Talk:Climate change

"Misleading Phrases"

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)

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

"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)

1. There is ZERO debate that humans are contributing to changes in climate.

2. There IS debate on how much humans contribute to changes in climate. The whole spectrum from LITTLE contribution to PRIMARY contribution to SOLE contribution has been represented in peer-reviewed articles.

3. Very few skeptics believe that human activity has no impact. However, they are always painted as some redneck that denies that humans have any impact and that the world is flat. This is detrimental to science as a whole. Most major theories in physics are constantly debated and that field is easily tested. To suggest that the field of climatology has conclusive proof of anything when it does not even have a sufficient control group to conclusively test human contribution, is deceptive. There is no stable "Earth" without humans that we can observe. There is nothing close. All we can do is create a model of the climate of earth and suppose what would happen.

4. Consensus has been wrong in the past. --Cflare (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)]

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)

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)]

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

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)

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)

You conveniently threw conferences in with literature when the question only asked about the latter. --Dekker451 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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

"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.[1][2] It is my understanding that the SUV had not yet been invented in the year 1000. Kauffner (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[3] This is "consensus" and "no debate"? Kauffner (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

(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"[4] (instead of "There is no substantive debate") and "The scientific community agrees that..."[5] (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)

No scholarly debate works well for me. But i have to say that i found the old lede both better and more clear[6] on just about all accounts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This seems interesting:

From here: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0rONPXy3M The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony. “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.” Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia—the university of Climategate fame—is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on “Climate scenario development” for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters. Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here: http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf Ikilled007 (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been fooled. See [7]. You need to learn not to trust newspapers, but especially not those like the NP William M. Connolley (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhhhhh, See the last link in my post? Yeah, it's to the paper you linked to, too. And on pages 10 and 11, it discusses the lack of consensus. What exactly is wrong? Ikilled007 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the wrong link. You want [8], which points you to Hulme's statement [9] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Continued Wikipedia reliance on newspaper accounts and blogs by "ignorant people with opinions" (as quoted above many many times) over accurate accounts using first party evidence makes Wikipedia look like a sandbox for juvenile egos. Here is some new documentation. Not that it will make a bit of difference to the "Make up your own mind" crowd. Note that denial is supported as being worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia because only three percent of the people that do it for a living think it is worthwhile. In my book, that's not noteworthy. Science 25 June 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5986, p. 1622 DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5986.1622-b taken from abstract: Full article: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract?sid=2ad23f2c-080f-4eb2-8723-fa2b1582e14e

User:b_calder Bob Calder 19:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I can point to a Wikipedia entry that lists scientists who disagree in some form with what is claimed to be the 'consensus' List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming PeterBFreeman (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

But you need to read that page, which says: 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 decades or in a field relevant to climate. There also is no requirement for their views contrary to the global warming mainstream to have been published in the peer-reviewed literature, and most have not. So that page is of no real use wrt the discussion here. If you look at the articles talk page you'll find various attempts to improve it all stymied William M. Connolley (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How nice it is to return to this subject after several months to find nothing's changed. With activism still consuming like a cancer and the fetid corpse of objectivity remaining buried in a shallow grave, I cannot help but hang my head in shame as I bear witness once again to the mortal blows being dealt Wikipedia's already maligned credibility.

But I know remorse alone is of little consequence here. So I'll just leave a list of scientists, scholars, and peer-reviewed literature which defies the notion that there is 'no debate' on this matter and be on my way:

• 166 well-qualified science and technology experts in the field of climate science who 'challenge supporters of the U.N. Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate'.
• 29 science and technology experts in other related disciplines who concur with those above.
• 750 peer-reviewed papers which contain arguments against humanity's influence on global warming.
  --K10wnsta (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Haven't we been through all this before? None of your lists convince; I'll look at the last because it is the most amusing. So, you're claiming 750 papers. But have you even read the list? Paers 1, 2 and 3 are essentially the same paper (trash in E&E, a *correction* to that paper, and a reply to a comment on that paper). So, we're looking at a highly padded list. Followed by a paper and its addendum (more padding), an unpublished paper; a paper, a reply, and an errata. And all this stuff is bottom-draw quality. You want http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/11/450-peer-reviewed-papers-to-support.html William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for fun, I looked through the list of "Science and Technology Experts well Qualified in climate Science". I'm sure they are all nice people, kind to dogs and their children, but qualified in climate science they are not. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov - fail. Göran Ahlgren - fail. J.R. Alexander -fail. Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM - unclear. And so it goes on. Hardly a convincing list of "well Qualified in climate Science" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Here I am adding debate. The first paragraph of the main article(titled, "Global Warming"), as of July 5, 2010 12:41 P.M. Eastern, contains the sentence: "The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring." That is misleading. The sentence references 4 articles, all of which essentially say that "Local climates are subject to change." The article should be re-written and/or should contain the Neutrality/Disputed tag. Jsolebello (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello, Civilian, University of Rhode Island, Class of 2006

I'm puzzled by your characterisation of the refs supporting that statement. For example, the Joint Academies say However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring and they explicitly endorse the IPCC's work. By contrast, the word "local" doesn't occur at all. Did you read the statement carefully? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if you could choose who you debate with.76.106.186.17 (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E. Solebello

Here is an example, from the Joint Science Academy's statement: "the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century." That statement implies that all of the Earth's surface warmed.

The easy, short-term solution is to re-name the article: "The Global Warming Scare." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.186.17 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Political debate and population growth

Intro

The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[6][7][8][B] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. The Kyoto Protocol is...

The second sentence is poor. It implies that debate continues regardless of the scientific consensus. This is not correct. Part of the debate may be about the science, but another part is due to determining what the appropriate policy response should be. Science does not prescribe an appropriate policy response. This is incorrectly implied in the current revision. My suggested revision is:

There are different political and public views on what should be done about global warming

Views on global warming

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.[119][120]

I don't like this sentence. It is true that population growth is linked with emissions, but there are also other factors, such as economic consumption, technological change, energy efficiency, decarbonization of the economy etc. It is therefore biased to single out population growth. I suggest that the sentence is removed. It can be replaced with something from the IPCC report.

You can divide emissions correlation between observed trends and projected trends. With regard to observed trends, this bit from the IPCC report is appropriate:

GDP/capita and population growth were the main drivers of the increase in global emissions during the last three decades of the 20th century.

This can be rewritten and moved to the greenhouse gas section of the article:

(i) Between the years 1970 and 2004, growth in gross domestic product and population were the main drivers of growth in CO₂ emissions. (ii) CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[41][42] (iii) Estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been made, and are called "emissions scenarios." (iv) The future level of emissions will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.

With regard to future emission trends, I think that sentence (iv) is already an adequate summary. Enescot (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyway you could be clearer. Every time you propose something on the talk page, I have to struggle to understand what you're proposing. Part of that is you seem to propose changes in multiple section in one post. Keep things simple (for us stupid people). Also, line breaks are not currency: more is not better.

In this case, "intro"-disagree. Your version adds unnecessary words without adding any new information. "views on gw"- Kill it. Refs a book and a news article. -Atmoz (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No matter what you believe about the climate, the anti-growth policies promoted by the environmentalists only undermine our ability to deal with its, as Freeman Dyson has argued in detail.[10] Growth and technological advances leave us better prepared for whatever the future might bring. Dyson's favorite example is the genetic engineering could allows us to create trees that absorb more CO2. Kauffner (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Existence of consensus: A says B about C formulation?

Sorry to jump in on an article I haven't worked on before, a friend and I were discussing the reliability, neutrality, etc. of Wikipedia. I do not like this sentence:

The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[6][7][8][B]

I think it's pretty hard to find on an objective meaning for "scientific consensus." I'd prefer an "A says B about C," facts about opinions, formulation. In this case, I'd propose something like this:

Numerous national academies of science have made stated formally and officially that there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.

OK? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You really need to do your due diligence and read through the archives. This sentence gets discussed time and again William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And? What's the justification for stating it flatly rather than "A said B about C?" Dpbsmith (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Many more national academies state it directly, too. See scientific opinion on global warming. Your sentence is actually original research, backed by your interpretation of primary sources (what is numerous? what is "formally and officially"?). But the national academy statements can serve as reliable secondary sources - not about themselves, but about the science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the article scientific opinion on global warming as a response to my concerns. It's linked further down in this article. Would it be unreasonable to Wiki-link it from the phrase global warming in the sentence I cite? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I like it too; it seems quite reasonable to link it as you have William M. Connolley (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. Could you detail what the opinion is, and who the holder of the opinion is? It appears to me that the opinion is "anthropogenic global warming is occurring," and the holder of that opinion is "The scientific consensus," and the source for that is BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, coupled with the fact that every national academy that has commented on it has said the same thing. Who was your friend, by the way? Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm parsing it as "The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring." If the first reference were the only reference, then I'd word it as "Naomi Oreskes states that there is a scientific consensus" etc. To some extent, I take your point that a reference is an implicit "A says." I am not an edit warrior trying to chip away at global warming, I'm a fairly experienced Wikipedian trying to explain Wikipedia to others and thought the sentence was a bit off. I clicked on the references and didn't quite think they did it for me. As noted above, Scientific opinion on global warming is a beautifully detailed exposition of the "consensus" issue; if "scientific consensus" had been linked to Scientific opinion on global warming I'd have taken that as providing all necessary qualification and explanation. Of course if I'd actually bothered to read the whole article I'd have come across the link further down. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the "scientists" promoting man-made global warming theory have a vested interest (funding) in continuing what most objective (not funded to conduct research on climate or other global warming issues) scientists believe to be a highly flawed theory. The Earth has been warming for 18,000 years or so, and will likely continue to do so for a long time (although whatever triggers the start of a new glacial period could kick in). Global sea level has been rising throughout this warming period. The rate of global sea level rise has not shown a significant increase during the past 50 years. This lack of a significant increase in the rate of global mean sea level rise effectively DESTROYS the man-made global warming theory. It's time for the marxist, earth-worshiping "scientists" to find a new sow to suckle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.78.121.3 (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You might be more interested in our article Global warming controversy. You might also want to review [11], which is a Carlisle study of the military implications of global warming. Hipocrite (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference numbers seven and eight are broken.

Just an FYI 7&8 are down. Aaron Bowen (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ref 7 works for me. New URL for 8 found. -128.196.30.219 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change:

<ref>[http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf Understanding and Responding to Climate Change]</ref>

To:

<ref>[http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf Understanding and Responding to Climate Change]</ref>

Thanks. -128.196.30.219 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition error

'Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation'.

Eh, no it's not!!! 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' may (if proven) be considered for that definition. Global Warming is a process that predates the mid-20th century and also predates man. The problem with that opening sentence is it skillfully disquises 'AGW' as being Global Warming, as being what everyone is talking about. In doing so it also suggests a concensus amongst scientists that Anthropogenic Global Warming is Global Warming. The two processes are desparately different and should be discussed as such. Global Warming, Global Cooling is a natural process that has taken place since there was an atmosphere on this planet. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a disruptive, potential imbalance to the natural process that has (apparently) been taking effect since the mid-20th century. There is no evidence to suggest the outlandish claims made by exponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming are if-fact going to happen. They have used computer models to predict 'potential scenarios'. This is total hocum! No better than reading your stars in the paper. WE CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE!!! We can only GUESS!!! Surely the predictions that were made several years ago, that were due to be taking place now, but aren't, can be taken as a yard stick (if you will) to all future modelling. I am pretty certain we would then see results more akin to the results of proper science based on observation and empirical data which point to the fact that it's not going to be all that bad, after all a warm planet is far more desirable than a cold, cooling cooler planet (which I believe is now happening) and that has been suggested by someone in the IPCC that the 'cooling trend' will continue for another 30 years. Also, if your going to refer to Global Dimming, can you please suggest it's effects as Anthropogenic Global Cooling. If we are to be lead to believe that our pumping of greenhouse gases (this terminology needs a radical overhaul as well) into the atmosphere is resulting in the planet warming up, is it too much to suggest that the countering effects of atmospheric aerosols (placed there by man) that have potentially negated the effects of the warming be considered Anthropogenic Global Cooling? I can imagine to use such a term would infact confuse people too much; are we warming, are we cooling? And we can't have people getting confused now can we? Off-course not. Confusion suggests debate, as we all know the warmists out there in the MSM will not allow that.

Can you also please have this page released to editing? I am not a scientist and have no intention of offering an edit to such a piece. However, I am a tax payer and an inquisitive mind and do like to find out both sides of a discussion before siding with one camp or the other.

Thank you Killthegore (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles you want to read are climate change, which deals with climate change outside of the recent warming, and Global warming controversy which explains more fully the disputes that exist (though those disputes are covered in this article, in the various sections) Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Also see the FAQ, newly introduced Q23. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The title should be changed

The title of this article should be changed to "Global Warming Theory", or, at least, we should use the word 'theory' in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolebello (talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see FAQ question 8. --McSly (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely, you are joking. The top of this discussion page states: "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them.." In other news, the Global Warming page could sure use my 10 edits. Jsolebello (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello

Well, "a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. " (AAAS Evolution Resources). So I'm not sure I understand. Do you want to include a word in the first paragraph that completely contradict your own argument ? --McSly (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)