Talk:List of climate change controversies

Diversion from the surfacestations topic

Moved from the article:
Based on the work of Watts, Stephen McIntyre has completed a reconstruction of U.S. temp history using only those weather stations identified so far as meeting the requirements to be CRN level 1 (excellent) or level 2 (good) stations. The higher quality stations indicate the warmest years in the U.S. were 1934 and 1921, followed by 1998 and 2006.[ref]McIntyre, Steve (4 October 2007). "Gridding from CRN1-2". Climate Audit. Retrieved 15 March 2008. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)[/ref] McIntyre made all of his methods, data and code available for others to reproduce his findings. McIntyre's analysis has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature.
Oh look, it's just based on one of McI's blogs, and isn't really about the surfacestations issue discussed in the rest of the paragraph. We could always start another paragraph on this, citing Gavin Schmidt on the issues at the time, and Skeptical Science noting that at 2% of the Earth's surface that one hot year in the continental US didn't have much effect on world temps. Alternatively, we could leave it out as merely a blog squabble. . dave souza, talk 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Soo. I was reading this article and clicked through on the citation that Watt's work showed cooling, not warming. In reading the comments on *that* citation, I ran into Watt's own response in his own words.

Thinking that would only be fair to include, I pasted what he claimed (that the analysis had been on an early, incomplete version of his analysis w/ many errors - although he went on to offer more analysis I didn't feel qualified to comment on)

So. I go back there today, proud of adding something to wikipedia... Aaaaand, I see it is gone. Checking history, I see a bunch of edits, including someone removing it as. "Not a reliable source"

Ok. I can see that someone might claim that for actual elements of data. But, this is the guy's actual response. You know, his own words. From the source. So. What the heck, wikipedia?

Also. If you think about it, what's w/ this RS thingy anyway? surfacestations.org is by the same guy, self-published apparently, but that can be referenced just fine?

And, I checked out his site, it isn't just some personal blog, it seems to get a lot of attention, people putting work on it, lots of press coverage...

If I didn't know better, I'd swear someone removed it just to avoid letting the guy get his say in :(

Oh well. Whatever. Just wanted to put this on here to register my annoyance.

The edit I'd submitted was: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_controversy&oldid=470202624

it was removed in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_controversy&oldid=470232857

Apologies for any errors on this comment, I don't really know too much about wiki syntax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.120.146.194 (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, to indent a paragraph add colons ( : ) at the start: if you add a space it becomes unformatted text and rather unreadable. . .dave souza, talk 20:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, the way to show a change is a "diff". You seem to be saying that this change was undone by this edit which rightly points out that "self-published blogs are not an WP:RS". While Watts was responding in his blog, his arguments are both unreliable and unduly self-serving, see WP:SPS. My feeling is that the issues are well covered without that particular paragraph, we shouldn't give undue WP:WEIGHT to the fringe views of Watts, which have to be shown in the context of how they've been received by scientists holding the majority view. Thanks for trying to improve the article, sorry that in this case your addition didn't last, for pretty good reasons. . . dave souza, talk 20:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Well. This entire page is fringe, right? That's how I got here, clicking on that link off the main article. But, if what the dude is saying is right, he accumulates a bunch of data, and before he does a proper publishing, someone posts an analysis of his incomplete dataset. If that was done in research, that'd be really uncool. The way the article reads right now, it seems like his entire project was smacked down definitively, while he claims it was done on bad data. So, since it is all about fringe anyway, seems only fair to let him defend himself. It isn't like it is in the main (global warming) article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.120.146.194 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, that sine bot thingy is really annoying. Screwed up my attempt to clarify my sentences, so I had to go retype it all. Also, I think I'd be better off just avoiding this stuff. Just flippping through history on other pages shows they are pretty darn contentious. Even if *I* think people were being unfair here, it is clearly a fight I don't want to get in the middle of. I'll stick to other areas of wikipedia if I run into something that seems unbalanced.

Since Watts was being defensive about the allegedly premature thing instead of blowing that thing away with actual results from the completed project, one wonders if those little defensive bb's are all he has to shoot? Yawn. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude. I dunno. Rest of article had actual data and shit, I was just posting the rebuttal quotes part, since that seemed relevant. Feel free to read the rest of it and tell me what you think?

Also, I went and checked out that surfacestations.org - he has a paper there, which is *later* than the supposed rebuttal on wikipedia. And it *does* make claims about siting. Sooo. Yeah.

I wasn't interested in that since, well, I was just looking into his response to the thing said on wikipedia, and documenting it, but it does look like he has actual data.

So, given that paper is, oh, published, shouldn't a snippet from its preamble or whatever you call these things be there too? Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.120.146.194 (talk • contribs)

The important part of Watt's story is "Political issues aside, the appearance of the Menne et al 2010 paper does not stop the surfacestations project nor the work I’m doing with the Pielke research group to produce a peer reviewed paper of our own." That hasn't happened yet, has it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Having looked it over, I've removed this claim which essentially is a BLP allegation by creationist Joseph D'Aleo that scientists have fraudulently removed station data: as this published paper shows, "The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time." "Independent researchers have shown that there is no truth to the claim that cooling stations were removed, in fact evidence suggests that if these stations were included, warming would be shown to be slightly greater."[1] These extraordinary claims by D'Aleo and Smith are essentially based on self-published sources: one newspaper reported that they had made the claims. We shouldn't be giving this fringe claim undue weight. . dave souza, talk 12:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey newsguy. This whole thing is getting kinda monotonous I have to say, for what I thought was a 2 minute edit, but I have this compulsion about internet discussions...

Well.Basically, it does seem he got something published. I went to surfacestations.org and it linked to a paper. Clicking through to the various websites, I eventually got to: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/05/something-for-everyone-fall-et-al-2011/ Which says something like "The poorest sites tend to be warmer. The minimum temperatures are warming faster at poorer sites than at better sites."

I'm sure there are dueling papers out there, and frankly, I couldn't be arsed to read the whole thing, but it does seem like the paper published on the complete data a year later contradicts the paper cited on wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.120.146.194 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You said, "This whole thing is getting kinda monotonous I have to say, for what I thought was a 2 minute edit..." Apparently, you were (not) thinking in a context of ignorance about basic wiki ground rules. For all blogs, regardless which side of an issue they are on, they just don't count unless a specific exemption applies. For blogs, see WP:BLOG. For info on what constitutes a "reliable source" in general see WP:RS. For talk page guidelines, such as how to sign your notes, see WP:TALK. Its silly to judge our process if you haven't read any of the basic orientation stuff. I see that your work did remind Dave Souza about a something interesting, so no harm. Just sayin'.... if you want to be effective posting here, please read the same basic how-to stuff the rest of us have read. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good find, had a dim memory of this. Souleymane Fall, Anthony Watts, John Nielsen‐Gammon, Evan Jones, Dev Niyogi, John R. Christy, and Roger A. Pielke Sr. doi:10.1029/2010JD015146 [2], whole paper put up by Pielke. As John N-G discusses in what we learned, the paper is tentative and has a slightly convoluted message – its abstract states "Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications." In simple terms, the poorer stations are warmer at night and cooler during the day, these roughly cancel each other out so the paper has no effect on overall temperature trends, but suggests more research into the implications. Pielke also blogs about it, emphasising the uncertainties but concluding with "Q: What about mean temperature trends? A: In the United States the biases in maximum and minimum temperature trends are about the same size, so they cancel each other and the mean trends are not much different from siting class to siting class. This finding needs to be assessed globally to see if this also true more generally.", and calling for further research. John N-G also comments on the statistics and how the review process went. . . dave souza, talk 20:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Or more briefly, the paper does its best to obfusticate the essential matter, that there is no sign of station quality issue in the overall trend William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, re if you want to be effective posting here, please read the same basic how-to stuff the rest of us have read. A lot of us learnt mainly by doing, by making mistakes and being offered friendly help along the way. E.g. dave souza's advice above about indenting with a colon.

I find the RS issue confusing at the edges too. Anon, you comment: "surfacestations.org is by the same guy, self-published apparently, but that can be referenced just fine?" That prompted me to look and find WP:SELFSOURCE, which says: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as..." (list of conditions & limitations given there). Hope that helps. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, Watts' own blog can be a source for information about Watts' blog (e.g., list of contributors). In this thread, we're talking about Watts' blog comments regarding data and the things some people (allegedly) did with that data, so WP:SELFSOURCE does not apply. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No controversy about antarctic cooling?

Discussion before subtopic breakout

The paragraph about antarctic cooling not being an academic controversy seems badly off. The text explicitly claims that the O'Donnell authors agree with Steig, when in fact they rather aggressively disputed this. I will try to make an appropriate edit. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You failed William M. Connolley (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful commentary. If you have a reason why this unsubstantiated opinion (that directly contradicts the authors of the mentioned journal article) should be included in the article, please feel free to share it. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit wasn't helpful. You're here via [3] which explains the problem. As to personal opinion: you seem to be guessing what authors think William M. Connolley (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't read WUWT. I don't respect them because they publish things that they know are false to get eyeballs.

I am here because I engaged in a discussion with Dave Souza in the talk section of the S&B article in which I came to suspect that he was pushing POV, and I checked his other recent edits, which led me to this article. I wound up at S&B because I read Pearce's retraction and the criticism of Wikipedia on Montford's site, and I don't like to see Wikipedia attacked for deliberately supporting the inclusion of false information.

I am not a single issue editor. I have a demonstrated history of working in controversial areas with both sides of an issue to improve articles.

On this page you are supporting the inclusion of highly opinionated and controversial content which you have explicitly admitted can not be supported via RS. The proper choice is to remove it as I have done.

We have engaged in discussions before outside of Wikipedia. I am not unaware of who you are. I am also not unaware of your past history of infractions at Wikipedia.

I encourage you to engage me constructively on the actual content of this article. But if you do not, and continue to revert me based on false assumptions about who I am, I will not stop trying to protect this page from POV pushing. Jsolinsky (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see the proposed change in article text posted here in a new thread that shows the changes with strikeout and underlining. If we can not reach consensus here, then we can always run an RFC on the question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that a controversy exists it is confined to the popular press and blogs; there is no evidence of a related controversy within the scientific community. Peter Doran, the lead author of the paper cited by Crichton, stated that "... our results have been misused as "evidence" against global warming by Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear'..." Eric Steig states in RealClimate that even the 2010 paper co-authored by Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Stephen McIntyre and Jeff Condon confirms the overall picture of warming and cooling in Antarctica.

There are actually two separate deletions here that are quite amenable to being handled separately. The first deletion was previously the subject of a citation needed tag by Darkness Shines. Connolley deleted this tag, with the explanation that it would be difficult to find a supporting reference. I would argue that opinionated language which can not be supported by a reference is best left out of the article.

The second deletion quotes from the Real Climate blog in which the lead author of Steig et al claims that O'Donnell et al confirmed their results. The problem with this is that O'Donnell et al have emphatically disputed this. First, I believe that the authors of papers should be given priority in interpreting what their papers say... just like we allow Peter Doran to have the last word about his paper in this paragraph. Second, I would like to know our policy on using climate blogs as RS. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

William has decided to stay away from this article for a while. Since he was the only editor pushing the deleted content, I am hopeful that the matter has been resolved. Jsolinsky (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what this comment has to do with content? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

He was the only editor pushing the content in question. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly does "O'Donnell et al have emphatically dispute[] this"? Some citation should be needed for that. (i truly hope that you are not yourself interpreting the O'Donnell et al. paper for that statement). As for Steig comment, he is a published expert author on the topic (see WP:SPS), so the RC blog post is certainly a WP:RS here. Why exactly shouldn't we use it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked because obviously O'Donnell et al are published expert authors who have made comments on their blogs. And Jeff and Ryan in particular did have some very strong words on Steig's analysis. [[4]] (skip down to the actual content beginning with "ERIC STEIG’s Critique- By Ryan ODonnell") Essentially, Steig completely failed to understand their paper. There are several related communications from Ryan and Jeff that can also be found at the Air Vent.

If we definitely want to write about this, we can go through all of them and include them here. But in my opinion, the better choice is simply not addressing the O'Donnell paper. The global warming controversy article is sufficient without it (and it requires less effort). Jsolinsky (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Jsolinsky, you started this section with a misrepresentation: you're wrong to say "The text explicitly claims that the O'Donnell authors agree with Steig", quite the contrary, it said that Steig considered that their paper "confirms the overall picture of warming in Antarctica". That is correct, it doesn't prevent them from disagreeing about details of analysis. The text I added was an update and improvement on an obscure statement, now the section 's been rewritten I don't see it as an essential issue. . . dave souza, talk 20:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The main result of O'Donnell is that Steig et al had a fundamental flaw in its methodology that caused the enormous warming trends of the peninsula to be spread over much of the antarctic, creating an illusory warming in the Western Antarctic (exclusive of the peninsula). The O'Donnell trends were intended to be illustrative (i.e. they don't say "this is what we think happened to temperatures in this part of the antarctic"; they say "If you used this methodology, you'd get this result".) Also, none of these results challenges the result from Chapman that if you use a more recent start date, the entire continent of Antarctica is cooling.

The main NEW result in Steig et al was the pretty picture on the cover of Nature which incorrectly showed the temperature trends from the peninsula leaking over the rest of Antarctica. Otherwise, we already knew that the continent as a whole was warming over that period (see Chapman again). But it was news that Western Antarctica (outside of the peninsula) was warming significantly. As it turns out, it wasn't. Jsolinsky (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but NEW != BETTER. On average, science progresses. But not every new paper is more correct than every older paper. I'd agree with "...it possibly wasn't". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not suitable for Wikipedia, but it is a mathematical certainty that the Steig PCs spread warming from the peninsula over the remainder of the content. At any rate, I am not arguing that we need to say this in the article. I'm just saying that we shouldn't say the opposite. Jsolinsky (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

Thanks for the markup text. The subsection in question is two paragraphs. You only offered edits to paragraph #2, so I looked at the full subsection and realized there is more work to be done. See my suggested subsection re-write. I don't wish to do battle over your first suggested edit (deleting the negative statement that there is no real scientific controversy) unless someone can point to wiki guidelines for RSs when asserting a negative. As for the Real Climate paper, I left it out for now since we're talking about it. I do not currently have an opinion either way on that reference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually see a few of problems with your edit.

First you say "Actual scientific observations show that trends are dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed, but indicate the continent is warming overall. [111][112]" This is not correct and is inconsistent with the sources (the second explicitly gives time frames in which net cooling is observed).

I also don't think that the opening (focusing on Crichton) is a good idea. While Crichton is the most notable example, the issue of antarctic temperatures has been raised by a number of other commentators. The new text focuses more on the Crichton example and less on the general case, which I'd suggest is a mistake.

Finally, if we decide to break out trends in the peninsula and western antarctic, it naturally follows that we should report trends in the remaining (larger) portion of the continent.

On all three points, I would suggest that the previous formulation is preferable. Jsolinsky (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course this section has to focus on Crichton. His work of fiction is the only thing we have included that claims without question that there is overall cooling. I find it ironic that you ran to Mommy Jimbo to complain about wiki activism and are now POVishly advocating that we focus our coverage on the non-sourced opinions of phantom advocates of overall cooling. If you want to say something about the data analysis by someone else, then name them and the source.

As for the existing source you claim shows cooling, it sounds like you are POVishly confusing the papers discussion of inter-annual variability with its overall conclusions over the entire record.

Finally, I can understand that the strong data from West Antarctica and the peninsula might run contrary to the results from the phantom sources you seem to want us to include, and that might stick in your craw. What can I say? You brought up the subsection, and I decline to change the subject to whether we should split the place geographically. The issue is how do we cover the assertion of Antarctic cooling, given that its primary source was in a work of fiction? Near as I know, Crichton's work of fiction claiming cooling did not split the continent. He was talking about West Antarctica, too, wasn't he? "Strong warming" data in that region is contrary to his story line, and that's all it is..... a novel, cited for the entire continent cooling. If you want to change the subject, name names and sources you wish to offer as a WP:RS for a WP:NPOV revision. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your tone in not constructive or helpful. I ask that you retract your accusations about phantom sources and POV pushing, or at least provide some basis for your incivility towards me.Jsolinsky (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the line from the abstract of Chapman "Trends computed using these analyses show considerable sensitivity to start and end dates, with trends calculated using start dates prior to 1965 showing overall warming, while those using start dates from 1966 to 1982 show net cooling over the region." The old text very clearly reflected this source which appears immediately after it. The new text does not. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Crichton was hardly the only person to bring up the subject of Global Cooling. He just happened to be a very popular author. Here are a few others. [5] [6] And I'm pretty sure you can find articles on Real Climate from the Steig et al period that also mention this history, although I didn't find any during my 60 seconds of searching. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Erh? The first is USA Today on Doran ... Hmmmm. The second is to a rather obscure Canadian defunct TV-station? And is either of these before Crichton? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, USA Today precedes State of Fear by two years. Jsolinsky (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As to your last point, I once again point out that it is outrageously uncivil and unproductive. There is absolutely no question that the antarctic peninsula is warming rapidly. My point is this: If you are making an argument that Region X is warming, and you support that argument by saying that West X is warming at a rate of R1, then it begs the question, "what about East X?". I'm not actually sure that we need to break it out into two parts (especially since there can be disagreement as to how to break things down). But IF you do, you need to provide numbers for both parts. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW I've never read or even seen the Crichton book, so I obviously have no comment on it. I have seen many dozens of arguments over global cooling. It obviously strikes me as bizarre to substitute a work of fiction for an actual skeptical meme, even if that work of fiction may have given the meme a push at some point. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources discussing disputes about antarctic cooling, please present these sources: remember that we have to show the mainstream view of the minority arguments, so need sources showing how the minority views have been received. . . dave souza, talk 20:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue that there is antarctic cooling here. I am simply pointing out that the skeptical view that the antarctic is cooling, which Steig et al was designed to counter, was substantially more widespread than the Crichton book. The old language: "Various individuals, most notably writer Michael Crichton" handled this quite adequately. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The "various individuals" immediately merits and needed sources. . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and since you (Jsolinski) only did 60 seconds of searching I'm not surprised that you apparently did not notice the 2002 USA today article you found is about the same Peter Doran paper cited in Crichton's book and already treated by both versions of the subsection! And your other new source is a teaser, which contains no references of its own, for a series of articles on this subject that were apparently never published. Care to try again? If you find any, don't forget to read them before sharing them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I did notice. What I did not notice is where in the USA today article it mentions Crichton's book. It seems that this line of thinking exists quite independently of the book. (you'll note that I had no complaint about using Doran to attack both the various individuals and Crichton. Jsolinsky (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And honestly, what is the point of putting something in this article just to criticize a work of FICTION? If this was limited to Michael Crichton, wouldn't we be better off removing this section altogether? Jsolinsky (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No, because his novel is notable in that it did create a political blogosphere whirlwind, as typified by this Heartland post. But after searching the scientific literature we haven't yet come up with any real bell ringers to support the notion that there is a controversy in the professional lit. But the novel did kick it off in common media. And guess what, the original text you complained about says this controversy lives in common media, not the professional literature. Your own failed efforts at searching seem to prove this negative, but alas we can not cite Jslonski's negative search results as an RS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not a negative search result. I found dozens of references to the argument. Most of them do not mention Critchon. I already provided two. Here is one citing Steig et al! [7]. Here is RC [8]. I'm frankly surprised that anyone is arguing that this argument has been limited to Critchon. (And again I'd reiterate my belief that if it were confined to a science fiction book, it wouldn't be noteworthy. Anyone who bases their science on fiction is asking to be laughed at.) Jsolinsky (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said the issue exists only in relation to State of Fear, I've only said we don't have any other sources on which to base our text. But wait... you now say you have more sources and you support that by mentioning the two you already agreed to reject in the other subthread. SHEESH! Give us something with some meat on it, or please stop. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I had rejected any of these. We now have four items.

I'm not even sure why I'm fighting this. State of fear isn't the only Science Fiction book with bad science. Perhaps we should turn the others into controversy articles as well? Jsolinsky (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thought you did but if you still think there's something solid try a further article edit, and see where it goes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Real Climate and O'Donnell

My main problem with the Real Climate paper, is that it is being used to make representations about O'Donnell. But we have a paper from O'Donnell saying that the Real Climate paper doesn't understand O'Donnell and has unsupportable conclusions. If we want to make representations about what is in O'Donnell, we should probably use what O'Donnell says about O'Donnell (just as we use what Doran says about Doran and imply that to the extent Crichton disagreed with the guy who actually wrote the paper, it is Crichton who was in error). Jsolinsky (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Substitute the word blog entry for paper in the preceding paragraph. I was responding to a comment that referred to the RC blog entry as a paper, and I didn't want to change terminology in the middle of an argument. But obviously neither RC nor the Air Vent is a journal. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see that correction. Both the Steig and O'Donnell papers (not blogs) show warming in the West Antarctican peninsula and to a lesser extent elsewhere, with some modest cooling. Thus there's no scientific "controversy", there's a normal discussion about the best method to get the most accurate results within a broad area of agreement. Any controversy seems to have been a blog spat about behaviour, so probably best to leave both out altogether. . dave souza, talk 20:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed solution. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Temperature predictions

The following entry is continually being deleted from this article

"James E Hansen's 1984 climate model (see 1988 paper ) predicted a global mean temperature of 1C (see light blue line in referenced graph) for scenario B (the scenario which has most closely matched CO2 emissions) for 2010. The actual observed global mean temperature was 0.63C (see black line in referenced graph)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdey123 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think, among other problems, you are muddling 'temperature' with 'temperature change', which is pretty fundamental. Then there is the fact that 1984 was a long time ago. Then there is a need for the addition to have some purpose, and to flow within the existing article text. Then there is the need for secondary sources discussing the significance of this graph. Etc. --Nigelj (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SkepSci covers this common claim, but in itself isn't a rs as far as I know. It might be possible to write a paragraph about this, but reiterating the claim without any secondary source or mainstream context ain't the way to do it. . dave souza, talk 17:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember this one, vaguely. When you say "predicted a global mean temperature of 1C" I think you mean "predicted a global mean temperature change of 1C", but in that case, what period are you talking about? The paper abstract says it starts from 1958, and reading from the graph there is a T change of ~1 oc from 1960-2010.

The important point is not to pick stuff out of the paper's graphs, that the paper doesn't itself say - that is classic WP:OR. Neither the abstract, nor the conclusions, makes any prediction of temperature changes to 2010. The discussion of fig 3 (section 5.1) barely mentions 1 oC. So I don't think we should be discussing this as though it were one of the major conclusions of that paper - it clearly isn't. If (as DS alludes) this is indeed a skeptic talking point then we could try to include some kind of section along the lines of "Skeptics point to Hansen 1988 as an example of a prediction which didn't come true." However, that would have to be put into context: (a) with some decent skeptic sources (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) saying so; and also (b) with the people who point out why this is wrong (presumably there are some; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ looks to be another such) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's policy

"Achieving neutrality

See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples 

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage"

The entry was continually deleted not amended. The suggested changes mentioned by the respondents were minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.47.208 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-Neutral?

This WP:SOAP thread lacks specific suggestions for article improvement, such as draft proposed text. Click show to read anyway.

There are some statements here which are non-neutral. The word "Consensus" is used three times and there is absolutely no way to prove this except by counting every environmental scientist in the US and calculating their opinion. The word "Consensus" should be taken out in every case and a more neutral word or sentence inserted. Mugginsx (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Just curious... why would we only count the "environmental scientists in the US"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC) You appear to misunderstand scientific consensus and you are also apparently unaware that from surveys around 97% of experts in the field support the broad consensus. . dave souza, talk 20:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC) The specific remarks concerned US Scientists and I do not believe that 97% of the experts support the broad consensus and would like to see the exact reference that substantiates that. If I am wrong I will apologise. I know of no report and do not remember any such survey. Mugginsx (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Which survey would this be? Perhaps the one which ended up with 75 out of 77 creating the consensus? Or perhaps a new survey has been done? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I see - so apparently there isn't any such report. I did not think so. I can see why the article is so non-neutral and contentious. Would not touch it with a ten foot pole but since no report of the kind I mentioned has been produced, I still maintain my statement here and at the ANI. Mugginsx (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Evidently you've not looked at the article. A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers". . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC) [edit conflict] The sources are cited, you are free to look them up yourself. This page is not for your personal education, even less a soapbox for your under-researched views. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Mr Souza, the NAS paper you cite is, if I recall correctly, published in the vanity press of PNAS? Is it by any chance the one written by 23 people? Of which only 5 had PHD's? Perhaps a link to this paper would be useful. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC) How about looking in the reference section of the article? You are wrong in both of your guesses (btw. what is the "vanity press section of the PNAS"?) full citation is: --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Mr Petersen. the PNAS you link to is the vanity press. The article in question is also not peer reviewed. What does it cost again? $50 right? 22:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Define "vanity press" in this context (scientific publishing). As for peer-review: The article in question was submitted for review on Dec. 22, 2009, published online Apr. 9, 2010 as well as on paper in the journal on Jul 6, 2010. (PNAS, issue 27, volume 107). So you are wrong about peer-review. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Note (since i suspect you got open access wrong): Open access means that the submitters have pre-payed for open-access[9] (currently $1,300) - there is no difference in review between open-access and pay-walled articles) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but if someone calls PNAS a "vanity press", they simply are not qualified to have this discussion. And that's assuming good faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Last word for me. The article is non-neutral and should allow for alternate points of view for the reasons I stated and which have not be refuted. PhD's are not always correct. It depends what their PhD's are in and if they are biased by the opinions of whom they work for, especially government sponsored, recipients of government grants, etc. As to charges of bias - bias goes both ways. My last word. Good luck on the article. Back to late middle ages or some other such welcoming era. Mugginsx (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC) You may find the palaeolithic welcoming. . dave souza, talk 22:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Certainly more intelligent. Mugginsx (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have set the neutrality tag on the page again. Looking at the comments to the previous request on this, it's clear that there are large number of people promoting the global warming hyptothesis who are intent on deleting entries that point to evidence against this. Take for example, Dave Souza's comment, that there is a concensus amongst 97% of scientists as to the global warming hypothesis.

There is no scientific concensus on climate science. The 97% of climate scientists myth comes from a paper written by scientists who believe in global warming, in which they googled for papers and determined for themselves who agreed with them or not. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full The only opinion poll that I'm aware of undertaken by Bray & Storch 2008 reveals a wide range of opinions amonst climate scientists. http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

On 27th January 2012, 16 leading scientists complained about the politics around the global warming hypothesis http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Dave Souza has also deleted entries citing skepticalscience.com which is a site that politicises debate and is not a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.47.208 (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Useful resource

NCSE launch, continued . . dave souza, talk 21:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

resource from deleted reference? Or another location?

• Earth’s hot past could be prologue to future climate January 13, 2011 from University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Referencing Science Lessons from Earth's Past by Jeffrey Kiehl (National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist), 14 January 2011: 158-159. doi:10.1126/science.1199380 99.181.133.141 (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Bray & von Storch survey

An opinion poll of climate scientists was carried out by Bray & Storch in 2008. The poll found that 34.59% of climate scientists polled were very convinced that most of the climate change was as a result of anthropogenic causes.

From Wikipedia's policy

"Achieving neutrality

See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples 

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage" 91.85.47.208 (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of (redundant) paragraph about Hansen

The struck comment below was essentially cut and pasted from this thread above. See WP:TALKsection on "good practices". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

James E. Hansen's 1984 climate model's predictions were presented to the US congress in 1988 and helped to bring awareness to the public of the global warming hypothesis. His climate model predictions versus observed temperatures are updated each year by Dr Mikako Sato of Columbia University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.47.208 (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's policy

"Achieving neutrality

See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples 

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.47.208 (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 91.85.47.208 (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)