikipedia uses to measure reliability.--Sirwells (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a weird and convenient interpretation. So we can also discard the NAS? And many of the most respected journals are published by scientific societies. Does that make them parties? But on the other hand, the IPCC reports (at least up until 2001 - it always takes a while until they appear) have been published by Cambridge University Press.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try and stay on point. Is the Royal Society Document published in a third party publication? Or isn't it? --Sirwells (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Surprising and inconvenient as it ay be, you do not get to define the scope of the debate. The Royal Society, as one of the oldest and most respected scientific organizations, is an excellent and reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Society is a third party. It is not an involved, partisan member of a dispute. It is a reliable third party publisher with a reputation for excellent fact checking. (That's essentially it's mission statement.) The Royal Society invented the whole concept of peer review! - Enuja (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Attention Enuja and Stephan, the Royal Society is not a "source" they are the "author" of a source. See WP:RS --Sirwells (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any credible source I have argued against using. I can't "block" anything; I can just argue for or against using it. You and I have exactly the same individual power on this page. In fact, no individual here has the power to "block" the use of a source. There are some administrators who can block users who are vandals (or sockpuppets), but their analysis of a source as reliable or not (should) have the exact same weight as my analysis and your analysis. - Enuja (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When I said 'block' I was referring to handful of users who 'watch' the global warming articles and instantly revert anything which goes against thier opinion, giving innane and weak reasons for doing so. (or no reason at all in many cases.) Sorry if that was confusing.--Sirwells (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Has a new meta-study been produced altering the conclusions of Oreskes? If not, we go with the sources we have.
—Apis (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to add these links for people who do not understand the Scientific method or what is meant by Scientific consensus - see also: Scientific opinion on climate change Hexalm (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)