Talk:Climate change: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:50, 5 June 2010

Template:Community article probation

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96: 15 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

faq page

Frequently asked questions

To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. To view references used by an answer, you must also click the [show] for references at the bottom of the FAQ.

Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on climate change?

A1: Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. This scientific consensus is supported by over 99% of publishing climate scientists.^[1]

Q2: How can we say climate change is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place?

A2: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(such-and-such a place) warming". Even then, what rises is the average temperature over time – that is, the temperature will fluctuate up and down within the overall rising trend. To give an idea of the relevant time scales, the standard averaging period specified by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is 30 years. Accordingly, the WMO defines climate change as "a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)."^[2]

Q3: Can't the increase of CO₂ be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans?

A3: While these claims are popular among global warming skeptics,^[3]^[4] including academically trained ones,^[5]^[6] they are incorrect. This is known from any of several perspectives:

Current human emissions of CO₂ are at least 100 times larger than volcanic emissions. Measurements of CO₂ levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions.^[7] This is easily seen in a graph of CO₂ concentrations over the past 50 years: the strongest eruption during the period, that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, produced no increase in the trend.
Isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide shows the observed change in the ratio of carbon isotopes reflects the isotopic ratios in fossil fuels.^[8]
Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels.^[9]
If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, their carbon dioxide concentration would have to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or in other words, less basic).^[10]

Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it?

A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of global warming, but the article talk page is not such a forum.

Q5: Why haven't the graphs been updated?

A5: Two reasons:

There are many images used in the articles related to global warming, and there are many reasons why they may not be updated with the latest data. Some of the figures, like the Global Warming Map, are static, meaning that they are intended to show a particular phenomenon and are not meant to be updated frequently or at all. Others, like the Instrumental Temperature Record and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, use yearly data and thus are updated once per year—usually in mid- to late-January, depending upon when the data is publicly released, and when a volunteer creates the image. Still others, like Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide, use monthly data. These are updated semi-regularly.
However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get", meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations.^[11] Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import.

Q6: Isn't climate change "just a theory"?

A6: People who say this are abusing the word "theory" by conflating its common meaning with its scientific meaning. In common usage, "theory" can mean a hunch or guess, but a scientific theory, roughly speaking, means a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with observations and that allows predictions to be made. That the temperature is rising is an observation. An explanation for this (also known as a hypothesis) is that the warming is primarily driven by greenhouse gases (such as CO₂ and methane) released into the atmosphere by human activity. Scientific models have been built that predict the rise in temperature and these predictions have matched observations. When scientists gain confidence in a hypothesis because it matches observation and has survived intense scrutiny, the hypothesis may be called a "theory". Strictly speaking, scientific theories are never proven, but the degree of confidence in a theory can be discussed. The scientific models now suggest that it is "extremely likely" (>95%) to "virtually certain" (>99%) that the increases in temperature have been caused by human activity as discussed in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Global warming via greenhouse gases by human activity is a theory (in the scientific sense), but it is most definitely not just a hunch or guess.

Q7: Does methane cause more warming than CO₂?

A7: It's true that methane is more potent molecule for molecule. But there's far less of it in the atmosphere, so the total effect is smaller. The atmospheric lifetime of methane (about 10 years) is a lot shorter than that of CO₂ (hundreds to thousands of years), so when methane emissions are reduced the concentration in the atmosphere soon falls, whereas CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere over long periods. For details see the greenhouse gas and global warming potential articles.

Q8: How can you say there's a consensus when lists of "skeptical scientists" have been compiled?

A8: Consensus is not the same as unanimity, the latter of which is impractical for large groups. Over 99% of publishing climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change.^[1] This is an extremely high percentage well past any reasonable threshold for consensus. Any list of "skeptical scientists" would be dwarfed by a comparably compiled list of scientists accepting anthropogenic climate change.

Q9: Did climate change end in 1998?

A9: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature for 1998. Through the mid-late 2000s this abnormally warm year could be chosen as the starting point for comparisons with later years in order to produce a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produced a warming trend. This no longer holds since the mean global temperatures in 2005, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have all been warmer than 1998.^[12] More importantly, scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out;^[2] thus, 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend.

Q10: Wasn't Greenland much warmer during the period of Norse settlement?

A10: Some people assume this because of the island's name. In fact the Saga of Erik the Red tells us Erik named the new colony Greenland because "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name."^[13] Advertising hype was alive and well in 985 AD.

While much of Greenland was and remains under a large ice sheet, the areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse were coastal areas with fjords that, to this day, remain quite green. You can see the following images for reference:

A map of the Eastern Settlement
A satellite image of that area today
A map of the Western Settlement
A satellite image of that area today
A zoom in on the general area where the Brattahlíð (Erik the Red's farm) and Garðar farms were located

Q11: Are the IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists?

A11: The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and it has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by various organizations including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties.

Q12: Hasn't global sea ice increased over the last 30 years?

A12: Measurements show that it has not.^[14] Claims that global sea ice amounts have stayed the same or increased are a result of cherry picking two data points to compare, while ignoring the real (strongly statistically significant) downward trend in measurements of global sea ice amounts.

Arctic sea ice cover is declining strongly; Antarctic sea ice cover has had some much smaller increases, though it may or may not be thinning, and the Southern Ocean is warming. The net global ice-cover trend is clearly downwards.

Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling instead of warming?

A13: They weren't – see the article on global cooling. An article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has reviewed the scientific literature at that time and found that even during the 1970s the prevailing scientific concern was over warming.^[15] The common misperception that cooling was the main concern during the 1970s arose from a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, such as a short nine-paragraph article that appeared in Newsweek in 1975.^[16] (Newsweek eventually apologized for having misrepresented the state of the science in the 1970s.)^[17] The author of that article has repudiated the idea that it should be used to deny global warming.^[18]

Q14: Doesn't water vapour cause 98% of the greenhouse effect?

A14: Water vapour is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO₂ or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. In simpler terms, any excess water vapour is removed by rainfall, and any deficit of water vapour is replenished by evaporation from the Earth's surface, which literally has oceans of water. Thus water vapour cannot act as a driver of climate change.

Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases will however allow the atmosphere to hold more vapour. This will lead to an increase in the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, this is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, whereas water vapour is not a driver of climate change, it amplifies existing trends.

Q15: Is the fact that other solar system bodies are warming evidence for a common cause (i.e. the sun)?

A15: While some solar system bodies show evidence of local or global climate change, there is no evidence for a common cause of warming.

A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars.^[19] Abdussamatov's views have no support in the scientific community, as the second page of the National Geographic article makes clear: "'His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,' said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. [...] Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that 'the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations.'"^[20]
There is no reliable source claiming that Jupiter is warming. However, observations of the Red Spot Jr. storm suggest Jupiter could be in a period of global climate change.^[21]^[22] This is hypothesized to be part of an approximately 70 year global climate cycle, characterized by the relatively rapid forming and subsequent slow erosion and merging of cyclonic and anticyclonic vortices that help transfer heat between Jupiter's poles and equator. The cycle works like this: As the vortices erode, heat exchange is reduced; this makes the poles cool down and the equatorial region heat up; the resulting temperature difference destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to the creation of new vortices.^[23]^[24]
Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of about 248 years. Data are sparse, but two data points from 1988 and 2002 indirectly suggest that Pluto warmed between those two dates.^[25] Pluto's temperature is heavily influenced by its elliptical orbit – it was closest to the sun in 1989 and has slowly receded since. Because of thermal inertia, it is expected to warm for a while after it passes perihelion (similar to how a sunny day's warmest temperatures happen during the afternoon instead of right at noon). No other mechanism has so far been seriously suggested. Here is a reasonable summary, and this paper discusses how the thermal inertia is provided by sublimation and evaporation of parts of Pluto's atmosphere. A more popular account is here and in Wikipedia's own article.

Q16: Do scientists support climate change just to get more money?

A16: No,

Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly for direct expenses.
Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, only towards the cost of his or her scientific work.
There is not a shortage of useful things that scientists could study if they were not studying global warming.
- Understanding our climate system better brings benefits independent of global warming. For instance, more accurate weather predictions save a lot of money (on the order of billions of dollars a year), and everyone from insurance agents to farmers wants climate data.^[26]^[27] Scientists could get paid to study climate even if global warming did not exist.

Q17: Doesn't the climate vary even without human activity?

A17: It does, but the fact that natural variation occurs does not mean that human-induced change cannot also occur. Climate scientists have extensively studied natural causes of climate change (such as orbital changes, volcanism, and solar variation) and have ruled them out as an explanation for the current temperature increase. Human activity is the cause at the 95 to 99 percent confidence level (see the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for details). The high level of certainty in this is important to keep in mind to spot mention of natural variation functioning as a distraction.

Q18: Should we include the view that climate change will lead to planetary doom or catastrophe?

A18: This page is about the science of climate change. It doesn't talk about planetary doom or catastrophe. For a technical explanation, see catastrophic climate change, and for paleoclimatic examples see PETM and great dying.

Q19: Is an increase in global temperature of, say, 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) important?

A19: Though it may not sound like much, a global temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) is huge in climate terms. For example, the sea level rise it would produce would flood coastal cities around the world, which include most large cities.

Earth's climate has varied significantly over geological ages. The question of an "optimal temperature" makes no sense without a clear optimality criterion. Over geological time spans, ecosystems adapt to climate variations. But global climate variations during the development of human civilization (i.e. the past 12,000 years) have been remarkably small. Human civilization is highly adapted to the current stable climate. Agricultural production depends on the proper combination of soil, climate, methods, and seeds. Most large cities are located on the coast, and any significant change in sea level would strongly affect them. Migration of humans and ecosystems is limited by political borders and existing land use. In short, the main problem is not the higher absolute temperature but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate and the related effects on human societies. The IPCC AR6 WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change.

Q20: Why are certain proposals to change the article discarded, deleted, or ignored? Who is/was Scibaby?

A20: Scibaby is/was a long term abusive sock-master (or coordinated group of sock masters) who has created 1,027 confirmed sock puppets, another 167 suspected socks, and probably many untagged or unrecognized ones. This page lists some recent creations. His modus operandi has changed over time, but includes proposing reasonably worded additions on the talk page that only on close examination turn out to be irrelevant, misinterpreted, or give undue weight to certain aspects. Scibaby is banned, and Scibaby socks are blocked as soon as they are identified. Some editors silently revert his additions, per WP:DENY, while others still assume good faith even for likely socks and engage them.

Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer-reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...?

A21: There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published every month in respected scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate, and others. We can't include all of them, but the article does include references to individual papers where there is consensus that they best represent the state of the relevant science. This is in accordance with the "due weight" principle (WP:WEIGHT) of the Neutral point of view policy and the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" principle (WP:IINFO) of the What Wikipedia is not policy.

Q22: Why does the article define "climate change" as a recent phenomenon? Hasn't the planet warmed and cooled before?

A22: Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "climate change" without further qualification is widely understood to refer to the recent episode and often explicitly connected with the greenhouse effect. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. The article Climate variability and change deals with the more general concept.

Q23: Did the CERN CLOUD experiment prove that climate change is caused not by human activity but by cosmic rays?

A23: No. For cosmic rays to be causing global warming, all of the following would have to be true, whereas only the italicized one was tested in the 2011 experiment:^[28]

Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:

Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation,
These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN),
The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation, and
Cloud cover on Earth must be declining.

Perhaps the study's lead author, Jasper Kirkby, put it best: "...it [the experiment] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."^[29]

Q24: I read that something can't fix climate change. Is this true?

A24: Yes, this is true for all plausible single things including: "electric cars", "planting trees", "low-carbon technology", "renewable energy", "Australia", "capitalism", "the doom & gloom approach", "a Ph.D. in thermodynamics". Note that it is problematic to use the word "fix" regarding climate change, as returning the climate to its pre-industrial state currently appears to be feasible only over a timeframe of thousands of years. Current efforts are instead aimed at mitigating (meaning limiting) climate change. Mitigation is strived for through the combination of many different things. See Climate change mitigation for details.

References

^ ^a ^b Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
^ ^a ^b "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
^ Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help)
^ Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
^ "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007.
^ Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467.
^ The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012.
^ "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009.
^ Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
^ The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða.
^ "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.^{[dead link]}
^ Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.
^ Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64.
^ Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek.
^ Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org.
^ Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.
^ Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.
^ Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
^ Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
^ Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
^ Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
^ Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes.
^ Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN.
^ "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011.
^ Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Weather FA‑class Top‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Environment: Climate change FA‑class

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Geology FA‑class High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Climate change is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Arctic FA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Sarah McBroom (March 27, 2007). "Conservapedia.com -- an encyclopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service.
Michael Booth (April 30, 2007). "Grading Wikipedia". The Denver Post.
Lawrence Solomon (July 8, 2008). "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming". CBS News.
(none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.

Climate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 28, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
May 17, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
May 4, 2007	Featured article review	Kept

Current status: Featured article

There is a request, submitted by AaThinker, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "This is a long-time featured article about a vital topic covering several prominent Wikipedia projects.".

Template:Weather-selected

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96: 15 days

Ocean warming

The Argo project has published the following snippet about ocean warming on their web: [1] and has a nice graph showing how the heat content of the world oceans have changed the last 50 years or so. I seems like it would complement the surface temperature graphs nicely, maybe it could find its way into the article somehow? Apis (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The full article is apparently Levitus, S. and Antonov, JI and Boyer, TP and Locarnini, RA and Garcia, HE and Mishonov, AV, Global ocean heat content 1955--2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems, GRL 36, 2009. It's been sitting for a year, been cited frequently, and at a glance I see no red flags. So yes, it looks fine. Are the plots produced by NOAA and hence PD? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer that, but I found this pdf [2] with the article as it was published and 17 additional pages with more graphs (in color and higher resolution.) The one in question is on page 20 in color, and in b/w in the article at page 2. If/how that affect its PD-status i don't know. Apis (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created my own plot based on the one in the article, in case that one can't be used. (I hope that is ok). Any suggestions? (Or if anyone wants to make a different version, I can post the data somewhere.) Apis (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does this relate to Lyman et al. [3], [4]? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add Still skeptical? Reports document climate change by the US National Academy of Sciences

Add Still skeptical? Reports document climate change in the USA Today by the United States National Academy of Sciences &/or Scientists Reassert Man's Role in a Changing Climate? 99.29.184.183 (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For this article, I would suggest to add pertinent parts of the NAS report itself (if it contains anything new), not reports on the availability of that report. It probably should go into global warming controversy, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything there which could possibly go in this article. However, it may be a good faith edit, although the IP is in a range which suggests edits emphasizing global warming, regardless of accuracy or suitability for Wikipedia, so I have doubts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the USA Today article - its sensationalism as MSM is wont. But the NAS reports may have a place, if not elsewhere, then to add additional refs to the basic conclusions about global warming, since they are newer than the IPCC's. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is User:Arthur Rubin attempting to break the link from Global warming to Environmental migrant? POV?

Why is User:Arthur Rubin attempting to break the link from Global warming to Environmental migrant? POV? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't belong. I made a mistake in removing Category:Climate change from Environmental migrant, after I proposed deleting Category:Climate refugees, as it would have left Envirnomental migrant uncategorized. It should link from climate change, if anywhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You trashed a list of works by Jeff Goodell too, which has been restored. So far not a concise clearly well-written book, but not a reason to delete. Are you on a rampage, hopefully not? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I deleted the Wikilink, not the book. If the list of books got deleted, it must have been an edit conflict. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You write like you are being reasonable, but what of your Chicago Climate Exchange deletions, also without explanation? Appears disingenuous: POV push by Bureaucracy tactics? Enough time spent in this spot, see Talk:Chicago Climate Exchange. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph I removed was unsourced and irrelevant, and the Controversy section was unsourced (by the time I removed it) and a BLP violation. If the [2] through [4] could be matched to actual references, it might be allowable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no diffs here, and the discussion is a bit terse to follow, but I do not agree that Environmental migrant should not be linked from Global warming, only from climate change. We have discussed in the past here that the two terms are mostly synonymous, with the current climate change being a global warming. The CC article therefore covers the whole history of changes, and GW focusses mostly on the current warming. Environmental migrant is largely about current migrations, with only two lines about the ones that accompanied past ice ages etc. Indeed, the lede there begins with a link to Global warming. If there is to be a link, it should be from here. Where was it? In the text? As a See Also? As a {main}? --Nigelj (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where it was. I think the anon was complaining about my removing the "Environmental migrant" from Category:Global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial" greenhouse effect

I've added tags to the section on greenhouse gases because of this section of text:

The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere are purported to warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.^[1] The existence of the greenhouse effect is a subject of controversy;^[vague] for example, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory^[2]^[3] has stated that "ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."^[4]^{[unbalanced opinion?]} The question in terms of global warming is how the strength of the presumed greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I see absolutely no reason for this scientist's views to take priority of the views of the majority of experts, as reflected in the IPCC reports, National Research Council reports, joint-scientific academy statements, etc. To include this scientist's viewpoint is therefore unbalanced and biased.

A fair treatment of so-called sceptic views is already included in the section views on global warming. Since "sceptical" views have such little scientific support, the amount of space given to them (two sentences) is appropriate. Actually, I think two sentences is rather generous. Enescot (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I wonder how long that has been in. Yes, it should be chopped out as FRINGE. I will. We ought to have something in there to say "the direct RF is X w/m2; with feedbacks Y; the exact number Y is subject to debate". Perhaps pull something in from the RF article. William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been put in by some small communist agitator riding around on a large agricultural machine. I've wondered about it, but assume it's part of an experiment, maybe to see if any of the new "I agree with the science! Really! And I once was an evolutionist, too!" editors will fix it. Please delete this message after reading. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astutely observed. The agitator appears to be writing for the enemy. Which one? . . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commie scum. I didn't bother check his edits William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Commie scum" is not nice :( Torontokid2006 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject will be sufficiently understanding. Trust me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: we're a bit inbred here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my homeland we don't call it inbreeding. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misspelled Rodina. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oookay. Yes, it was a sincere attempt at "writing for the enemy". Specifically, I was trying to put myself in the place of someone who doesn't understand the topic and thinks the popular press should be used in preference to the scientific literature. Note my sources satisfied WP:V: major newspapers and magazines, non-self published books, and so on. Maybe it didn't work out that well, so roll back whatever you want. But there's a good chance this is what the future will look like. (And yes, I was a little surprised that the material remained so long without comment.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too far?

This is all very well [5] but probably goes too far William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions? Torontokid2006 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite has made a useful improvement on that specific point, but our comrade's writing for anemone has left some unfortunate artefacts. Could someone more informed than myself review and undo unwanted changes? . . dave souza, talk 19:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the Daily Mail citation has been removed in the diff provided just above. Radical commie pinko inbreeder Comrade Boris writes in a nearby talk section that major newspapers (which the Daily Mail is) qualify as reliable sources. But actually the WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS analysis doesn't stop there. For convenience, I'll repeat [essentially] verbatim a comment I submitted some months ago.

I would have thought it a given that the Daily Mail tabloid is an inherently unreliable source [for an article such as this, which deals with current science]. The policy WP:SOURCES plainly states in the first sentence: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Any number of background sources would confirm that the Daily Mail does not fit this definition of a WP:RS. See, e.g. The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids, by University of Oxford's Maxwell T. Boykoff, or this brief summary reporting of the Oxford study, or another brief review of Daily Mail "predictions" over the course of some 18 months, etc. And of course, the Mail is world famous as a tabloid that plays fast and loose with the truth, not for fact-checking and accuracy.

In a word, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for the views of the scientific community w.r.t. scientific issues. So, yes, I support the removal of popular literature and newspaper accounts that manufacture controversy where there is no genuine scientific controversy, at least not about the basics of this topic. The question whether GHGs account for all of observed warming in the 20th and early 21st century is about as more controversial among the relevant scientific community as the question "where do babies come from?" is among the general public. And the statement presently in the article summarizing the view of the scientific community as being that present-day global warming is caused by increases in GHG's due to anthropogenic activity is a reasonable statement to straightforwardly make in the article lead. ..... Kenosis (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ideas should be reported. But I agree, the sources were rubbish William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add Tokyo University's Yoichi Kaya formula F=Pgef ?

F = global CO2 emissions (Includes combustion,flaring of natural gas, cement production, oxidation of nonfuel hydrocarbons, and transport.)

P = global Population (Total number of human beings, about 6 billion)

g = Consumption per person (Gross World Product/Population)

e = energy intensity of gross world product (global energy consumption/gross world product)

f = carbon used to make all that energy (global CO2 emissions/global energy consumption)

[6] Wired (magazine) printed page 38, June 2010, by Julie Rehmeyer 99.54.142.111 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear how this adds to the article - unlike Y = C + I + G + NX this dosen't seem to say something interesting - in addition, the variables are less interesting than the "right" variables, which would be population, unit consumption per person, kwh energy use per unit consumption, and lb carbon emission per kwh energy use. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, not clear enough. 99.88.231.63 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbiased please

I would like to suggest editing the current wikipedia page on global warming concerning the obvious bias towards the theory that global warming is caused by man. Wikipedia is a source for truthfull information not a venue for propagating a political agenda. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.108.51 (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See scientific opinion on global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of global warming (United States) &/or Politics of global warming of interest? Then maybe Climate change denial and logically to Climate change mitigation... 99.60.124.196 (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An equation is documented at ^[5] that calculates average global temperatures since 1895 with a coefficient of determination of over 0.86. Anyone that can use a spreadsheet can verify it. Dan Pangburn (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source, and, in fact, quite bad nonsense. If you think otherwise, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@69.5.108.51 what part specifically did you find biased? You're not saying the entire article is biased are you? Torontokid2006 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the summary, the article states: "There is no debate amongst the scientific community as to whether or not human-made global warming is real.[6]" The reference is to a 6 year old article, basing the statement on IPCC reports - an organisation that is under criticism itself for driving political agendas. It is furthermore not a statement that is true today as a report from 2009 from Japans JSER or Japan Society of Energy and Resources is openly criticising that we call the conjecture about man made global warming truth. The Register took time and translated a portion of the report: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/ 85.228.18.105 (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more recent endorsements of the consensus, see scientific opinion on climate change or the recent US NAS report. As for JSER, see Talk:Global_warming/Archive_49#Recent_climate_change_is_driven_by_natural_cycles.2C_not_human_industrial_activity and Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_7#Japan_Society_of_Energy_and_Resources_.28JSER.29. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links about JSER. It did clarify a couple of things. I would suggest linking to the scientific opinion on climate change wiki page as a source rather than that weird article, it is much more clarifying on the subject. The sentence should also be rephrased to something like "There are currently no scientific bodies opposing the notion of man made global warming." Instead of that there is no debate about it - there is always debate about topics of science. 85.228.18.105 (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree about changing the wording. There are without a doubt intelligent persons with relevant scientific degrees who do not completely agree with the current opinions of Global Warming popular within the scientific community. And don't forget, science isn't a democracy (and neither is Wikipedia for that matter). Kerrow (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot reason someone out of an opinion that they did not reason themselves into in the first place. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording should remain. According to the Wiki principles the article is fine. I don't recall a wiki principle stating that 6 year articles were void. If you can find another "meta-analysis" (an analysis of hundreds of random peer-reviewed scientific studies) that does NOT show such a conclusive consensus amongst the scientific community then please share it. Just saying, "There are without a doubt intelligent persons with relevant scientific degrees who do not completely agree with the current opinions of Global Warming popular within the scientific community" does not disregard the fact that there is a global SCIENTIFIC consensus. Neither does it disregard the fact that some scientists are paid by massive energy conglomerates to deny studies and to spread misinformation. The crux of wikipedia is the use of reliable sources. Are we going to start quoting fox news in this article? I sincerely hope not. Torontokid2006 (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ 69.5.108.51 - To my nameless friend. You said, "The reference is to a 6 year old article, basing the statement on IPCC reports - an organisation that is under criticism itself for driving political agendas." In a very short statement you made two large errors. First, you were wrong that this article was based on IPCC reports and second you have made an assumption that the IPCC is under criticism (not that it matters since the IPCC is not relevant to Oreskes' article) and that it is driving a political agenda. Please prove those statements with reliable sources lest you propogate misinformation which in fact is not what this talk section is for. Now I will continue responding to your non-factual remarks. First, it would greatly help your argument if you had correctly read the "meta-analysis" by Oreskes. I will post her exact statements here so you can read it again. Her article states, "The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change". The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." Please be more careful when posting on the talk section. Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad Job" header

Wikipedia has a "Good Job" header that features prominently on certain talk pages when some outside party compliments an article. What justification is there for removing a similar "bad job" header? One would think it would cause long-time editors on this page to reassess the page. Eugene (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on a technical level, there is template: Good Job but not template: Bad job, and your edit simply broke the existing talk headers. Secondly, there are a number of individual problem templates. Or you can simply state your problems on the talk page. And thirdly, your complaints were nonsense. This article covers the breadth of the scientific opinion - it even gives a bit too much weight to the fringes. Constructive criticism supported by an informed opinion and reliable sources is welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a Template:Bad Job. Also, the header in no way "simply broke the existing talk headers".[7] And more importantly, I wasn't offering any complaints; I was merely posting a template that indicated how the article is percieved by an outside source. That's the whole point of the Good Job / Bad Job templates. Since all your rationales for the removal of the header were mistaken, I'm reinserting it. Eugene (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no point in giving LS's opinion such prominence William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha...missed the capitalisation. Let me point out, for the unaware, that you (E.) just created that template less than an hour ago. And Solomon's opinion is well known here, but also known to be without any value. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) That's the whole point of the Good Job / Bad Job templates - you're being rather deceptive. The BJ template was created by you, today, at 2010-05-28T20:58:37. It should probaby be deleted as unwelcome William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Bad Job template is awesome and should stay. It's the mirror image of the good job template and it can, presumably, serve as a corrective to in-Wiki group think. But since I'm clearly out-numbered I'll just add the article to the media mentions--unless even that is to be censored. Eugene (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Inflation (cosmology) [8] and related AN3 etc discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would Carbonated water/Soft drinks and other releases of carbon dioxide from Carbonation add to global warming, and if so, enough to be included in an article?

Would Carbonated water/Soft drinks and other releases of carbon dioxide from Carbonation add to global warming, and if so, enough to be included in an article? 99.60.127.42 (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. But, if there's a peer reviewed scientific paper on that question, it may be worthwhile. Additionally, “Carbonated water/soft drinks” would have been a more appropriate heading for this thread. Unless you’re not into the whole brevity thing.--CurtisSwain (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonated water, also known as sparkling water, fizzy water, seltzer, or water with gas, collectively called aerated beverages, and soft drinks, also referred to as soda, pop, soda pop, or fizzy drinks, are unlikely to be significant sources of additional carbon in the atmosphere. So, have a coke and a smile. Jonathunder (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CO2 for carbonation sometimes is made from processes that produce a net input of CO2. Fermentation, on the other hand, produces CO2 from starches and sugars containing carbon that was reduced from atmospheric CO2 by plant life. As such there is no net input of CO2. So, beer is better for the environment than soft drinks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too opinionated

While I believe in global warming, I think the revisions to the intro in last day go too far. The current version just seems a little angry. The purpose of oil companies' PR campaigning, however wrong it may be, is obviously not to "confuse the public". That is ridiculous. They're trying to change public opinion. Besides, the reasons for public scepticism are actually far more complicated than this intro allows. To attribute this to a single cause, and in such colourful language, creates a problem of undue weight. I'd also question the use of the phrase "multinational oil and coal corporations". It's one of those clichés that have become popular in recent years, more resonant of campaign literature than an encyclopedia, and while it may be true in the case of oil companies, the largest coal companies are headquartered and trade in a single country with only limited overseas operations. Again, I'm not denying anything, I'm just suggesting that some small changes be made to the wording to make this sound a little calmer and more disinterested. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egads, yes, that stuff doesn't belong in the lead section, and maybe not at all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, yes. The last few days of edits there undid years worth of NPOV work on this article. Torontokid, if you make your way back to this page, please see NPOV. Wikipedia is about documenting things, not about convincing people about what you think is true even if you are right. The goal is simply to provide neutral information. I'm doing a partial revert to the 24th, preserving PleaseStand's edits. Please do not undo this revert, and instead provide neutral edits for future contributions to this obviously controversial article. (This may require active self-restraint.) Thanks. WavePart (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your partial revert restored weaseling and extremist unreliable sourced material inserted by a communist agitator. I've restored the well sourced material showing the overwhelming majority view and left new sources in place, but removed the more polemical part. There is a good historical case that much of the contrarianism is a result of industry action and funding, but in my understanding it's not the whole picture and inappropriate for the lead. Carry on, dave souza, talk 21:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, one cannot possibly source statements like "The global scientific community agrees..." for anything. There's no body which speaks for "the global scientific community". The text should state exactly what can be sourced to achieve neutrality. I've restored the sentence which properly cites the statement to the IPCC, while leaving out the other sources that you removed. Better to have less total text which is neutral, than more which is problematic. I've also removed the statement "There is no scientific debate", because such statements do not relate to the process of science. If one scientist somewhere expresses a disagreement, then one cannot accurately say "there is no scientific debate". Instead I've changed it to say that public and political debate, plus scientific research continue, since both are obviously true and should be non-controversial statements. I've also restored the summary that was removed of possible responses to global warming, since this makes more sense in the summary at the top than launching into an opinionated discussion about things the oil industry is funding. WavePart (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, we may state that a consensus exists provided we provide a reliable source that it exists.[9] The fact that a number of scientists oppose the theory is irrelevant because they have not submitted their scepticism to peer-review and therefore their opinions hold no more weight than that of laymen. Also, we should avoid promoting fringe views in articles by pretending that they have any real acceptance. TFD (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article suffers from far too much knee-jerk reactionism, which I think harms the editorial process. Perhaps you could read what you reverted? I encourage you to point out any specific "fringe view" in what I edited the introduction to state. I think it would be very difficult. WavePart (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I still contend the statement "the global scientific community" is nonsensical here. Speak specifically about who has said what. For example, see this article which actually discusses the matter in depth. In the most recent of those surveys there are a very small (but non-zero) number of climatologists who disagree, and so you couldn't even say the whole community of climatologists "agree", just an overwhelming majority. But the statement doesn't even restrict itself to climatologists, but attempts to encompass the entirety of scientists. That very same survey shows only 64% of meteorologists "agree". (Yes I know, they're not specifically climate experts, but that's not what the statement says that you edited back in.) And again, even that's a significant majority, but that doesn't translate into a phrase speaking about the entirety of the scientific community. Speaking about the content of the peer reviewed literature would be fine too, just cite an analysis of it and state what they conclude, but this is not the same as speaking about an entire community of people. Replace it with something which cites a real fact, stating who has said what! WavePart (talk)

Part of what I removed was "Political and public debate, and scientific research continues regarding its causes...." The phrasing you reversed was "There is no debate amongst the scientific community as to whether or not human-made global warming is real. However, political and public debate continues, regarding the legitimacy of global warming." There is no doubt about the causes of global warming, and any theories challenging the scientific view are fringe. While it is quite correct to have articles that document fringe theories, they should not be used to create doubt where none exists. TFD (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reading and providing the feedback. I do not mean to breach NPOV guidelines- in truth, I am a noob to wiki. I'm a bit busy these days but when I have the time I will read the NPOV article once more and respond to your comments. At this moment I would like you to know that I do not think you were correct in reverting back to the 24th. I think you could have reworded my comments or at least discussed the changes so we could have at least discussed this! Isn't that what the discussion section is for???? Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WavePartI have taken your suggestions into consideration and spent time to form a compromise that I think we'll both like. Please let me know what you think so we can DISCUSS this matter. Please do not remove any more of my reliably sourced contributions without the community (and me) being notified of the factual statements you plan on deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've completely removed the text "one major reason being that some oil companies have funded public relations campaigns and faulty research[7] to discredit the global scientific consensus.[8][9]Almost identical public relations and faulty research[10] strategies were used leading up to the tobacco/cancer lawsuits in the United States and around the world.[11]" First, a discussion of tobacco doesn't really belong in the intro to global warming. (It serves a purpose of persuasion, which is undesirable here, rather than providing encyclopedic information.) Second, the sources do not support the strong claims made there. For example, the citation after the first "faulty" does not call the research faulty, it says the research "draws fire". The citation numbered 8 there also doesn't state that the studies are faulty, it says that a Greenpeace report states that groups are spreading inaccurate information. You cannot take an citation which makes a factual statement saying there is a conflict, and use it to write a statement drawing a conclusion supporting one side of the conflict described in the citation. That is an incorrect use of the citation process, and is necessarily injecting an original POV to the statements from the cited sources. WavePart (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep the smear about the industry-funded studies. Balance it for NPOV by sourcing the total spending by the most visible alarmist groups such as the WMF and Greenpeace on global warming activism in a year. That would be an eye opener for some ill wager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.120.11 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no debate"

I think it would be fine to say "there is no substantial debate among scientists" or "there is no serious debate among scientists" or "there is no debate among climate scientists" or a thousand other formulations, but to say "there is no debate" as several editors are currently trying to insist we should do in the lead is really inappropriate, especially given that the source used to insert it does not support this statement. The source says that the impression that there is "substantive disagreement" is wrong, and that the impression that there is "disagreement among climate scientists" is wrong. This cannot be used to support a claim that there is no debate in the scientific community at all. All it takes is a single bona-fide scientist (in any discipline) to hold a contrary position, and the statement that "there is no debate among scientists" is false. We know that there is at least one.

Attempting to insert this clearly overstated, clearly incorrect phrase actually reduces the credibility of the article and plays up to those who imagine Wikipedia is controlled by a hotbed of far-left environmentalists ;) Oh, and avoiding WP:FRINGE problems doesn't permit us to oversimplify to the extent of falsehood.

Thparkth (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point us to the peer-reviewed academic journals where this alleged debate continues? TFD (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Debate" does not necessarily only occur in peer-reviewed academic journals. If a geologist and an astrophysicist get into an argument about it in a pub, that's still scientific debate, of a kind... if we mean to say "no scholarly debate", that's what we should say. Thparkth (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debate is over a point. There is no scholarly debate over whether we influence climate, ie. that there is an anthropogenic factor.... none what so ever. There is "some" debate over the relative proportion of anthro forcings vs. natural ones for climate (but the majority thinks anthro > natural for the last decades). There is serious debate over some impacts. etc etc. But on the one thing that the sentence actually addresses - there is no scholarly debate. In the words of one of the more well known critical voices, John Christy: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you say here. The phrase you use, "no scholarly debate" is one I would support. There just needs to be a qualifier of some kind to make it less of an absolute. (There are absolutely no absolutes!) Thparkth (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intro currently says that there is no "substantive" debate, but then explains that there is some social and political disagreement. I think that this is an accurate synopsis of the current state of the debate surrounding global warming. The mass media, in general, still apparently continues to support the position that the science is "settled." Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that there is no debate about? The "reality of anthropogenic climate change"? This sounds more like an article of faith than a proposition that is testable scientifically. If the issue if whether the earth is likely to warm, cool and stay about the same, there are certainly differing opinions. There is also debate about the "hockey stick" -- the idea that the climate in the last century is something unprecedented or at least out the ordinary. Kauffner (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner, we are well aware that there are individuals who oppose scientific consensus just as there are people who believe that Elvis is still alive. The issue is what credence the article should give to this type of theory. NPOV dictates that it should be ignored. TFD (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this discussion. It may be worthwhile to note some sources such as this: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE61N0TR.htm wherein it is noted "There is a lack of consensus" (by Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research). Vistle (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[user is blocked confirmed sockpuppet of scibaby --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

In the article, Trenberth said, "There is a lack of consensus on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998". He does not say there is a lack of consensus on global warming. TFD (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what are the limits of "on global warming"? There are numerous questions of how much, manmade vs. natural, etc. that all constitute a debate. The phrase "no substantial debate among scientists" is incorrect. Vistle (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[user is blocked confirmed sockpuppet of scibaby --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Can you please point us to the peer-reviewed academic journals where this alleged debate continues? TFD (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man question. "Debate" obviously does not only occur in peer-reviewed journals, and thus you cannot claim "no debate" by looking only at peer-reviewed articles. You can make plenty of OTHER claims by looking at peer-reviewed journals, but "no debate among scientists" is not one of them. You could perhaps even say "No debate in climatology journals", but you certainly can't say "no debate" among scientists, as if the entirety of their lives are constrained to journal article writing. Some days they actually get out of the lab, you know... WavePart (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is actually not a straw man question. Debate in science is done via the peer-reviewed literature, scientific conferences etc. It is not done outside of the "lab". And as stated below - there is no scholarly debate on whether we influence climate or not, and that is what the lede should reflect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's mildly amusing to think what would be a non-substantive debate. -Atmoz (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"According to our reconstruction, high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 - occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around AD 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue." Moberg, A., et al. 2005. Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.[10][11] It is my understanding that the SUV had not yet been invented in the year 1000. Kauffner (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JunkScience.com is not a peer-reviewed journal but a fringe science website. The article from NOAA that provides stats for temperatures does not provide any conclusion about global warming. Please provide a peer-reviewed journal where there is a debate about global warming. TFD (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cut and pasted the quote from the abstract of the article, which is on the NOAA site. The article was originally published in Nature, perhaps the most famous peer-reviewed scientific journal. Kauffner (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, the quotation exists in the original Nature article, and thus should not be dismissed as "fringe". If the journal Nature is "fringe" we are in trouble... The full text requires the usual subscription/university access, but the quotation is available even in the publicly accessible abstract. WavePart (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes I would also be very interested in seeing this peer-reviewed debate on global warming that so many of you speak of. I feel like we're hunting for Big Foot! Exciting! Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the debates on global warming: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/there-appears-to-be-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-the-way-temperature-and-carbon-are-linked-in-climate-models/ and the main article at: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo578.html "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models" (Discussion of article in Nature Geoscience). Also, as mentioned above, see the Hockey Stick Controversy article to see the debates outlined there. It is not so much that we are hunting Big Foot as we are Camel Toe. Vistle (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[user is blocked confirmed sockpuppet of scibaby --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Disregarding for a moment that one paper is rarely significant... This isn't good news. Since it would indicate that climate sensitivity in models are set too low, which correspondingly would mean that we have much more warming in store than what the current estimation is.

Finally: WP isn't a debate forum - This isn't the place to discuss global warming, in general, or what the scientific estimation is - that is something that we get from reliable secondary sources that take into account the full picture (as opposed to individual results) - such as the IPCC, US GCRP as well as the new NRC reports. And these are rather clear in their conclusions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And these sources should be sourced accordingly by name in the text of the article. I agree that this is not the place to come to or assert conclusions. It is the place to document the conclusions others have come to, which is best done by properly noting specifically who has come to these conclusions, along with proper citation. WavePart (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the consensus isn't in the peer reviewed literature after all, but only in an arbitrary chosen collection of official reports? In that case, I suggest changing, "There is no substantive debate amongst the scientific community as to whether or not human-made global warming is real," to "There is no substantive debate among official reports as to whether or not human-made global warming is real." Kauffner (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that these are "arbitrary chosen" and "isn't in the peer reviewed literature"? (hint: both are wrong). Assessment reports are peer-reviewed, and i mentioned all of them. Assessment reports do exactly what their name indicates: They assess the literature to determine where current knowledge is - they do not do original research - nor do they make up their conclusions, which stems entirely from the peer-reviewed literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's just go with IPCC. The first and second reports show a clear Medieval Warm Period. In the third one, it's sort of the there and sort of not. Only the fourth report shows a clear hockey stick. The version in the third report must represent a compromise between opposing factions. Even for AR4, the hockey stick graph doesn't match up with the proxies given in the report.[12] This is "consensus" and "no debate"? Kauffner (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Your claim looks very inaccurate, and in what way does that discussion amount to any disagreement that human actions have contributed to global warming? The second review had enough evidence to persuade most countries that the Kyoto protocol was required, the third was the one that showed the famous "hockey stick", AR4 showed it differently but reaching the same conclusion about past temperatures. Your denialist web page (whodunnit?) is contradicted by more recent peer reviewed literature using more than tree ring proxies. . . dave souza, talk 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? What does the MWP have to with whether there is a scholarly debate on humans influencing climate? And please don't answer that, since Wikipedia is not a debate forum. You will have to stay focused on the issue at hand, and not try to move the goalposts somewhere else. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a peer-reviewed journal where there is a debate about global warming. Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for repeating myself, apparently replies part of the way up go unnoticed...) That's a straw man question. "Debate" obviously does not only occur in peer-reviewed journals, and thus you cannot claim "no debate" among a community by looking only at peer-reviewed articles. You can make plenty of OTHER claims by looking at peer-reviewed journals, but "no debate among scientists" is not one of them. You could perhaps even say "No debate in climatology journals", but you certainly can't say "no debate" among scientists, as if the entirety of their lives are constrained to journal article writing. It's just a factually incorrect misrepresentation to state one thing as another in that manner. WavePart (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no scholarly debate at all about whether humans influence climate, there is debate on other issues within climate change, but for that particular one, there is none. Here of course there is the caveat that there (as in all fields) are some individuals who will dispute anything (see WP:FRINGE). This is not limited to the literature - it is simply "inconceivable" from a scientific point of view, to paraphrase Christy again, that we haven't influenced climate. -Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objection there, which I still stand by 100%, and have repeated many times, is on the claim that there is no debate in the scientific community. Communities are made of people, and you cannot make sweeping claims about a body of people based on analysis of a body of literature. That just fails the test of basic logic, which I would prefer if we could uphold here. It would be like saying, "All members of American communities think people should be allowed to have guns" and citing the constitutional amendments as proof, and then arguing that it's a valid statement because the constitution is the supreme law. It doesn't quite work that way. WavePart (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no statement made about all of the community (at least not in any version i've seen). But if you want community responses, then see Scientific opinion on climate change, which cooks down to: No scientific body disputes anthropogenic influences to climate, and all major national and international scientific bodies support the current scientific assessment.

That there is no scholarly debate over whether humans are influencing climate is a simple and accurate statement, which reflects the literature as well as the direct statements from scientific bodies. We can't invent dissent.. Sorry. That would be promoting a WP:FRINGE viewpoint... and stating that there is debate about whether we influence climate is a very fringe viewpoint. Consensus is not unanimity (although it comes extremely close on this particular item of climate change)

You will have to provide evidence of debate if you are going to argue down this road - since otherwise you are trying to get us to prove a negative --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are admitting that there is no proof? Then the claim should be taken out of the article. Does the Christy quote represent peer-reviewed research? Kauffner (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The inability to prove a negative is precisely why you don't write an article which goes out of its way to claim negatives are proven. We should simply write the things we CAN specifically document, for which there are plenty. WavePart (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is documentable. Christy's statement is one of many that does so (and do take into account that Christy is one of the more well-known sceptics). The opinion of the community can be assessed by both assessment reports, but also by the statements from scientific bodies. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So after all this interesting discussion, we still have one editor aggressively editing to keep the phrases "There is no debate amongst the scientific community"[13] (instead of "There is no substantive debate") and "The scientific community agrees that..."[14] (instead of "The scientific community largely agrees that...") in the article. I'm sure this is being done in good faith, but I'm not sure that it reflects a consensus from the discussion above. I would like to establish if there is a consensus for this wording, versus some (any) less absolute statement.

I know there are a thousand other issues that arise from this, but I'd like to have opinions specifically on whether we should say "there is no debate" and "the scientific community agrees" or whether these phrases should be qualified to make them lest absolute. Thparkth (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll go first. I do not support the absolute statements. There is debate, although it is almost entirely not happening in peer-reviewed publications. So let's say "no scholarly debate" or "no debate in scientific journals" instead, since that's apparently what we mean. The scientific community is not 100% in agreement if there is even one dissenter, and there are quite a lot more than that. Let's say "the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that" or words to that effect. Thparkth (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No scholarly debate works well for me. But i have to say that i found the old lede both better and more clear[15] on just about all accounts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree x 100! It was a simple, neutral statement of fact. Thparkth (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning, as long as a single person expresses doubt on anything we must acknowledge that there is a debate. That provides a major concession to fringe theorists like flat-earthers. TFD (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Flat Earth does not contain a statement that "there is no debate about the shape of the Earth" but instead says "the hypothesis of the flat Earth has long been generally dismissed". Thparkth (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the spherical earth theory however does not mention the ongoing debate that the earth may be flat. TFD (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference there is that the spherical Earth article doth not protest too much, and repeat over and over about how there's no debate anymore about the shape of the Earth. It simply states the history of the matter, because the people editing the spherical Earth article are not out to convince anyone of anything. (And I might add, the spherical Earth article is stronger because of it.) We need to also edit THIS article as if we are not out to convince anyone of anything. As a matter of integrity, convincing is not the job of wikipedia. That belongs elsewhere. WavePart (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have it the wrong way 'round. Flat earthers do not exist anymore and do not try to inject fringe theories into that article. But there are plenty of people who try to inject fringe theories into numerous articles. TFD (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect WavePart your edits and reverts have only made the fringe views seems more legitimate. Don't feign the moral high ground by talking about "integrity" and "convincing" when you're efforts only water down the truth that there is no genuine scientific debate in regards to human-made global warming. When we talk about "debate" in the scientific sense we are talking about peer-reviewed studies, not casual discourse at the water cooler. You need to understand this DIFFERENCE.Torontokid2006 (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No they haven't. I encourage you to check carefully. My edits have not supported ANY fringe theories. What I HAVE done, is edit out over-reaction text which goes out of its way to try to counter minority theories that aren't even mentioned in the summary! Attempting too hard to counter political debate in a summary where minority theories aren't even mentioned makes the article introduction sound like propaganda, and that's not what an encyclopedia should be or sound like. The article doth protest too much. WavePart (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly want to leave out fringe views like you keep repeating, then write the article as if they don't exist. (Not as if you are trying to "beat" them somehow.) WavePart (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This talk section has outlived itself. The "no debate" issue has been resolved. In regards to our topic about mentioning controversy and corporate involvement, I've created a new section for us. See ya there! Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT WAR Needs To End

Me and WavePart are currently in an edit war and this thread will hopefully end this once and for all. WavePart, we need to compromise. I have found some really crucial sources that relate to the controversy of global warming and I think they are critical in the lead. Please help me to include this in the article. What is your issue with my sources??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably best to set up an RfC. Forming a compromise between science and pseudoscience would result in a misleading article, implying a parity of validity. TFD (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is an RfC? can you link it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RfC - it will attract other editors who can join the conversation. I will set one up but in several hours. TFD (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Torontokid2006 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in edit warring, nor issue with your sources. If you will note, my most recent edit actually includes all of your sources. I simply have issues with including statements which technically contradict those sources, or with statements which state more than is supported by those sources. WavePart (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote, and post here, the "contradictions" which you speak of. You have drastically reworded the 3rd paragraph therefore the burden of proof is on you to legitimize those edits. Quote the statements in the original edit that contradict with source information. If no contradiction exists we will revert back. And for the record, you are edit warring as you are making serious edits without reaching ANY consensus. Torontokid2006 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already described it an hour ago in the immediately following section. See the comment that begins "The third paragraph in the summary". WavePart (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must be mistaken. You have not QUOTED anything in the following section. You have merely said "the summary now states 'There is no scientific debate' and then in the very next sentence links to an article discussing a peer reviewed publication which is part of a debate between scientists." You have made a claim without proving it. Please prove it now before destroying hours or research and work. Please show actual evidence in the form of quotes from the source and I will respect it whole-heartedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I always thought quote marks around an exact copy of text constituted a "quote". The contradiction is between what I quoted, "There is no scientific debate" and, as I said, the second reference in that paragraph which states "wide debate in the scientific world" and "Climate Research, the small journal that initially published the study". I thought it would be fairly obvious upon actually reading that source. WavePart (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torontokid, you may want to read the 3RR page. I'm pretty sure you had at least 5 full or partial reverts there in the past 24 hours, which is somewhat in excess of the accepted level. (For example, your most recent edit is mostly a revert, not a change.) The goal of editing should be to try to identify a common ground. I have been been attempting to do this, but simply reverting back to your own versions many times a day does not accomplish this (and is highly frowned upon). WavePart (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. Please tell me the name of the article/source. I have been looking for it and I can't find it.

And thank you for the 3R rule. Did not know that. Torontokid2006 (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, second reference, third paragraph. WavePart (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you lying or did you not read the article? In no way, shape, or form does this article [16] lead to any evidence that there is a debate regarding the legitimacy of human-made global warming. The only debate in this article concerned the legitimacy of this flawed study! Please please please please please read it again. I have quoted it for you.

“I have not stood behind the paper by Soon and Baliunas,” Kinne said, according to the Times. “Indeed: the reviewers failed to detect methodological flaws.”

But despite wide debate in the scientific world over the study’s legitimacy, the research has become a hot document in Washington.

According to internal EPA documents leaked to the national media, the Bush administration tried to include references to the study in the agency’s report on the state of the environment."

Earlier the article states, "Four editors have resigned from Climate Research, the small journal that initially published the study. According to The New York Times, even the publisher of the journal, Otto Kinne, has criticized the study."

WavePart I am deeply concerned about your claims and your edits. Please be more responsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid accusations of lying, insults of other editors, and accusations of bad faith, as these are also in violation of wikipedia policy. I will try to pretend you didn't do that, as you have said you are new. WavePart (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using basic parsing of English, I take the text "wide debate in the scientific world over the study's legitimacy" to be in direct contrast to "no scientific debate". One would be hard-pressed to choose more conflicting phrases than these, given that the contents of the Conclusion section of the Willie Soon paper mentioned in that source relate directly to the question at hand. (Please note that if scientific debate exists over a peer reviewed study's legitimacy, then by the literal definition of "debate" that means there are scientists supporting each side, even if one side has an overwhelming support. This by definition rules out absolute statements like "no debate".) I have already agreed there is not a LOT of debate, and if you note I even in a recent edit used the phrase "no substantive scientific debate" taken from Oreskes. But you can't possibly say "no scientific debate" and immediately follow it with a reference describing a scientific debate... That just makes no sense. WavePart (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha you can't be serious..... Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"faulty" research

Hi Thparkth instead of constantly editing the page why don't we decide here first. Personally I think your latest edit "research described as 'methodologically flawed'" makes the sourced article seem like an opinion editorial when it's in fact a published news article. Let's give this source it's true weight. Torontokid2006 (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC) As a tentative compromise can we both agree on the wording, "unreliable research"? Those were the exact words used in the article.Torontokid2006 (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be fine, or alternatively we could quote Michael Mann and call it "deeply flawed". I just think "faulty" is slightly stronger a word than that. Yes, I'm aware that I'm distinguishing between shades of black here ;) Thparkth (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you quoting Michael Mann the most epic director in history? lol I think deeply flawed is good too. You're right. Faulty was never used in the sourced article. Let's go with "deeply flawed" then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph in the summary now states "There is no scientific debate" and then in the very next sentence links to an article discussing a peer reviewed publication which is part of a debate between scientists. That is an unacceptable (and somewhat silly) self-contradiction. That's the problem with stating absolutes like that. There are obvious contradictions, and this makes the statements factually wrong. WavePart (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also add that the Oreskes essay is specifically an analysis of the peer-reviewed literature (according to a keyword search), and should be presented as such for clarity, accuracy, and keeping people informed. WavePart (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are commenting in the wrong section. Please comment in "EDIT WAR Needs To End" which I have created just for you and I. WavePart there is no debate and there is no contradiction. Please refrain from filling this discussion with nonsense.Torontokid2006 (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally responded to the section discussing what I was editing. How about actually reading and responding to the serious points I made there before doing a blanket revert. My edits were done in both the direction of compromise AND adherence to the sources. Your reverting of them does not move in the direction of a consensus article. WavePart (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment in the section above. Thank you. Torontokid2006 (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is clearly titled, "'faulty' research", NOT "no debate". A consensus has been reached and dealt with in regards to the wording of "faulty" research. Again please comment in the section above which has been created just for us. Torontokid2006 (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Two people agreeing on the talk page does not constitute an unchangeable consensus about article contents, as there are far more people than that who contribute here.) One cannot call something "faulty" (a value judgment beyond what the cited source makes) while supporting that statement with a source which describes only a conflict (the title of the source is "Warming Study Draws Fire" not "Warming Study is Faulty"), and which quotes one party as defending the research, and other parties as calling it faulty. You CAN, however, correctly point out the heavy amount of criticism it received, which is what I did. WavePart (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited the article without reading the source. Why would you do that?

The source said:

Professor Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, who testified before the Senate Committee, denounced the study in an interview yesterday.

“Serious scientists will tell you over and over again that this was a deeply flawed study that should never have been published,” Mann said. “Scientifically this study was considered not even worthy of a response. But because it was used politically, to justify policy changes in the administration, people in my field felt they had to speak out.”

You are making edits without consensus. You are editing without reading sources. Please stop this. Torontokid2006 (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I did read the article, and never said that I didn't. It would be fine if the text of the article said, "Mann called the research deeply flawed", as the original source did. This is quite different from "deeply flawed research". The two statements are not equivalent or interchangeable. Proper journalists (like in the reference in question) describe who is saying statements that they quote, and so should encyclopedia editors. WavePart (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. No. While we should discuss and reach agreement, people do not need to stop making all edits until you agree with them, and you should not expect them to or demand that they do. That's not really how wikipedia works. See Wikipedia:Be bold. WavePart (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honest question. Where in wiki policy does it say that I must quantify every statement so that readers know exactly who said what fact? If that is true then I am sorry but I don't believe that is the policy. It would be very cumbersome and deadly boring to read. I think it's find to say the research was "deeply flawed" followed by a citation. You're right that the wiki principle is to be bold but please be polite. I have spent many many hours researching the topic and editing the page. It would be nice to at least get a heads-up if you were thinking about erasing all of that. Not that I am attached to my work but it does hurt when someone comes along and gives absolutely no credit to your honest efforts and simply presses the delete button. You and I definitely need to discuss more and edit less. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to it being common practice in citing, it is described explicitly on the NPOV page. See the text, "An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides." You are in contradiction to this because you are presenting sources which describe a conflict, and then presenting one side of the contents of the source without attribution. Even if it IS a fact, that's not the NPOV way to present it. As the NPOV page says, you simply have to explain "who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common". There seems to be no debate here among us about who believes what, why, and which points of view are most common, so if you would agree to edit in that manner according to policy we would probably be done pretty quickly. WavePart (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPOV, specifically the WP:WEIGHT section, "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all..... Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Scientists opposed to the mainstream view are such a tiny minority as to fall under the WP:FRINGE guideline, and in many cases those opposing specific majority views still acknowledge that human activies add to global warming, and are significant. . . dave souza, talk 08:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do acknowledge you have spent time researching this topic and editing the page. It turns out I have also. These are frequent points of discussion which are talked about here in numbers 8 and 9 of a list of approaches we should avoid taking to articles. (A certain type of approach is needed to prosper in a collaborative editing environment.) WavePart (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleased to see the polemic taken out after my original comment. I'm less pleased to see it put back in. At the risk of repeating what others have said, it is not "According to a number of news reports" that oil companies have published "deeply flawed" studies. It is according to Michael Mann, who has been quoted, which is a different matter entirely. Before last week there was absolutely no mention anywhere at all of the adverse influence of oil companies in this article, which presumably means it wasn't considered very important to an article which is essentially about science. Now it's suddenly in the intro, given priority above things like the evidence for global warming, but with no attempt to expand it in the rest of the article. The extent to which oil companies have influenced public opinion is extremely controversial. I would assume media commentators who have no relationship with such businesses have far more effect on this. Why is this being dealt with so superficially? Why is no attempt made to assert the importance of this to the subject of global warming as a whole? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: how should opposition to the theory of global warming be described?

There is a discussion at Global warming about how to describe opposition to the theory. Outside advice would be appreciated. TFD (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's to be included in the intro: the nature of the oposition (public opinion, media, possibly a limited number of non-peer reviewed scietists) and its extent can be rather dispassionately and concisely described. It should be balanced by a note about the extent of scientific agreement ("the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists... is incorrect" is not the same as "no scientific debate"). The current wording is too absolute for my liking. I would avoid sinister theories about oil companies bribing people. Certainly, they pay lobbyists. I doubt they drive public scepticism and their role may be marginal. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this talk page it has become evident certain editors misunderstand/misrepresent the scientific method. The demand for "absolute" proof for X is a silly one. There are no absolutes. However, when the overwhelming majority of scientist (no not vox populi or other non-experts) declare something as scientific fact this essentially means there is "no debate." To include the emotio-political-driven hysterics as sciemntific "debate" is disingenious at best. Also, even if we find one scintist opposing a certain theory this does not a "debate" make. In science we only speak of "debate" when something is discussed through the appropriate scientific channels. A friday evening exchange of opininion during happy hour does not count.

Other denialist-movements are not given that much space: AIDS denialism, vaccine controversy, Flat earth, Intelligent Design.

In short, mention the absence of scientific debate.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is the main article on the science, not an article about the debate, so all that is necessary is to indicate in one sentence that the phenomenon is no longer a subject of scientific debate (although of course many details are still being debated). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is no longer a subject of scientific debate then why are the royal society preparing a statement saying the debate is far from over? mark nutley (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact they are not. Read their announcement first hand. TFD (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are, please read Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism and The Royal Society is to issue an official guide on climate change to better reflect the uncertainties around the science. mark nutley (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand. There is no scientific uncertainty that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the globe and is caused by man. The Royal Society is not about to dispute that. There are other uncertainties - about timelines, how much the ocean will rise, and what not. The Royal Soceity will likley comment on that. Your ability to divine what the Royal Society may do in the future is not reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even for articles on a non-science subject WP:RS doesn't exclude non-peer-reviewed sources, indeed there are several within the footnotes of this article. The term "scientific debate" doesn't necessarilly mean only inconsistency in the peer-reviewed literature. For example, a published letter to the editor of a scientific journal would surely count as scientific debate but would not be part of the Oreskes study. What the abstract says, and what the article should therefore say is: "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC". That's a substantial part of the scientific debate but not all of it and there simply isn't a reliable source to support the idea that there's "no debate". --188.221.105.68 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I would question the use of the phrase "recent analysis" to describe a report that must have been completed at the beginning of 2004. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we get the graphs redone? Reconstructed Temperature uses Mike Mann's famous "Nature trick" of hiding inconvenient data behind a big, thick black line. Here is graph of the same data presented in a less partisan way. Kauffner (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chart you call "less partisan" is the hockey stick graph and is taken from the article "Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong". The "Reconstructed Temperature" graph is a composite of data from 10 sources, including Mann's hockey-stick, which was invented in 1998, and is graphed in blue. The black line is based on later research. TFD (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the second New Scientist graph, which a multi-line graph and uses data similar to the "Reconstructed Temperature" graph. The black line on "Reconstructed Temperature" is instrumental data. Instrumental data is from weather stations and reconstructed data is from ice cores, tree rings, and ocean sediments. So it is misleading to put instrumental data on a graph labeled "reconstructed data." By making the instrumental data line thicker and darker than any of the others, the graph lends itself to the type of misreading above, i.e. the idea the instrumental data represents "later research" or an update of the reconstructed data. Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since WavePart has now been blocked,[17] as the nominator I am closing this RfC. If anyone disagrees, they may relist the RfC. TFD (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those oil companies

I've no objection to the closing of the RfC and I think "overwhelming consensus" is a very good summary. As yet there's been little discussion of the sentence about the role of oil companies that was recently added. If the intro is going to contain discussion about the reasons for public scepticism, and I'm not sure it's necessary, it needs to be a balanced one. Other possible reasons include media scepticism, a general public antipathy towards scare stories, recent events at the University of East Anglia, some very noisy dissent from a number of scientists outside the peer review process and a lack of public understanding. Clearly there isn't room for all that but I don't understand by what criteria these oil companies are singled out. The impression given is that the article was written by somebody who doesn't like oil companies. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mr./Ms. 188. This is not all down to the oil companies, and to say so represents a complicated dialectic in an over-simplified way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it shouldn't be in the lede, the lede should summarize the article, and the sentence on oil-companies is undue focus on only a very small part of the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To single out the oil companies for blame suggests that without them John Q. Consumer would be only too happy to give up his car, cut himself off from the electric grid, and climb up to his roof to clean his solar panels on a daily basis. To be perfectly honest, I consider even the worst-case global warming scenario preferable to living a world run by people with the totalitarian "no debate" mindset several editors express above. What kind of person could rise to the top in such a world? Not anyone with the imagination to deal with the challenge of the unexpected. Kauffner (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main opposition to global warming science comes from oil companies, who have funded public relations campaigns, funded studies and lobbied politicians. While other fringe views have become popular without this type of support, they rarely have the same poltical influence. Of course scepticism is probably strongest among people who consume a lot of energy. TFD (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This tired old propaganda doesn't contribute to the discussion. Where have you been the past 10 years? Dikstr (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your position and avoid personal attacks. TFD (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. The main opposition who is funding hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to sway public and political opinion is in fact the oil industry. Please post a source that confirms your belief that the oil industry is only a small factor in the reason for so much public debate these days. It would help your argument greatly if you could show some evidence for strong grassroots organizations that have formed in opposition to the global scientific consensus. Additionally, you say that media skepitcism plays a role. But who has fueled that skepticism? Oh right, it's the oil industry again with its millions of dollars spent on making deeply flawed studies and documentaries. Look people, there's no mystery here. The oil industry will lose it's shirt if everyone starts cutting back on emissions. They are doing what any industry would do. Trying to save its bacon. Look again at the sources, they speak for themselves.Torontokid2006 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say that a fringe view is popular is a contradiction in terms. Pew asked Americans to prioritize 20 political topics and global warming was dead last.[18] If you actually believed the claims put forward by IPCC so forth, wouldn't this be a higher priority than say, lobbyists? Seventy percent of Americans goes way beyond "people who consume a lot of energy." Kauffner (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fringe scientific view can be a popular belief with the public (ie. vaccine conspiracy, creationism, sex with virgins cure aids).

In regards to your pew survey, there are infinite ways we could interpret the results, so be careful when looking at surveys and thinking that your analysis is the most appropriate one. Unfortunately, a survey does not explain why fewer people (38% is still a lot!) think Global Warming is a "top priority". Well one of the reasons is obvious. The US economy is crippled. Why did that happen again? Oh yeah, the sub-prime mortgage bubble popped [[19]] and took many the major US banks with it(along with the Auto sector and the whole world!!!). Shockingly (note sarcasm) it was corporate de-regulation that was the root of the problem. So of course the public is more worried about jobs and the economy. How can average people put Global Warming at the top of the list when they might not have a house to live in or a dinner to eat next week? Surveys are valuable sources for information but they lack explanation and causal statements. For all we know the public may view Global Warming as such a low priority simply because the public relations campaigns (funded by big oil) worked! Who knows? We can't tell from such undescriptive surveys.Torontokid2006 (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". The popularity among laymen has nothing to do with it. By the way, the US leads the world in warming scepticism. A 2007 poll for example found that only 2% of Canadians did not believe global warming was happening, although 12% doubted the science.[20] BTW I do not "actually believe the claims put forward by IPCC". Science is not about belief. And yes more than 70% of Americans do consume a lot of energy. Energy consumption is almost twice as high as Western Europe and 10 times higher than most third world countries.[21] TFD (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a blockbuster admission. You don't actually believe in global warming yourself. In other words, its a myth of metals for the yahoos. A means to end. Perhaps a way to create a totalitarian state under which there will be no debate. Kauffner (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Science is not about belief, it is about forming theories that accurately predict future events. The proper sphere for belief is religion and values. Unfortunately people confuse these vastly different subjects. TFD (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So scientists don't believe or disbelieve anything, they just stoically forge ahead and record the data? It strikes me as a quasi-religious view of science where the practitioners develop their emotional detachment in the manner of Zen monks. How do you fit into any of this? I've read your posts, you know. I know you are not some kind of detached uber-science guru. Kauffner (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's Kauffner's belief that we all work towards a totalitarian world dictatorship! ;-) On a more serious note, common usage, if arguably incorrect, would support the claim that "I believe in AGW", even if formally "I recognize AGW as a well-supported and in its core very robust scientific theory that currently has no credible alternative and is unlikely to be overturned". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still stress testing the design, but I am confident I have a barricade that can stop the green juggernaut before it can deploy its giant solar panels to crush the last nuclear power plant. Kauffner (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer's Hammer is not a prophetic work! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power does not cause global warming and US conservatives mention this when they demand massive government support and exemption from lawsuits for the industry. TFD (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Toronto and TFD, regarding assertions like "The main opposition who is funding hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to sway public and political opinion is in fact the oil industry." I never said I believed the oil industry is only a small factor. I said there are other possible reasons. With respect, it is not necessary for me to prove that oil industry lobbying is a less important factor. It is for you to provide strong evidence that this is the one overwhelming reason for scepticism. So far I see evidence that the oil industry is carrying out expensive lobbying but not that it is "the main opposition". Frankly, the singling out of oil money seems arbitrary. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific opinion changes as new evidence is received. In the 1970s climate scientists saw evidence of both global warming and cooling, but later observation showed that warming would have a greater effect and they have continually modified their predictions. Someone who "believed in" global warming would derive their belief from ideology or religious texts and then selectively use evidence to validate their belief. That of course is what climate change deniers are doing and what they accuse scientists of doing. Re: Oil. Whether or not there are other reasons for climate change denial, e.g., Americans love SUVs, the challenges to global warming science are coming from reports funded by the oil industry. TFD (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's odd that Kauffner seems to equate the lack of scientific debate on this issue with totalitarianism. There are plenty of other areas of science no longer in question. PrBeacon (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the challenges to global warming science come from blogs, the media and dissenting scientists. Certainly, oil companies account for a proportion of the funding in some of those categories but it is only a proportion. You may believe that the likes of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are being funded by "big oil". I don't and I've never seen any suggestion that this is the case. To say that the oil companies are driving all this is simplistic and obsessive. The problem with mentioning this in the intro is the peculiar priorities it shows: the first mention of coal, oil and fossil fuels comes three screens down. The possibility of reducing emissions is dealt with in fewer than 50 words. As for green taxes, carbon trading, offsetting, there's nothing. How can a superficial polemic about the oil industry possibly be justified in an intro that omits far more relevant information? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The challenges to global warming science are coming from reports funded by the oil industry is too sweeping. The oil industry has played a role, but the issue is far more complex. Much of the opposition comes from libertarian groups, with the logic being roughly "we're opposed to government interference in the economy; solutions to global warming will almost certainly require government interference in the economy; so we have to convince people that global warming is not a problem." They are mostly driven by their larger worldview, not oil company funding. Naomi Oreskes has discussed this to some extent as have a few other academic sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, I've no objection to the inclusion of this information. It's just that its location in the intro makes anything but the most superficial treatment impossible and makes generalisations like this inevitable. Besides, I think that we all agree that these reports are pretty irrelevant to the science. So why are we writing about it so prominently? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

188.221.105.68 you said, "the challenges to global warming science come from blogs, the media and dissenting scientists. Certainly, oil companies account for a proportion of the funding in some of those categories but it is only a proportion." Although I like the fact that we agree that the oil companies have a hand in influencing all these channcels of communication, what bothers me is your lack of evidence towards the ACTUAL proportion of those funds. For all we know the oil industry could be the sole contributer to agencies like The Heritage Foundation (that received $3.3 million from Koch Industries). The fact is the any way you cut it, the oil industry is the largest contributer to climate change denial. That's a fact. If you can find larger contributors to climate change denial please do so. Torontokid2006 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the libertarian reference. Energy is the most subsidized industry in the US, both directly and indirectly. TFD (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a recovered L. Neil Smith Galatin-world libertarian (I was young and needed the money ;-), there is a fairly large group for whom "libertarian" means "don't give money to things I don't use, don't tax me, leave me alone when I beat my children, but feel free to tax others to support my accustomed lifestyle to which I have an inborn right". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the logic of libertarianism. What I do not understand is how an economy based on massive subsidies of energy and agriculture, that restricts free trade and where the government controls the economy is somehow libertarian. American "libertarians" argue that the government should pay for nuclear reactors, while real libertarians would let free enterpise build them and allow Americans to decide whether or not they wanted to pay for them. Somehow all of this is connected to "national security". Basicly, a libertarian is someone who was competitive enough to win a government contract. TFD (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tookout the section on oil companies. It is a subset of politics. It doesn't belong William M. Connolley (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove huge pieces of sourced material without at least a heads-up or some sort of reasonable explanation. Please let the community decide what belongs and what doesn't. I'm putting it back up as it is a natural follow up to the lead. I am following WP:Style of internal consistency. Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with WMC. For a very long time, this article has concentrated on the physical phenomenon, and other aspects have been mentioned only briefly, with fuller treatment in sub-articles like Politics of global warming and global warming controversy. This has been very positively mentioned by external reviewers, so I would not give this up without very good reasons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it fits perfectly there. Look how that section touches on "public opinion", "political opinion" and "other views" (basically fringe theory). This article is missing the HUGE element which is "corporate opinion". It is finally included and very important for this article. I agree it shouldn't be too long though. Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems most are in favour of removing the line, which doesn't fit. I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning Toronto: I don't have evidence that oil companies aren't the overwhelming driver of public opinion therefore you are entitled to put something in that suggests they are??? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Oil influence

Hold on there, anon#188. Most want it out? apparently you're basing this conclusion on the current thread. But have you gone through the archives thoroughly? Even a quick search for "oil" and review of the results for easy hits like 'oil company/companies,' 'oil industry' 'oil money' brings up lots of discussion: archive 3, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 37, 41, 42, 56, 57, 58 -- a partial list not counting related threads on lobbying, politics, etc (btw, one could also check the index for thread topics to see which generated the most replies). Past discussion should factor into any decision about content and especially about the lead/introduction.

I also disagree with what some editors seem to be arguing about the scope of this article being limited to the science of GW. I think that the lead for this article should indeed cover the politics and controversy, especially the oil industry's influence. The body text already contains the section Views and reactions with subsections Oil industry reaction, Politics, Public opinion, and Other views, with links to (related) Main articles Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming. So the lead should represent those accordingly as a part of the entire issue. And to your question of evidence: just because you don't have it (or see it) doesn't mean it's not there. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying there's a clear majority in favour of removing this because there is. If you want to write about the oil industry funding "deeply flawed reasearch" there is, as you point out, a section ready. How do you justify the current wording in the light of the very clear guideline in WP:LEAD that "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"? "just because you don't have it (or see it) doesn't mean it's not there." Again, it's not for me to provide evidence to back up your unsupported claims. If you have evidence that the oil industry is the overwhelming cause of scepticism, as TK apparently believes, I suggest you provide it. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with removing it, IP. If you want to claim that the majority is on your side, then you should poll the other editors. TFD (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that there was a majority, really. And there is. I'm not suggesting that this be decided by a poll. It just seems that a good lead was spoilt by some very eccentric additions about (among other things) curious parallels with tobacco companies, and that although this has mostly been reverted one part still remains. A question, and I don't mean this rhetorically, I want to understand. Is the reason for including this that you believe that the single overwhelming reason for scepticism is oil industry money? Or is there some other factor that makes this especially notable? And how can you be sure that you're right, I mean there are different views about this aren't there, why write about the oil industry to the exclusion of all other factors that may cause public scepticism? Have their been studies that have tried to assess the importance of oil money? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since you are challenging the material, the burden is indeed upon you to provide sources to your counterclaims. Apparently you're not satisfied with the four citations given in the lead as well as others in the body text and subarticles (notably the first paragraph of Global warming controversy#Political pressure on scientists). Its not difficult to find more specific sources -- here's another Guardian piece with explicit reference to oil lobby influence on U.S. policy: "Ex-oil lobbyist watered down US climate research" --"A former oil industry lobbyist edited the Bush administration's official policy papers on climate change to play down the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, it was reported yesterday. ... Mr Cooney's influence on White House policy went further than manipulating documents, describing him as a 'gatekeeper' for White House policymaking on climate change, helping to determine whose views were heard. ..." (my emphasis in bold) Indeed, perhaps the summary section in the GW article needs to be improved to better reflect the subarticle on GW controversy. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I am not saying that "the single overwhelming reason for scepticism is oil industry money", merely that "some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns and deeply flawed research studies intended to discredit the global scientific consensus". If you know of other groups that are funding research at this level, then please provide sources. TFD (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PrBeacon, actually I am not challenging the material only its relative importance and the sense in placing it so prominently. Again, it is for you to demonstrate this. TFD, I don't agree that a director of Greenpeace accusing George Bush of having an oil company acting as his "gatekeeper" can be considered entirely dispassionate. I also doubt that levels of funding are the best way of assessing importance (it's the blogs and newpapers that people are reading not the flawed reasearch) and while you may believe that the one factor that makes global warming different from other "conspiracy theories" is funding and that this must be the reason for public doubt (I think that is your argument) that is your own synthesis, not a fact. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very interesting that 188.221.105.68 and William M. Connolley always object to the mentioning of big oil and it's very known funding of climate skepticism and denial. Why are you folks so bent on cencorship? Why can you never provide sources for your claims that "other forces" are more powerful in climate denial while merely trying to delete the sources you dislike? why why why?????? Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by TK

I feel that many of these edits are not improving the article - indeed, instead of becoming "easier to read", it becomes imprecise and ambiguous. And the replacement of clear dates and references ("a recent report", "sometime in the next 90 years") violate Wikipedia:MOS#Chronological_items. Please slow down and find substantial consensus for substantial changes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was thinking the same thing. Next 90 years is not as good as "by the year 2100". Thanks for the feedback :)Torontokid2006 (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that I'm making "substantial change" as you call it. I am simply taking the level of vocabulary down a notch so it's easier to read for all people. Not everyone can read at a university level. Honestly, when I first saw this page I thought it pretty hard to understand and I have several degrees. :/ ... Again I must explain that my edits intend on making this article more accessible not less precise. Take notice that I've simply replaced all the scientific/hard words with easier to comprehend words. I think it's a lot easier to read now. Thanks for your concern.Torontokid2006 (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. simple:global warming is where we try to keep things on a very simple language level. But "increase in the average level of temperature" is well within the level of language we expect people to understand. And you replaced e.g. "increase in surface temperature", which has a well-defined meaning, with "world's surface warmed", which does not and is quite probably wrong (e.g. the surface of glaciers is never above 0 centigrade, even if the air above it is). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The change from "scientific consensus", marked as "easier to read" diff, was also clearly problematic. Due to these concerns, and the fact it made the article harder to read, I have reversed the dumbing down. Verbal chat 11:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making the article easier to read is good. Unfortunately the rewriting has tended to make the material too vague, and has even introduced factual errors. We ought to be able to make the article easier to read while maintaining accuracy and clarity. This is easier to by making incremental changes (say, one subsection at a time) rather than large rewrites. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. TK is over enthusiastic. The oil industry stuff has to go, too. It is far far too big, and inappropriate, and there is no obvious reason why it should go at the start of the "oinion" section anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was right for you folks to revert my changes. I think you could have just made my changes better-that is the purpose of this project to make articles BETTER. I will probably undo your reverts but I do appreciate your feedback, Boris. I think you are correct that some of my changes led to errors which I will not do again. Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William, why does the oil industry stuff have to go? There is not much mention of the oil industry in this article and they are a major player in discussions regarding global warming. Some edits should be made with maybe some of the wording but it brings a new perspective that deserves to be mentioned. It should stay.Ajoe6pack (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William, I completely disagree. There is no reason why such critical information (oil funding) should be left out. Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I accept that many Americans hold irrational views (9/11 was an inside job and the moon landing was faked), the global warming conspiracy theory is the only one that has substantial corporate sponsorship. TFD (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If people insist on saying that oil companys have given donations to groups then it follows that we should also say how much taxpayers cash is spent on AGW propaganda on a yearly basis. And how much taxpayers cash is given to research AGW. That sounds like a reasonable balance to me, what do you guys think? mark nutley (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the balance comes from explaining why public perception (and policy) is muddled and misleading. Nonetheless, if you have neutral RS(s) about taxpayer funded propaganda then please provide links. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added tags

There is no longer any scholarly debate on this issue.[clarific] The scientific consensus is that human-caused global warming is real.[6][7][clarific] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues.[clarif][improper synthesis] Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10][pov-statement] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[pov-statement]

I think this paragraph is more something you'd expect to find on the Greenpeace website rather than on an encyclopedia.

There is no longer any scholarly debate on this issue.

What issue to do with global warming are we talking about?

Nevertheless, political and public debate continues.

I have a two criticisms of this sentence. Firstly, while there may be a broad scientific consensus about human-induced warming, the issue of possible policy responses is not purely a scientific question. This sentence does not specify what "debate" is about. If it is about purely scientific questions (e.g., the value of the climate sensitivity), then it should say so. If it isn't, i.e., it refers to debate over policy, then it should not imply that scientific consensus favours a particular climate change policy. My separation of "scientific" and "policy" views, is, of course, a simplification to some degree. This is because scientific confidence levels in this field have important policy implications.

Secondly, as I've stated previously, saying that there is "debate" is a fairly vacuous statement. Debate over science and policy issues will always exist. What matters is (a) what the opposing viewpoints are, (b) how important these differing viewpoints are, and (c) who supports these differing viewpoints.

Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10][pov-statement] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[pov-statement]

This is an exceedingly weak sentence, and is clearly POV. This article should present information in an objective and neutral fashion. This sentence fails to do this. It is an analysis of oil companies intentions. Analysis should not be included unless that analysis is explicitly attributed to a particular source. It is not appropriate for the article to implicitly be aligned with a particular source. This is unless that source represents a consensus view, e.g., as supported by science academy statements or authorative scientific assessments.

I would prefer that the paragraph I've highlighted be removed entirely. It should not be included in the intro. The intro should present the most important and strongest points to do with the article's subject. It should not be used as a way of favouring particular viewpoints which do not necessarily represent a consensus view.

Views section

I've added neutrality and undue weight tags to this section. It is entirely inappropriate for this section to place so much weight on particular viewpoints. It is basically advocating particular policy viewpoints, and places undue weight on views in rich countries, solely focussing on the US.

Bias

Implicitly, the section attempts to convince the reader that inaction on climate change can be blamed on oil companies. This is biased in several ways:

1. It assumes that people agree with criticisms of these organizations. This is done implicitly in the way that criticisms are not explicitly attributed to any sources.

For example:

Source X has linked efforts to avoid regulation of emissions to the activities of oil companies

That would be acceptable, since the article is not aligning itself to source X. Rather, source X is cited since some editor believes that source X's views are important in some way.

2. The section promotes a particular interpretation of oil companies and related companies. It is implied that their activities are wrong.

To put it differently, it is assumed that the reader agrees with the interpretation of the activities of these oil companies which an editor has put forward. This is unacceptable. The article should be neutral with respect to different points-of-view. It is not acceptable for the article to implicitly align itself with criticisms of oil companies.

3. The section places undue weight on certain viewpoints

The views presented are entirely US-based. This is unacceptable. The article's title is global warming. It is not "US views on global warming." Therefore attention should be paid to maintaining a even and balanced coverage of all world views. Disproportionate weight should not be placed on views that are US-based.

Disproportionate weight is placed on the views of Oreskes. There are lots of publications on global warming. It is unacceptable for this article to cite one book over all others. A balanced treatment would cover all publications in all countries, and not just one book.

Split-up

Due to the excessive length of this article, focus should be on quality and importance. Popular books are important, but are less important than the scientific literature. Popular books are also less important that the views of particular countries and important organizations.

The issue over split-up is also clearly related to my points above on bias. If you were to offer an overview of the popular publications on climate change, it would require an expansion of an already over-long article. Also, to counter bias towards US-views, you'd need to give a proportionate amount of space to views in other countries.

To sum up, my view is that all of this content should be removed. It can be put in a sub-article. Efforts should be made to cover all views, and that includes views of those outside of the US, i.e., international viewpoints. Neutrality should also be maintained with respect to national viewpoints. On both of these counts, the existing section fails completely. Enescot (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this entire section is redundant as many editors have already weighed in on this topic in previous discussion sections. Please read above so you may catch up on the debate.

Look above and you'll notice that we have even opened an WP:RfC just to discuss the points in question. Unfortunately you have misquoted the said sentence which raises some concerns about your accuracy or intention. Please be more careful when quoting the sentences you have issues with so you do not mislead other editors. You wrote: There is no longer any scholarly debate on this issue.[clarific] The scientific consensus is that human-caused global warming is real.[6][7][clarific] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues.[clarif][improper synthesis] Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10][pov-statement] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[pov-statement]. This is incorrect.

The current 3rd paragraph of the lead says, "There is no longer any scholarly debate in regards to the legitimacy of human-caused global warming. The scientific consensus states that this phenomenon is real and happening today. Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns and deeply flawed research studies intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.

As you can see the first sentence is totally legitimate as it states clearly that it is "in regards to the legitimacy of human-caused global warming" and NOT what you're insinuating (ie. in regards to political action on the issue). Thank you for your concern and comments but please be more careful next time. Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enescot, you are currently disrupting this article by making it appear as if the paragraph in question was formed out of haste or "Greenpeace" agenda. This ridiculous and frankly insulting. If you took the time to read the reams of discussion that has occurred in the last week you will notice that the sources are reliable and communicated appropriately in the lead. I will remove the citation needed templates you have unilaterally placed in the lead until you have sufficient evidence for doing so. So far I do not see any compelling reason for you to have them up. Until you posted this section no other editor had used citation needed templates. Please stop your misleading and disruptive edits. Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enescot`s points raised are valid, and you do not ned consensus to add tags to an article, please wp:agf and do not accuse other editors of disruptive behaviour mark nutley (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are no longer living in the Dark ages where scientific theory is questioned. Tags should only be added if it becomes apparent that there is a dispute. TFD (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are Enescot's points invalid, they are insulting to everyone who has spent hours and hours debating the issue in the sections above. Please take a bit of time to review the recent discussions including the WP:RfC, "RfC:how should opposition to the theory of global warming be described?" Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD your right we no longer live in the dark ages, which is why everything can and should be questioned, the removal of tags breaks policy do not do so again. There is still debate to say there is not is pov pushing, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years Siegfried Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery just two scholars who debate it, there are plenty more mark nutley (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not taken the time to read the recent debate just a couple paragraphs above this one. I will post it for you.

1."Reading this talk page it has become evident certain editors misunderstand/misrepresent the scientific method. The demand for "absolute" proof for X is a silly one. There are no absolutes. However, when the overwhelming majority of scientist (no not vox populi or other non-experts) declare something as scientific fact this essentially means there is "no debate." To include the emotio-political-driven hysterics as sciemntific "debate" is disingenious at best. Also, even if we find one scintist opposing a certain theory this does not a "debate" make. In science we only speak of "debate" when something is discussed through the appropriate scientific channels. A friday evening exchange of opininion during happy hour does not count.

Other denialist-movements are not given that much space: AIDS denialism, vaccine controversy, Flat earth, Intelligent Design.

In short, mention the absence of scientific debate.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

2. (Sorry for repeating myself, apparently replies part of the way up go unnoticed...) That's a straw man question. "Debate" obviously does not only occur in peer-reviewed journals, and thus you cannot claim "no debate" among a community by looking only at peer-reviewed articles. You can make plenty of OTHER claims by looking at peer-reviewed journals, but "no debate among scientists" is not one of them. You could perhaps even say "No debate in climatology journals", but you certainly can't say "no debate" among scientists, as if the entirety of their lives are constrained to journal article writing. It's just a factually incorrect misrepresentation to state one thing as another in that manner. WavePart (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but there is no scholarly debate at all about whether humans influence climate, there is debate on other issues within climate change, but for that particular one, there is none. Here of course there is the caveat that there (as in all fields) are some individuals who will dispute anything (see WP:FRINGE). This is not limited to the literature - it is simply "inconceivable" from a scientific point of view, to paraphrase Christy again, that we haven't influenced climate. -Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC) My objection there, which I still stand by 100%, and have repeated many times, is on the claim that there is no debate in the scientific community. Communities are made of people, and you cannot make sweeping claims about a body of people based on analysis of a body of literature. That just fails the test of basic logic, which I would prefer if we could uphold here. It would be like saying, "All members of American communities think people should be allowed to have guns" and citing the constitutional amendments as proof, and then arguing that it's a valid statement because the constitution is the supreme law. It doesn't quite work that way. WavePart (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC) There is no statement made about all of the community (at least not in any version i've seen). But if you want community responses, then see Scientific opinion on climate change, which cooks down to: No scientific body disputes anthropogenic influences to climate, and all major national and international scientific bodies support the current scientific assessment. That there is no scholarly debate over whether humans are influencing climate is a simple and accurate statement, which reflects the literature as well as the direct statements from scientific bodies. We can't invent dissent.. Sorry. That would be promoting a WP:FRINGE viewpoint... and stating that there is debate about whether we influence climate is a very fringe viewpoint. Consensus is not unanimity (although it comes extremely close on this particular item of climate change) You will have to provide evidence of debate if you are going to argue down this road - since otherwise you are trying to get us to prove a negative --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC) So you are admitting that there is no proof? Then the claim should be taken out of the article. Does the Christy quote represent peer-reviewed research? Kauffner (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) The inability to prove a negative is precisely why you don't write an article which goes out of its way to claim negatives are proven. We should simply write the things we CAN specifically document, for which there are plenty. WavePart (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC) It is documentable. Christy's statement is one of many that does so (and do take into account that Christy is one of the more well-known sceptics). The opinion of the community can be assessed by both assessment reports, but also by the statements from scientific bodies. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC) So after all this interesting discussion, we still have one editor aggressively editing to keep the phrases "There is no debate amongst the scientific community"[25] (instead of "There is no substantive debate") and "The scientific community agrees that..."[26] (instead of "The scientific community largely agrees that...") in the article. I'm sure this is being done in good faith, but I'm not sure that it reflects a consensus from the discussion above. I would like to establish if there is a consensus for this wording, versus some (any) less absolute statement.

I know there are a thousand other issues that arise from this, but I'd like to have opinions specifically on whether we should say "there is no debate" and "the scientific community agrees" or whether these phrases should be qualified to make them lest absolute. Thparkth (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And I'll go first. I do not support the absolute statements. There is debate, although it is almost entirely not happening in peer-reviewed publications. So let's say "no scholarly debate" or "no debate in scientific journals" instead, since that's apparently what we mean. The scientific community is not 100% in agreement if there is even one dissenter, and there are quite a lot more than that. Let's say "the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that" or words to that effect. Thparkth (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit warring to remove tags is disturbing, i do not care about what you just posted, the simple fact is there is still debate over the cause of the modern warming, so to say there is not is pov pushing, you are also on about 5 reverts now on this article, self revert your removal of the tags or i will have no option but to file an enforcement request mark nutley (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed the letter and spirit of wikipedia principles. At least 2 of those reverts were for a user that was vandalizing the page. In terms of edit warring I'm quite sure that you are the guilty one. I am defending the quality of article by looking at the discussion and consensus. Something you have not done. Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you are not and sadly left me with no option but to file an RFE. I am not edit warring as i only did one revert here, you are now on about 6. The simple fact is the statements are pure POV pushing and as such your removal of the tags is not on mark nutley (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what's sad is that these discussions go round & round and editors create new sections with overlong posts and replies, instead of orderly contributing to existing threads. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wiki policy to deter this?? If it does please share this awesome policy!!!Torontokid2006 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is. I was a Wikipedia contributor for several years. The only AGW-related edits I ever made were to technical, statistical areas, about which I've had some professional contact. In controversial articles like this, usually sensible compromise proposals get lost in dissembling and dense circularity and the "consensus" is just a matter of luck. In the end, it didn't seem I was doing much good and it got rather boring. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are guidelines like Be concise and Read the archives but some folks apparently see them as optional. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I did check the archives but what I saw was a muddle of conflicting viewpoints with very little sign of "consensus". Also, they aren't really that relevant here. They would be if I were asking for the rewording of a carefully agreed consensus intro but I'm actually talking about an something that was written about a week ago to satisfy the whim of one person. It's too recent to be archived. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely unhappy that my templates and tags have been removed. My impression was that you could add tags to an article provided that you gave a reason. I did give a reason, which has been ignored. The fact that the issue has been debated among editors here is frankly of no interest to me. Other editors may think that the views presented on oil companies in the article are unbiased. I think this is a poor reflection on the objectivity and judgement of these editors.

The main issue to do with climate change is in assessing the costs and benefits of climate policy. One cost is that faced by energy-intensive industries. To try and make out that this is the only consideration of policymakers is basically a conspiracy theory. If true, we wouldn't have the UNFCCC, or individual countries implementing aggressive policies to reduce emissions.

You also wouldn't have had developing countries pressing developed countries to reduce emissions significantly. If the malign influence of oil companies was so bad, they would presumably not be at all concerned about climate change. It would also be inconsistent with the actions of most countries in approving the various IPCC assessments.

In terms of the popular literature on climate change, I see no justification for concentrating on Oreskes' work over other authors. Ignoring international views (works by Chinese or Indian writers, for example), you could possibly cite Bjorn Lomborg's work on climate change, or Pilmer's or Singer's. A balanced overview of the popular literature in English-speaking countries would include mention of such viewpoints. Choosing Oreskes' analysis over these other viewpoints strikes me as blatant political and literary bias. Enescot (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected

Protected for 24 hours due to the current outbreak of revert warring. {{editprotected}} can be used to request consensus edits until the protection expires. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 08:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus?

RE this edit by Torontokid2006 with the edit summary Kenosis - Please see the talkpage section: "RfC how should opposition to the theory of global warming be described?" a consensus had been reached by RfC!:
I don't see much consensus for anything here at the present, and certainly not for poor writing (see the content). Looking at the supposed "RfC" in the brief section above on this talk page, and at the sections that follow leading up to here, it looks to me like there's not consensus for using Oreskes' study as a basis to prominently and absolutely state in the article lead that there's no longer any scholarly debate about the reality of anthropogenic global warming. The fact is that the remaining scholarly debate is at the margins--an extreme position --but it's simply not quite true at this particular time that there's no longer any scholarly debate. As a matter of fact, we've needed to deal with some of that scholarly debate very recently right here in this article with respect to Nicola Scafetta's very debatable published work which implies that other factors could account for most or even all of observed warming in the 20th Century. And of course there's the ongoing advocacy positions of Fred Seitz, Fred Singer and Bill Nierenberg, and other occasional scientists and academics who take a contra position to the scientific mainstream. Then of course there's the pseudoscientific approaches taken by Christopher Monckton and others similiarly disposed.
..... What Orekes' study serves to do is to help document the strength of the scientific consensus. That consensus, is reasonably characterized as "overwhelming", as expressed by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the footnote. It doesn't quite [yet] rise to the level of "unequivocal" or "no longer any scholarly debate".
..... Also, it's not even necessarily correct to single out certain oil companies as funding the denial, as was done both in the third paragraph of the lead and in the new subsection on the oil companies' reaction. And that subsection, frankly, is also poorly written. At the moment the article has gone from FA-quality to a bit of a mess in several key places including that third paragraph of the lead I was just talking about. Whatever we collectively write in this article should be reasonably stable, sustainable, well written and not reliant on one academic (in this case Oreskes) to make major points in the lead. There are serious problems with the new subsection on the Oil companies' response, overly reliant on Oreskes' published work while also neglecting the heavy influence of other heavily funded "business interests" and conservative/free-market-type think thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was`nt Oreskes`s study flawed and shown to be? I agree that for the article to say there is no more debate is madness, of course there is still debate, and the entire oil section should be removed it is pure pov pushing, see my above comments regarding this mark nutley (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. The manuscript attacking it was never published (iirc) and was itself deeply flawed. Guettarda (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)No. Oreskes study was attacked by Benny Peiser, who, however, had to backtrack further and further. There is no substantial criticism of Oreskes left, although I don't doubt that things will look different in right-wing conspiracy blogs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall monckton and Schulte also rebutted her paper, so do you two also agree that there is no further debate over AGW? mark nutley (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question that is not well-defined. There is no substantive scientific debate over the existence and basic mechanisms of AGW. There is plenty of debate about the details. There also is a lot of noise (e.g. Monckton, Ball). Schulte has been rejected as nonsense even by E&E, IIRC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you i had not known that about Schulte. But do you think "no longer any scholarly debate". is an accurate statement? Do you believe there is no further debate in science over this theory? mark nutley (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over the basic idea, no, there isn't, and there hasn't been for years. Guettarda (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my statement in full. "No substantive scientific debate over the existence and basic mechanisms" - i.e. it is warming and anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the major cause. There is plenty of debate and research about the details, from better paleo reconstructions to better climate models, the effect of other anthropogenic agents, and effects. The climate sensitivity, for example is estimated as 1.5-4.5 degrees celsius - that's a factor of 3, and there are several papers arguing for values outside that range. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say there is no scientific debate over this is ridiculous given the Royal Society has 43 fellows saying otherwise. As soon s the protection expires i will tag that sentence again as it is pure pov pushing mark nutley (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think those 43 fellows said and where did you get that information? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Debate among scientists" ≠ "scientific debate". We've all seen this in the "tobacco strategy". Scientific debate takes place in the peer-reviewed literature, not on the editorial pages of conservative newspapers. Guettarda (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all beside the point, of course. Find a peer-reviewed source that says that there is a debate. If one exists, we'll figure out how to incorporate it. Note that talk pages are for improving articles, not getting into endless debates about the subject matter. Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not besides the point to say there is still discussion about this, it is fact. I do not need peer reviewed sources to say that, and which peer review should i use? the one which was redefined? Singer and Avery have released papers refuting AGW as have plenty of others, to say the debate is over is bull. mark nutley (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singer and Avery? What paper is that? I can't find anything coauthored by them in Web of Science. Guettarda (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like to see a stronger statement. It is not simply that there is virtually no debate. When very rarely a sceptical paper questioning the fundamentals somehow gets published, you get a debate about the competence of the authors, the editorial processes leading to the acceptance of the paper etc. If there are any peer reviewed reactions, these will be comments on the paper discussing where the authors went wrong with basic physics. Count Iblis (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Scafetta new paper refuting AGW [22] so there you go, there is still debate is science over the modern warming, the sentence has to go mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sentence doesn't "have to go", since it is supported by reliable sources. As for the Scafetta paper - I only have access to the abstract. So what does he say about the state of the debate? As for "refuting AGW"...the abstract actually mentions "warming observed since 1970", so I don't think you can say the paper "refutes global warming". As for the statement that at least 60% of the global warming observed...has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations - that doesn't sound to me like he's saying that "humans cannot influence global climate". You can't say that a discussion about how much humans are affecting global climate is the same as debating whether they are doing so. Guettarda (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should replace the wording about "debate" with a statement that consensus exists. A statement of consensus can be cited to multiple sources of very high quality (e.g., national science academies) whereas "debate" is much fuzzier. By the standards of some -- that there is at least one scientist, somewhere, who argues the point -- there is "debate" over whether HIV causes AIDS, whether evolution occurs, whether the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and so on. So let's stick with the term that is attested in multiple high-quality sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's about semantics? Boris although your argument is very intelligently stated I disagree that one scientist disagreeing with a consensus constitutes "debate". Moreover, there isn't any peer-reviewed articles that are dissenting from the consensus. Here are the definitions for debate from dictionary.com [[23]]. I did not selectively pick them so don't worry! Check for yourself if you'd like.

dictionary.com

noun

1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.

2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

3. deliberation; consideration.

4. Archaic. strife; contention.

–verb (used without object)

5. to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.

6. to participate in a formal debate.

7. to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.

8. Obsolete. to fight; quarrel.

–verb (used with object)

9. to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.

10. to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.

11. to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.

12. to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.

13. Archaic. to contend for or over.

Notice that the words "formal". "discussion" and '"deliberate" appear more than any other word. I feel that the word relates to formal deliberation or discussion which is NOT happening if there is a scientific consensus. Therefore scientific consensus and no debate hold equal value. What bothers me a bit is that we've already had this discussion. Can we please post in the correct sections or stick to the point?Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone mention Monckton? Last time I checked he wasn't much of an expert on climate science, much less a peer-reviewed published scholar. His opinions and words hold about as much clout as mine do. Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental Duplicate!

Hey everyone, if you haven't noticed already, the lead has a duplicate 2nd paragraph (obviously a mistake). Can we have consensus to remove the second 2nd paragraph? Torontokid2006 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

the lead has a duplicate 2nd paragraph would an admin please remove it mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you but could you delete the other duplicate instead? The one you've deleted was the older version. Torontokid2006 (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't think it's allowed. See m:The Wrong Version. Best to work something out here rather than reverting. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Projections

Intro

Current revision:

Climate model projections indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[2] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions.

The current revision does not specify a baseline for temperature rise. Specifying the baseline is essential, otherwise the temperature increase has no meaning. Also, it implied that the temperature projections are a "likely" range, which isn't entirely true. They are a "likely" range for the six SRES emission scenarios used. The scenarios are intended to represent a range of possible futures, but I don't think the IPCC describes them as a "likely" range of future emissions.

Another criticism is that the second sentence suggests that the physical science uncertainty is only due to the climate sensitivity. My impression is that other uncertainties are also important, such as natural climate variability, the role of carbon sinks, and other uncertainties surrounding climate models. I don't think that it's correct to lump together all physical science uncertainties as being due to the climate sensitivity.

Suggested revision:

Climate models were used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to project the average rise in global average temperature for the 2090-2099 period, relative to the average temperature over the 1980-1999 period. Across a range of different emission scenarios, models showed a likely increase in global average temperature of 1.1 to 6.4 deg C. The range of 1.1 to 6.4 deg C is due to scientific uncertainties and uncertainties surrounding future emission levels of greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gas section

Current revision:

CO2 concentrations are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The future rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. Accordingly, the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100 (an increase by 90-250% since 1750).[42] Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.

Suggested revision:

CO2 concentrations are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The future rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. Using a range of possible emission scenarios (the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios), climate models suggest that by 2100, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could range between 541 and 970 ppm. This is an increase of 90 to 250% above the concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.

This is a minor revision. I've corrected a misuse of the SRES scenarios, which are emission scenarios, and not concentration scenarios. The two are different since you can only get concentrations from emissions by using a climate model. Another minor error is that only six of the SRES scenarios were used in making this projection of concentrations. The current revision gives the impression that all forty of the SRES scenarios were used.

I've also changed the wording to give a greater impression of uncertainty, i.e., by using the word "could." You could also mention that the true range might be larger, as is indicated in the TAR Synthesis report, but I thought that this was probably unnecessary. Enescot (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure about the revisions as they are a bit hard to read for a layperson. I must say I don't think the word "scientific uncertainty" is the best choice as it is too broad. Could you find better words to describe the ranges? Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag

I have tagged this article due to the following sentences which are neither NPOV or correct.

There is no longer any scholarly debate in regards to the legitmacy of human-caused global warming This is blatantly false and as such should be removed.
Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns this is undue in the lead, taxpayers pay far more in AGW research than oil companys do.
and deeply flawed research studies This is pure pov pushing and should also be removed mark nutley (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since those are factually correct statements I remove the tag since you cannot get more NPOV than telling the facts.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 11:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Addendum: if you can supply RS stating there currently is an ongoing scientific debate I immediately will remove those statements myself!--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 11:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not, and to remove a pov tag before even discussing it on the talk page is a breach of WP guidlines. The tags says, do not remove until a consensus is reached on the talk page, please self revert now or i`ll do it for you mark nutley (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the pov tag per [24] Do not remove it again until a consensus on the points i have raised has been reached. And do not call me a denier it is rude. mark nutley (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did not call you a denialist, merely described the arguments you offered. Second, tagging a NPOV article as POV might cause you to read WP:POINT.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 11:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either discuss the points raised or do not bother to comment at all. mark nutley (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware I offered some reading material for you to update you knowledge on this topic. Giving you some time to read it.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 11:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of the topic is fine, no time is required mark nutley (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you have not noticed the Scientific opinion on climate change proves you have some reading to do. :) Cheers.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 12:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming If there is no debate then why does this list exist?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)

From the article you link to For the purpose of this list, a scientist is defined as a person who published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences. There is no requirement to have published in recent years or in a field relevant to the climate. There is no requirement that their views contrary to the global warming mainstream need to have been published in peer-reviewed literature, and the majority have not. If you do not see anything wrong in this description you definitely need to update your knowledge, specifically you may want to acquaint yourself with scientific method and peer review.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 12:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the scientific method is, and it is something AGW proponents do not follow, the refusal to release date and methodology for instance, your continuing jibes are pointless so give them up. There are plenty of scientists who oppose the theory of AGW and publish papers saying this. There are books also refuting the AGW theory. To say there is no further debate over it is a lie and pov pushing. Your failure to actually talk about the points i have raised shows you are more interested in trying to belittle me. Comment on content not editor. mark nutley (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Some reading material countering denialism. [25][26][27]--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 11:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, with regards to the first point, it is very well sourced. We can't delete a reliably sourced, notable viewpoint just because you don't like it. As I said, if you have good sources that say otherwise, then we need to find a way to work the alternative point of view into the article. You say there is a paper by Singer and Avery that says otherwise, but you have not replied to a request for a references to that paper. You claimed that Scafetta said otherwise. I asked you to specify what Scafetta says about the debate. You have not replied to that either. You made a claim. I asked you to back it up. Instead of supporting your claim, you simply upped the ante with POV tags. "If the facts aren't on your side, pound the table" isn't acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think McN's first point is not faulty, but the other two are quite reasonable. I don't think this is part of the clearly unreliable ExxonSecrets pushing on other GW articles, but information on the amount of funding of "research" (and organizations) by oil companies is clearly UNDUE without at least indicating the total amount of funding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to deal with these points one at a time. Can you explain why a reliably sourced (and at least mostly accurate) statement "should be removed"? Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless McN can provide reliable sources for his point of view, his point 1 fails. There is significant scholarly debate as to how much of the global warming is anthropogenic (recent estimates I've seen range from 50% to 300%), but no significant debate as to whether anthropogenic effects are, at least, a significant component in global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A POV tag is not an "I don't like it because I think the article is POV-tag". The POV tag is meant to let the article get the attention of readers/editors so that you can get more discussions to resolve some POV dispute. But in this case there is quite a strong consensus among the editors that there is no POV problem to be addressed. This is not like an article about some Palestine/Israel related conflict where you can have radically different views among the editors on many different points. Then both sides would want to have a POV-tag as both sides have some points to argue about and would welcome views of other editors on resolving these matters.

In this case, the issue is very narrow: Whether or not or not we can say that discussions in the scientific literature about the fundamentals (climate change is caused by CO2 emissions) still take place and what to write about that. Count Iblis (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree in regard the oil companies section. That's one factoid used by a reliable source in a clearly misleading manner. I would certainly accept tagging only the oil company statement and _quoting_ "deeply flawed", among McN's specific complaints. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support moving that part to the sub article on global warming controversy and putting a POV tag on a section of that article. This article should primarily be about the science and those sub articles were created so that the notable polemics that exist in the real world (and thus deserve a wiki-article on that) can also be included in wikipedia without having severe POV disputes here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Weart, Spencer (2008). "The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect". The Discovery of Global Warming. American Institute of Physics. Retrieved 21 April 2009.
^ link
^ photo
^ [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0
^ http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true

[Powell2019-1] Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.

[WMO-FAQS-2] "Commission for Climatology Frequently Asked Questions". World Meteorological Organization. Archived from the original on 5 May 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020.

[3] Harris, Tom. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2009 – via Solid Waste & Recycling. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 4 February 2012 suggested (help)

[4] Arriola, Benj. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[5] Ahlbeck, Jarl. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[6] Kirby, Simon (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[7] Brahic, Catherine (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009.

[8] "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 10 September 2007.

[9] Battle, M.; et al. (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467.

[10] The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012.

[11] "Met Office: Climate averages". Met Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2009. Retrieved 23 January 2009.

[12] Climate Central (18 January 2017). "2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record". Climate Central. Retrieved 1 February 2017.

[13] The Saga of Erik the Red, 1880, English translation by J. Sephton, from the original Eiríks saga rauða.

[14] "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 8 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.^{[dead link]}

[15] Peterson, T. C.; et al. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.

[16] Gwynne, Peter (28 April 1975). "The Cooling World". Newsweek. p. 64.

[17] Verger, Rob (23 May 2014). "Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling". Newsweek.

[18] Gwynne, Peter (21 May 2014). "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong". insidescience.org.

[19] Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.

[20] Ravilious, Kate (28 February 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2007. Retrieved 6 March 2008.

[21] Marcus, Philip; Shetty, Sushil; Asay-Davis, Xylar (November 2006). Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change. American Physical Society. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[22] Goudarzi, Sara (4 May 2006). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[23] Philip, Marcus S. (22 April 2004). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[24] Yang, Sarah (21 April 2004). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 9 May 2007.

[25] Elliot, J. L.; et al. (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[26] Foerster, Jim. "What's The Difference Between Private Weather Companies And The National Weather Service?". Forbes.

[27] Eilts, Mike (27 November 2018). "The Role of Weather—and Weather Forecasting—in Agriculture". DTN.

[28] "What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?". Skeptical Science. 2 September 2011.

[29] Brumfiel, Geoff (23 August 2011). "Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays". Scientific American.

[30] Weart, Spencer (2008). "The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect". The Discovery of Global Warming. American Institute of Physics. Retrieved 21 April 2009.

[31] ^ link

[32] to

[33] [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

[34] ttp://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Revision as of 14:44, 5 June 2010 edit Arthur Rubin (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 130,168 edits →POV Tag: wrong number of tilde's. and reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:50, 5 June 2010 edit undo Count Iblis (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 12,824 edits →POV Tag Next edit →
Line 769:		Line 769:

	:I strongly disagree in regard the oil companies section. That's one factoid used by a reliable source in a clearly misleading manner. I would certainly accept tagging only the oil company statement and _quoting_ "deeply flawed", among McN's specific complaints. — [[User:Arthur Rubin\|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin\|(talk)]] 14:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)		:I strongly disagree in regard the oil companies section. That's one factoid used by a reliable source in a clearly misleading manner. I would certainly accept tagging only the oil company statement and _quoting_ "deeply flawed", among McN's specific complaints. — [[User:Arthur Rubin\|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin\|(talk)]] 14:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

			::I would support moving that part to the sub article on global warming controversy and putting a POV tag on a section of that article. This article should primarily be about the science and those sub articles were created so that the notable polemics that exist in the real world (and thus deserve a wiki-article on that) can also be included in wikipedia without having severe POV disputes here. [[User:Count Iblis\|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis\|talk]]) 14:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)