Talk:List of climate change controversies

They Say / They Reply section

This thread lacks any specific quotes with supporting citations to support the editors' proposals. Too much

Multitudes of arguments in this debate are scientific, based in science, or at least pretending to be. On occasion, these arguments are quite compelling -- on both sides of the fence -- and come from fairly high profile scientists. But then, trolls immediately take over. The result is that there's little to no reliable information. Including, sadly, in scientific journals, since genuine scientists love to troll too. Imho, this article would gain from a clear-cut "they say/they reply" section, with utmost attention given to presenting the viewpoints of both camps, in their full glory, complete with the counter-argument of the other camp. Or then, maybe I looked in the wrong place and missed it, and the article failed to direct me to it. 77.71.249.240 (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I think the problem with this article is that there is hardly any scientific controversy remaining about global warming. There is no doubt that GW exists, and there is almost complete certainly that human activities are the cause. There is still work to do on questions like 'how fast?', 'how long will such-and-such an action take to have how much effect?' and 'what are the best things to be done?' I think that your question stems from your idea that scientific journals cannot be trusted "since genuine scientists love to troll too". What this article mostly says is that most of what people see as unresolved controversies about global warming were in fact manufactured by small but influential groups with a view to delaying political processes. --Nigelj (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC) In my view, you quoted the key language from the opening post, and that language is evidence that the IP's main purpose in this thread is to disparage the professional scientific literature... which renders this thread WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC) "Pretending" to be scientific? "[L]ittle to no reliable information"? There's a definite non-neutral POV. You overlook the principle of WP:WEIGHT, where competing perspectives are to be presented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. On this topic the weighting would be about 30, even 50, to 1. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Your suggestion would violate WP:Fringe, in my opinion. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC) I dunno, it seems to make sense to me. For some reason, none of these "global warming" articles show both views very well. There are still plenty of people who don't believe climate change, so, since this article is called "global warming CONTROVERSY", why not make both sides look equal? They practically are, only there are probably a few more people who believe in climate change.72.80.200.132 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Which shows your continuing lack of understanding regarding a key Wikipedia principle called WP:WEIGHT: we do not "make both sides look equal" when in fact they are not equal. That "plenty of people" think otherwise is beside the point: we do not weight articles by popular opinion. especially when the popular opinion is driven by adroit propagandizing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I myself see much bias rooted within the comments of this post I think the proposal is perfectly fine. Besides the figures and "scientific consensus" is clearly dated or false. Global warming is clearly not an established fact. In school we have specialized debate classes for the subject. There are organizations of scientist's consisting of around 30,000 members against global warming. Don't spend time biasing a talk page and making it a soapbox. Just consider what people have to say and don't go to denailism, which is in itself rooted more in advocates than opposers. Not to mention that there is very little evidence to back your claims, it is a scientific controversy my friend. A BIG one, and those who try and deny it will get ice in the face when confronted.--Cole132132 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Can you be more specific? The 30000 number suggest that you talk about the Oregon Petition, which is not "an organization", and even less "organizations". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC) The problem with this proposal is that it compares Apples and Apples to Oranges. Some people are talking about global warming A. By publishing in the peer reviewed professional scientific literature B. By making statements predicated on clear citation to the peer reviewed professional scientific literature C. Making naked claims of personal opinion Cole and the IP seem to be complaining that this article lacks balance because it is not using the approach of the journalist in this great cartoon NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC) It might be good to point out that "balance" has a technical meaning within the media, where if one side of the political spectrum claimed the earth was flat, balance would mean presenting both sides as having equal merit on the question. We dismiss this practice with utter contempt in scholarship (and on wikipedia). This may be a the problem with our skeptic friends here. If they would tell us where they were getting all this crap from, it would clear the matter up a bit. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Look, maybe we shouldn't make both sides look EXACTLY equal. But look here: the article's called "global warming controversy". It has almost nothing to do with actual controversy, it is almost completely just another excuse to squeeze in more global warming alarmists. Maybe the sides arn't equal, but they're pretty close. Here's a list of scientific organizations that dissent: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php This article just seems a little biased to me. If you look at the old version of the "scientific opinion on climate change" page back in 2005, it has plenty of evidence for both sides of the arguments. Its just recently that people have been insisting that somehow global warming is a settled issue. However, there is no more evidence now for it than there was before, just more bogus statistics.72.80.200.132 (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Scientific organization? The kind that do science? How about citing some of their scientific work. Let's see one article affiliated with these scientographers. Title, author, and journal. Go! TippyGoomba (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) So I looked at the 2005 version of the article. I note that it has less than 20 references. The current version has 244, which is by any standards a vast improvement. Can you suggest any reliable sources (particularly science papers) which you would like to add to the current article? If not, I think we can safely hat this thread as unrelated to improving the article.... Sailsbystars (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Agree with TippyGoomba and SailsbyStars ---- show us something you think is a reliable source that is capable of being formatted according to the WP:citing sources content guideline. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Before we decide what evidence to add, we have to decide whether we're going to change this into a response format. However, if you want a good source, look up "international climate science coalition". It has some great stuuf about how global warming isn't happening. Besides, this article isn't called "global warming controversy according to scientific organizations". It doesn't matter whether or not the orgs on that list are ALL scientific or not, because they are still opinionated, and this page should have their opinions.72.80.200.132 (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Your suggestion of adding would violate WP:RS. I looked up "international climate science coalition" but couldn't find any scholarship. Got anything else? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC) That's your opinion. Which counts for nothing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC) WP:BATTLEGROUND alert. Again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC) So how does my comment differ from Cybersaur's previous "that's your opinion, it doesn't matter"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Answered at your talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Funny that you can't "find any scholarship". The ICSC has a board of 40 members, nearly all of which have PhDs. In contrast, the IPCC's main leaders are politicians. If you believe the IPCC is credible (and I do), the ICSC is also credible. And, as JJ rightly pointed out, your opinion, sadly, just doesn't matter. You have to look at the FACTS.72.80.200.132 (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Yeah it is funny that this "organization" can't get one of the 40 PhDs to publish something. Got any sources yet? TippyGoomba (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC) What do you mean? If you want to find all their degrees, just look at "who we are" on their web site. If you want to find papers they've published, those are also found on the website. What more do you want?72.80.200.132 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC) A reliable third party published source or sources showing both that they're significant to the topic, and how they've been received by mainstream science. . . dave souza, talk 18:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Ya know, I'm pretty sure I'm friends with at least 40 PhDs at this point in my life.... all of whom have published stuff. Maybe we could get together as a group. Then we could all be cited on wikipedia for whatever the heck we wanted! But wait, that doesn't make any sense..... Surely wikipedia has a policy to prevent that sort of shenanigans. An it does, at the policy on self-published sources which basically says don't use them. In the sciences, what this means is that if, say, scientists from the ICSC published literature about climate change in the climate science literature it would be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for inclusion in wikipedia. This prerequisite is not met. In fact, the vast majority of members of the ICSC have no climate literature publications at all. So thus, not useable as a source in a wikipedia article, much less useable as a source for completely rewriting the article. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Well, if you forty PhDs got together, that would be pretty reliable. Why not, anyway?. Besides, these scientists HAVE published papers. Just look on their website, and you'll see all kinds of papers posted there. As for secondary sources, I don't see why we can't self-publish, since self-published IPCC quotes are everywhere on wikipedia, but anyway, you can find all sorts of stuff published by the heartland institute talking about them. And please don't bash heartland. It, like any other organization is capable of being bashed, but the fact is its not going to lie about what the ICSC believes.72.80.200.132 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Disruptive editing, like when one "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits", is sanctionable conduct. Please provide your absolute-best proposed sources for inclusion of ICSC, or move on to something else. If the rest of us do not accept your sources, then one possible next step is described in Disruptive editing and involves taking your proposed sources to the reliable sources noticeboard. You can get a foretaste of that process by searching the archives of the Reliable-Sources Noticeboard archives for "Heartland". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) PS By "best sources" I mean (A) quote, and (B) link where we can go read it for ourselves. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring

We should make this article so that it gives more strength to the "skeptic" side of things, just to be fair. Here's an example of what we can add:

"The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) today called on world leaders to announce a common sense approach to climate change instead of yielding to popular, but misguided demands to restrict greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to ‘stop climate change’."

^Manhattan Declaration Opposes Global Warming Alarmism p.1 -Heartland Institute, 10/8/08

Also, we should add petitions such as "the petition project" that have thousands of scientists disagreeing with global warming alarmists.Cybersaur (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No; and if these proposed sources ever make it to the reliable sources noticeboard they will likely be rejected in a discussion nearly identical to this one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This would be the petition that includes the "signatures" of that well-known scientist Geri Halliwell and various Star Wars characters, yes? Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought it's the one distributed with a fake PNAS paper that the National Academy of Science explicitly denounced. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The PNAS denunciation is here; Apparently it is an old trick because counterfeiting PNAS papers appears to be a regular ploy in the denialist playbook. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, these accounts appear to be socks of each other

• 70.192.78.14 (UPDATE: withdrew sock suspicion for this one)
• 72.80.196.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.80.200.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.80.201.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.80.201.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.80.202.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.80.203.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• cybersaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

When you look at all the requests for cites in the numerous posts since early Dec, and these are the best this editor can do, it's time to start thinking about sanctions to prevent further disruption, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"Sanctions?" I think if Wiki were to start "sanctioning" people for spouting their own POV on Talk from time to time, there would be very few of us left... If you are an editor on a page that is as noteworthily controversial as "Global Warming Controversy", you have to expect people to pop up from time to time who want to throw in their 2 cents - even if most of the time it's stupid. Ckruschke (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

With respect, I say "Well duh" for the "pop up from time to time" type of comments, which this is not. From this sock, here and on another article, we started dealing with RS-free soapboxing back in Dec 2012. At what point does nonstop soapboxing behavior hurt the project? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I've been dealing with multiple IP sock puppets for the last year plus on a family of pages that I watch. Maybe I'm just beyond the "we've gotta do something to stop this moron..." stage and into the bitter, disgruntled, "this fool is never going to stop" stage. Wasn't trying to belittle your opinion. Respectfully - Ckruschke (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Is there a form of page protection for TALK pages, that would stop IP disruption ?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There is, but I forget where it is. In order to get partial or complete control on IP edit, I think the disruptive edit count has to be pretty high. Not sure we meet that here... Ckruschke (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for the reply, and unfortunately you appear to be right.... except that mere disruption apparently does not count. It has to be vandalism. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Those 72.80* addresses are the dynamically allocated addresses used by the self-admitted User:Cybersaur, who is either too clueless or too lazy to login in to his registered account. His usage hardly amounts to WP:sock puppetry ("use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose") as he is not portraying himself as more than himself. Trying to block him on that basis would be petty. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't suggesting that. Eventually one of us might request a block under WP:DISRUPT for inadequate responsiveness to requests for RSs. I was only pointing out that when that happens all of the requests for sources that have been made to the various accounts need to be considered en masse. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it if you all would cast out any revengeful biases towards me. I am not trying to be disruptive, and I never was. I found a fundamental flaw in the recent Wiki edits on certain topics. Some of my contributions have been accepted, and some have not. I responded appropriately to everyone, and it makes absolutely no difference what my IP is. If you want to know, I keep switching computers. In fact, I even used my friend's computer once, because I was over there. Every time people have asked me for a source, I have either given one or argued that we had to settle whether or not the article needed change BEFORE I looked for the source, because I am very new to this and I was hoping someone with more experience than me would listen to my perfectly logical views and change it. I would ask you all to remember that Wikipedia tells us all to be open to new users.Cybersaur (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides, I checked out the "disruptive editing" page, and it only mentioned VANDALISM. Anyone who thinks I'm vandalizing or just trying to be troll definitely hasn't been reading my comments. While you may feel that my edits are foolish, you will find multitudes of people just like me who believe the exact same thing. In fact, arounf here I don't know a single person that'd disagree with me. I am offering completely reasonable suggestions, which everyone thinks are "foolish" because none of them comply to their personal views on the subject.Cybersaur (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)