Talk:Climate change

Important notice: This is the talk page for the article Global warming. Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Global Warming FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this page please take a moment and have a look at some of the frequently asked questions before starting a new topic of discussion. Thank you.

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February 2003 – August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February 2005 – April 2005 April 2005 – June 2005 May 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August – October 2006 October – November 2006 December – February 2007 February – March 2007 March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

Highly Politicized

This article does not represent a neutral point of view. However, I am not suprised since the topic is highly politicized, and spin is used to promote political decisions. These two specific words should be mentioned as a disclaimer, and that its effects are only predicted by models and unknown, untested, and speculative in nature. Buildings being built in wikipedia have disclaimers on them because they are "future projects", so claims about global warming are no different than fortune telling. Since when has using scientists made speculation part of the scientific method? I think this article superbly misses the point that pollution and waste of ALL TYPES are stupid ways to go about doing things where better ways are known, and we are making guinea pigs of all our planet's species. However, destruction of habitat and environment isn't really a new phenomenon solely related to global warming, we have been doing this for centuries, again, not to excuse it.

Despite this, the effects are not adequately addressed, particularly in the "benefits" column. All processes create problems as well as create opportunities. Particularly important of note is that 11 million sq miles of land (Russia, Canada, Kazakhstan), or a fourth of the world total, if warmed sufficiently, will have the potential to be far more arable and economically active. Of course, this may mean more destruction, but that is totally up to how we make it. While its true that arid regions may grow, they currently don't support much population anyway. Also, the idea that "tropical diseases" spreading are a bad thing is a Western stereotype. These diseases have been long ignored by the West, and it's time they find cures for them. Especially since ever greater numbers of Westerners now travel to the tropics because of globalization. —Preceding comment added by Doseiai2 19:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the main article on the effects, and note that predictions made by various models have indeed been tested. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Testing predictions? HA! It's like Merril Lynch predicting where the euro will go in 10 months. The may be correctly "guessing" that no major catastrophe happened, and the general trend, but certainly can't give me an exact figure. Wake up, folks, this isn't science! Doseiai2 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Science. Here is an excellent article by them that compares predictions to observations. If you don't have a subscription to Science, you can find the article in your local library. It's from the 1 February 2007 issue and titled "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence is not science. Science must be right every time. Sorry, but even major magazines are guilty of fortune telling. Science may be involved in producing data that shows past trends, and even then its based on a collection of discrete point values, but prediction itself isn't science! Doseiai2 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best if the supposably offending "speculative" portions of the article were gathered together in a "future trends" section rather than tagging the entire article with a speculative "Disclaimer". In any case there is nothing speculative about observed historical data on global warming to date. Furthermore if the "future trends" section focuses on current models of climate change and their predictions rather than focusing on the predictions themselves then it would not be in any sense "speculative" either. it would just be a description of climate models.Zebulin 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You were obviously unable to read the article. The article compares recent climate observations to past projections, this is not the same as matching "past trends" as you suggest. Yes, prediction itself isn't science. Who suggested otherwise? There is a lot of theory here (I assume you've read the article), and you were lamenting on the lack of predictions. Now that I've shown you where you can read up on how well past predictions have done, you're now lamenting that predictions aren't everything. I'm possibly mischaracterizing you, but re-read what you wrote to understand how it looks that way to me. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody appears to be lamenting a lack of predictions. Rather they wanted to tag the entire article as speculative. My comment was merely a description of how that would be inappropriate.Zebulin 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that comment was directed towards Doseiai2, who said "its effects are only predicted by models and unknown, untested, and speculative in nature". I would argue that was a complaint about the models being untested, i.e., having a lack of tested predictions. Are you suggesting that I read too much into that comment? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

my apologies! sorry to muddy the waters. Your comment was well said.Zebulin —Preceding comment was added at 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the entire article should be tagged as "politicized", and the part about future trends as "speculative". My points was that 1) scientists are learners, and we are increasingly using them as know it all teachers. Yes, they probably can make educated guesses better than anyone else, but its still an educated guess. 2). Climate data is still discrete. Scientists are doing a great job at collecting enormous amounts of data, but their main fault is they are still discrete data points. Also, if you didn't notice, I am totally against spewing unnecessary carbon as this statement I think this article superbly misses the point that pollution and waste of ALL TYPES are stupid ways to go about doing things where better ways are known, and we are making guinea pigs of all our planet's species points out. Doseiai2 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

encyclopedia articles are supposed to miss such points ;) Wikipedia articles are not intended as vehicles for any sort of public service message however sensible it might be. It doesn't matter what your views on "carbon spewing" might be or if readers of an article might not read an important relevant piece of advice. If the article misses such points then it is working as intended.Zebulin 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, while we're at it we can make sure that we mark quantum mechanics and general relativity as speculative, too. Is that what you're suggesting? (After all, scientists are just learners and not "know it all teachers".) We're presenting the science here in as neutral a way as possible. How is it different from other science-based articles on Wikipedia, or are you seriously suggesting this for all scientific articles? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We here at Wikipedia are not interested in your points. If you have a suggestion for amending the article, then by all means we would be more obliged to listen. Rather than talking about the topic and making clearly false statements about science, try to focus on the article--otherwise we can't help you. ~ UBeR 21:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Most of my article was the suggestion on how to improve, but you obviously attack me more making a 1 sentence opinion, UBER!

Encyclopedias have a mandate not to misrepresent. Global warming and carbon should be discussed under the greater framework of pollution in general. The word "pollution" is mentioned only once in the middle of the article, and a key point that it is but one of the many "types of pollution" is not even addressed. This key point along with the disclaimer in the "future predicitions section" that it is speculative should be added as Zebulin had suggested, I'd do this myself if it wasn't locked. Doseiai2 21:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So this is my list of requests to the administrators:

1. Add that carbon is but one of the many "types of pollution".
2. Move predictions, but not theories to a section, and place a disclaimer on that section only that it is speculative in nature. (Theory is how things work, prediction is how things will turn out in the future, predictions can be based on theories and that's ok, but the prediction itself is speculative)
3. Place an article wide disclaimer that claims and even scientific research may be politically motivated, and should be further investigated in detail.
4. Add to criticisms section that scientific data collected, despite increasing amounts, is still discrete point data (location x,y,z adn time) instead of continuous data over the whole earth and all time. Of course, I make no claim how to collect better data, only that it must be interpreted as not fully complete.
5. Beef up the area of potential opportunities created

• Opening up of Russia, Canada, Kazakhstan, and Greenland for more arable land
• Opportunity to tackle long ignored tropical diseases

Sorry for any confusion this has caused. In the future, I will give a rquest list like this. Doseiai2 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Request denied. --Stephan Schulz 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've listed some actual proposals, I would like to address some of them. First, carbon (dioxide) in itself isn't a pollutant, but I know what you're saying. We already list the other major greenhouse gases in this article and there's no need to go off on a tangent about other pollutants. About your earlier proposal about making this article simply about pollution--that isn't possible. The pollution, and even the air pollution articles are already too big. This is a separate topic that is deserving of its own article. Second, theories are based upon hypotheses, which are often times predictions and projections (because of x, y). See here for more on the scientific method. Third, our readers are typically not children; they can think and deduce by themselves. Fourth, I can't say I would disagree. ~ UBeR 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. This isnt science AND this article is *not* neutral. Where is the statement that the neutrality of this article is disputed because at least one person besides me disagrees with the neutrality. At least place that at the top. Its junk-science, at best. And, if the Wikipedia continues to approve the quality of this particular topic's content then it will force me to consider what other topics are also suspect.

After having read the article, and watched its evolution over the past year, and having read this discussion page, I noticed that anyone who even tries to interject an alternate view or dare add an opposing view gets pounced on. It follows, perfectly, along with any of the blogs and the forums out there. Those who attempt to show that there is a considerable amount of population that disagree with the belief that humans changed an entire planet's climate in the span of a few hundred years (out of 4+ billion years of continual climate changes, shifting continents, solar radiation changes, bombardments from space and so on), are deleted.

This entire global warming topic is definitely off kilter and NOT neutral. There IS another side to the conversation. It is spin and the media loves it because it brings ratings and, well, its far better than reporting war and terror so they run with it. Also, corporations left and right are jumping on the bandwagon (and thats all that it really is - a bandwagon) because it brings them publicity. Not everyone is buying into this human-created theory and there are a LOT of raising of eyebrows during these conversations. No one disputes that the climate is changing - its always changing and who is to say what is "normal" with this planet? Species have come and gone and so, too, will we. Its a fact a life. It is complete arrogance to even think we could destroy the planet and even more arrogant to think we can REVERSE this so-called destruction of the climate. I have to laugh at it all. And I am not the only one laughing.

You either MUST believe in this global warming BS or you're labeled a skeptic and shunned. Its ironic that, one of the most controversial topics (Jesus), there is alternative points of view allowed to be written right into the topic. Views from the Jews, Hindus, Buddhist views and even from views of the Islamics toward Jesus. Why allow those other views right in the open and not only on the talk-page? Because we HAVE TO BE politically correct now, dont we? And those alternative views are right there in the open, not just in the "talk page" that almost no casual reader sees. Where are all of the references to alternative views in this topic? There are hundreds of blogs and forums that disagree but yet none show up here. I have been continually amazed at the one-sidedness of this absurd topic. MediaPlex 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion for the article? Is there a specific claim made in the article that you disagree with and can provide a counter-argument against (with citations)? johnpseudo 00:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Current models for the development of the global climate system do not incorporate the reaction of marine organisms nor the processes that they influence." from "Scientists discover biological mechanism for enhanced carbon consumption in the ocean", Physorg, Nov 12, 2007, http://www.physorg.com/news114071511.html. This shows the climate models are off, whether a little or a lot. How much they are off isn't the point. My point is that we don't have or know all the inputs yet. Climate change isn't a simple A+B reaction. It's very complex and those who claim to know it all and make predictions based on their know-it-all-ness are always leaving stuff out! It's an evolving science that keeps incorporating new data. We know numerous things that can change the outcome rather easily, from cometary strikes, to marine organisms, to solar output changes, methane eruption from the oceans, nuclear winter, to volcanic eruptions. Science is like a carbon atom having 6 protons, no process we know of can change that, whether a rogue black hole sucks up the earth or not, carbon will have 6 atoms. Climate change predictions on the other hand are subject to "as long as certain things don't happen". Well, things DO happen, that is reality. This is precisely why I proposed that "predictions" should have a warning disclaimer. Doseiai2 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." Quoth the statistician George Box. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not advocating censoring models, nor care to discuss their usefulness. I am simply advocating putting a disclaimer on using them to predict the future, similar to what wikipedia has on buildings under construction, in effect, they are "models in development" or "models under construction" Doseiai2 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds silly. What do you mean by "model" -- only complex climate models? Every science uses models of all types. A very simple energy-balance model produces much the same answer as a long-term climate model for the case of global warming. Analogous models of different complexities are relied on heavily in economics, physics, even biology. To evaluate which sciences used "models" at any given moment and tag those would constitute original research. bikeable (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In the intro, it says "Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century". First of all there is the qualifier "likely". Second, there is a range, which is quite large. Thus the disclaimer that you want is effectively there already William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Locked page

I've requested the page be locked, and now that is, I hope we can end this nonsense edit war. This, like most edit wars, involves the lead, particularly the "few scientists" sentence. Instead of going back and forth between myself and Callmebc and a few others, it would be prudent for more people to discuss. Keep in mind this has been discussed tirelessly before, and I don't expect much to change from past decisions. (It's not like the numbers have significantly changed since last debate!)

Two recent discussions on the particular sentence can be read here and here. Obviously, there have been many discussion on exactly the same thing: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (just from mid-year and up). Each and every time, the only clear consensus or compromise, whichever you choose, was the current sentence: "A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." I personally don't like "A few" because it's both subjective and a weasel word, and would much prefer a neutral "There are," but detractors claim undue weight. Clearly, I can live with that consensus/compromise. What I can't tolerate is two or three people who insist on using terms like "tiny minority" or the one person who suggests the scientists are "random," and choose to use sources that in no way validate their edits. I really don't know what else to say other than to ask people discuss this... again. ~ UBeR 07:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(This is substantially similar to my comment above). The objections to "small minority of climate scientists" still make no sense. It's clearly a true statement; if the Nature ref is not as perfectly fitting as you want, another can easily be found. Assuming I do find one, consider the following points. I think it's clearly the most relevant statement to make in the lead. Why? First, because the opinions of non-climate scientists are not nearly as notable on this subject as those of climate scientists. Second, the reader wants to know the ratio of supporters vs. opponents of the consensus view, and the word "few" does not convey that information. - Merzbow 07:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I really dont care either way. So, I say, lets go by the KISS rule, and leave it as it was? Otherwise, we are bound to having these pointless discussions that do no more than saturate my watchlist with absurdity. Its the intro. The interested reader will find out the exact fraction of supporters and "playa-hataz" and everything she ever wanted to know. Brusegadi 16:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I hardly find the present discussion pointless, nor unresolvable, nor the status quo text unimprovable. - Merzbow 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How many scientists, out of how many total, have publically disagreed with any of the how many IPCC conclusions in some way? Are we talking about in public or in private? Opinion or peer-reviewed work? How many points and to what extent? If I'm a scientist, and I am interviewed and I answer a question with "I think the low-end estimate of a 2.5 C rise a bit too high, and it's more likely half that." then am I one of those "disagreeing"? Or do I need to publish a paper proving something to "disagree"? The issue here is the question is not answerable because we don't know what the question is; "a few" is vague, because what it's saying they disagree with, and how, is vague also.

Why not something more like "Here are some of the scientists that disagree with various aspects of some of the IPCC's conclusions." Or whatever. You get the idea. Just a pointer to the other article.

Oh, and can somebody specify that the WG 1 SPM in AR4 is the source for "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via the greenhouse effect." instead of just "the IPCC"?Sln3412 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are questions better asked at list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I can agree, however, that "a few" is too much a weasel word to ever to be useful or meaningful. ~ UBeR 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my first point I think, UBeR. Tell me specificly what "disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." means. "A few scientists" is a vague and inexact subject, and it introduces an inexact predicate. What's wrong with that?

But my point is why not just change it to something totally meaningless on this page like Oh, "There is not universal agreement with all aspects of the IPCC's conclusions made in their reports, please -go here-." (To see what the disagreements are, who's making them, and how much they disagree.) I don't know, word it better. Send them to that page and don't discuss it on this one AT ALL.Sln3412 00:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what you call an POV fork. ~ UBeR 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The big problem is that there is no clear data on scientific opinion that is acceptable to the crowd here. A while back, I tried referencing a study that showed that approximately 45-50% of the scientists surveyed concur with the IPCC perspective, while significant minorities (15-20% for each) believe the IPCC overstates or understates the influence of anthropogenic CO2 forcing. Unfortunately, this study was not accepted in the scientific opinion on climate change article because of its self-published status, among other (IMO) petty justifications.

My point is, until there is an acceptable source that surveys scientific opinion (I am NOT talking about unscientific editorials or pronouncements, no matter how "reputable" the source), we cannot describe the proportion of scientists who disagree with the mainstream assessment. Hence my suggestion to use the "there are..." wording, which does not make any judgment on the proportion, but merely states a known fact. Zoomwsu 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, again, I don't think so. Write neutral languge saying nothing, that is simply a link to the list of those that disagree somehow and why about what. Sln3412 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Write neutral languge saying nothing". I hope you're not serious. We're editing an encyclopedia here, not negotiating a treaty. Kaldari (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlock proposal

The "few" is constantly challenged but I haven't seen it improved upon. I don't think locking the article is a good idea. I propose unlocking it, but with the additional rule of 1RR (or perhaps 1/7RR) for that particular sentence. Leaving the article locked till we all agree on that sentence means leaving it locked forever William M. Connolley 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good plan (and we want to remove the block) but how do we label the 1RR on that sentence so no one does it by mistake? Comment text not shown on the page? --BozMo talk 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs labelling - there are only a few people warring on it, and they will all read this. Anyone who does it by mistake can be offered the chance to self-revert to save themselves. But an inline comment would be OK William M. Connolley 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, situations like this are precisely what the ability to include a hidden comment is useful for. If the article is unlocked on the basis of this 1RR rule then it would seem very strange indeed to not comment the relevant portion of text.Zebulin 19:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

1RR is an unnecessary evil (just kidding of course). But we've tried that before, and I don't think it turned out well in the long run. I'm fine with unlocking the article--one of the edit warriors has already been blocked for a week. But, if the current sentence is the proposed one to keep, that ought to be made clear to anyone who wants to go around making un-agreed-upon changes to the sentence.

Also, I'd like to point out the edit war also involved other parts, such the Kyoto sentence and the SV sections. But I think we can be responsible and discuss these without a full lock on the page. ~ UBeR 23:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Either the current version or UBeR's "There are individual scientists..." is fine. If we do a 1RR on that sentence we'll need an inline comment and someone willing to enforce the terms. Although I think I could do so impartially, as an involved admin I'd rather not. My preference would be for a 0RR; we continually waste far too much time warring over this point. Raymond Arritt 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not been monitoring this article long enough to know the history here, but I generally agree with UBeR's point and believe that the "There are individual scientists ..." wording is preferable because it doesn't imply anything regarding the number of such scientists and, therefore, should remove the objections from a purely numerical perspective. The fact that the wording still refers to individual scientists should suggest to the reader that their numbers are low which should satisfy those concerned about WP:WEIGHT. Having expressed my opinion I defer to the existing group dynamics on the issue. --GoRight 03:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A 0RR or 1RR reeks of censorship.

I would like to see a vote. I would expect to see "a small minority", "several dozen" or "some individual scientists" to be more popular than "a few". ^rossnixon 01:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Per your edit summary, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. In any case, I wouldn't mind a vote, but I also don't think I would be surprised by the outcome. (Of course, voting has little to do with actual consensus building or meaningful discussion, per applicable Wikipedia rules.) ~ UBeR 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with UBeR. What we can do is the following. Why don't the involved editors explain in detail his/her views? On the talk page OR is allowed. E.g., you are allowed to argue on the talk page that you think that the true number of dissenting scientists is a few hundred. Just explain what you think is the situation regarding the consensus. Then explain why you think that way, what sources can you give to back up your point (they don't have to be Reliable Sources, we just want to know how you formed your opinion).

It is better to do this without people commenting on the views of others. You just write your own opinion. Then we can discuss which views are backed up by Reliable Sources and which are not. The people who hold views that are not backed up by reliable sources can then say that they may be right, but that their views are not based on the type of reliable sources that this wiki article must be based on.

This procedure prevents people from engaging in "wiki politics" by going to the hearth of the matter first and only later bringing in the wiki rules. Count Iblis 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected it and added an inline comment to the sentence William M. Connolley 10:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked DH for clearly breaking 1RR on this. I've also removed the prot and left a note with the protecting admin William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left you a note regarding that. You should seriously reconsider. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A good way to unlock but yet preserve would be to allow information to be added, but not removed or modified. In other words, lock sections, but don't keep from others from adding new sections. Don't know if wikipedia has a way to do that. Doseiai2 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm probably belongs somewhere but I'm not sure where - likely not in this article William M. Connolley 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should this have any more credibility than Milloy's survey of the IPCC? Check out the last question: "oh btw are you bought and paid for by big oil?" [8] Iceage77 11:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the BBC more credible than Milloy? Tricky one. I wonder if you can answer that for yourself if you think for just a little bit William M. Connolley 12:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Jeremy Paxman, "the BBC's coverage of climate change abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago". [9] Iceage77 12:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, they have today published a good critique of the IPCC by John Christy [10]. Iceage77 12:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[Personal attacks removed -UBeR]. You know full well that JP's quote doesn't affect the BBCs cred. Why are you wasting our time with this nonsense? William M. Connolley 12:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly legitimate to point out which side of the debate the BBC is coming from. May I remind you of WP:NPA. Iceage77 13:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are a waste of time William M. Connolley 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. johnpseudo 15:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As do I. Anyone who starts out the conversation by putting the BBC on the same level as Steve Milloy isn't playing with a full deck. Raul654 16:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Raul's comment is especially apropos. Raymond Arritt 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The amazing thing is that some of them happily state things that are absolutely, incontestably wrong. Are they hopelessly ill-informed, or are they delusional? Those are the only choices. Really, "two saying decidedly that levels [of greenhouse gases] had not risen"?!?!?!!!???? Raymond Arritt 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So what about using the other BBC article pointed out above ([11]) somewhere? Are we going to be consistent in our love for the BBC? :) - Merzbow 22:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

One's a report of a survey and correspondence; the other is an opinion piece. We could use the latter as a statement of Christy's views, sure. Why not hop on over to John Christy and add it? Raymond Arritt 23:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Reader's comments have been published A lot of people are dismissive of the sceptic's arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncited "Few"

Sigh, we have been over this before. The word "few" without a cite = original research. It seems this 1RR was instituted as a way for the OWNers of this page to keep the page fixed on their version permanently even though I do not see any consensus on this version at all. Why has the above promised discussion on the merits of each version never happened? Is it because it would be pointless because the people who like things the way they are are all admins now who institute arbitrary revert policies, block, and revert to their OWN version? Frankly I'm very troubled by the amount of administrative powers that control the content of this article. With this 1RR the article will effectively never change or improve. --Tjsynkral 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK the 1RR only applies to a small phrase, not the whole article--BozMo talk 17:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The 1RR rule has no influence whatsoever on the article. If you can revert x times then everyone else can revert x times too. So, we can shorten the duration of revert wars by a factor 3 without changing the outcome by observing the 1RR rule. Count Iblis 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess when you look at it that way, it's really just as much of a flaw with 3RR. The article's content should be judged by what's correct, not by who reverts the most. I believe ANY change will be reverted to the current version by the people in question no matter how large an improvement. The OWNers watch the article constantly and revert immediately upon any change to this sentence. It's not even open to debate as far as they're concerned. We've demonstrated in the past that "few" without a cite is unacceptable, yet the citation was reverted out. --Tjsynkral 18:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tedious complaints over ownership are commonplace from people who simply dislike the content. Helpful imporvements are readily accepted. Changing few to some was deliberately provocative. You may have *asserted* that few-sans-cite is unacceptable but not *demonstrated*. This has been gone over endlessly William M. Connolley 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I see changing "few" to "some" as an improvement, since "few" is unsubstantiated and "some" is neutral. I'm sure I could find a better way to be deliberately provocative, such as changing it to "many" or "most". Whatever happened to AGF? Doesn't that apply to administrators as well?

Also, I don't know how I can demonstrate the problem with "few" having no citation any better than pointing to the policy of WP:OR. There is clearly a dispute over this claim so a citation must be brought in. --Tjsynkral 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting Tjsynkral's argument, but I thought he was saying that he wanted to add a citation and not to change it from few to some. Am I missing something? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He wants to use "some"[12] and/or use the deprecated AMQUA.[13] ~ UBeR 23:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

First issue that should be addressed should be to change "disagree" for "have voiced disagreement". At least we would not be presuming of the opinion of thousands of still-silent-to-this-day scientists. Then "a few" could be argued over. --Childhood's End 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Both sources considered for this sentence (AMQUA and Nature) do not restrict themselves to outspoken criticism. --Stephan Schulz 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont see sources for this sentence (?) and if there are, why not reflect this in the article? --Childhood's End 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I added in a source for "Few" that was used previously, and WMC revert-removed it. --Tjsynkral 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What was the excuse for removing the source? I have to admit that it seems odd to have a 1rr rule specifically protecting an unsourced statement. In the absence of the source "some" does seem like a more neutral term than "few".Zebulin 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the new meaning of "few". It can now apparently refer to several dozen, as you will see if you click on "individual scientists. ^rossnixon 01:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating your language skills. Of course, this know-nothing seems to have used the phrase somewhat earlier while talking about thousands. But maybe he was inspired by this barely known poet who put it into the mouth of some Heinrich when referring to his small group of bandits as "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers"? Well, I have a go gazing at the few stars visible from Earth tonight and then remove the few grains of sand that got into my shoes. --Stephan Schulz 08:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "few reported" or "few have been reported"? (-- SEWilco (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

How about we just don't describe it and point to the list and let the gentle reader count them if they so choose. Few, some, gaggle, googol. The petty bickering and POV pushing from all sides is pathetic. --DHeyward (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I gues I should congratulate you in including yourself as part of all sides. The article has to stand as true&balance without the link (as for sentences with brackets) so I think we had better leave it as it has been (with wide support) without your particular intervention. Please don't use expletives in edit summaries by the way. --BozMo talk 08:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so wide to me. Also, Wikipedia isn't censored. ~ UBeR (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be right. Do you agree marginal majority? Anyway I don't think people coming in from the cold with a blatant not consensus edit war change and saying "please don't edit war" should be taken too seriously. You, UBeR, I take increasingly seriously. But then I did revert to your latest version. --BozMo talk 10:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, in the sense that profanity is permitted within articles when appropriate. But not in talk or edit comments. W-i-n-c is not relevant to this issue William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And where do you get the interpretation from? Profanity in it of itself is not incivil. Speech is indeed limited when it interferes with creating an encyclopedia, but I do not see that here. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries; however, individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC."

i saw the above wording had been introduced (and immediately reverted) and it seems to be a better solution than the ones proposed in the zillion pages of talk. Maybe we should simply adopt this new wording? What could be more neutral less ambiguous and less vulnerable to accusations of OR than phrasing it in this way? It certainly seems less assailable than "a few" or even "some" and does not require further citation.Zebulin (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't mean the same thing. There could be a million individual scientists, but there aren't. johnpseudo 12:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And why is providing unsourced qualifiers better than leaving it neutrally vague? If we must use "few" let's just source it. If we don't have a source handy let's leave the vague wording and there will be a fine incentive to dig up an authoritative source that declares that "a few" (whatever that means) scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC. Reading through the (appallingly long) discussion on this phrasing seems to reveal a rather unencylopedic and frankly OR approach to this wording controversy. Why not source or leave vague?Zebulin (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of me repeating the answers that have been repeated again and again - try reading the talk page and archives. I'm btw. not a proponent for leaving it unsourced - we have good sources for it - but apparently consensus was that it wasn't necessary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely what I found so striking about the archives was the apparent total absence of consensus on this phrasing. Furthermore, the sources do not appear to have ever been placed into the article. Doing so could easily provide the basis for a true consensus. Sourcing has an excellent record in that regard.Zebulin (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing (a few) has had consensus (and been present) for at least as long as i've been editing wikipedia (iirc) - it has been sourced earlier, but a recent consensus removed the sourcing as unnecessary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A source should be added. Why not? - Merzbow (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Kim if you would look through the talk archives you would see that the reason the following sourcing:

"cite journal|author= American Quaternary Association| date = 2006-09-05 | url= http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf |title = Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate | journal = Eos | volume = 87 | number = 3 | pages = 364 | format = PDF | quote = Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution."

was removed was that the wording from the source "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution." is dramatically different from the context it was being applied to. The phrase in question in the article does not refer to how many scientists doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution rather it says that individual scientists "disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC". One would expect a wide discrepancy between the numbers of scientists in those two contexts because those are really two different doubts one considerably more extreme than the other. What would be best to have is a look at those other good sources you've mentioned and use one that applies to the number of scientists that disagree with (or doubt) some of the main conclusions of the IPCC. Reinstating such a source would likely be a slam dunk to stability far more effective than a clunky and frankly unjustified 1rr rule could ever be.Zebulin (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We have an excellent documentation in the article linked. And frankly i doubt that anything would make a "slam dunk" on this one - for instance you are not likely to influence the people who insert "many", "a growing number" and so on - because they will claim that (for instance) Inhofe's blog is more (or just as) reliable [14]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How about the "a small minority of scientists" as suggested (way) above? Personally, "few" works for me, because, to me, "few" is always relative and when you CAN make a reasonably complete list of scientists who agree with you, that means that not too many people agree with you. However, if we stick with "few" I don't think this argument is ever going to end, as people will follow the link to the list of climate change dissenters, see that it's a lot of names, and the edit war and complete single-minded discussion on this page about one word will continue unabated forever. Enuja (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"There are" is more favorable. I think Dr. Arritt even said that could work. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This argument will continue on and off for eternity (or as long as Wikipedia lasts), whether we use few/some/small minority/many/incremental/2.7128/plurality/some vague number/gaggle/preponderance/42/majority/swarm/platoon or whatever. I, for one, think it's a waste of time; while "there are" works for me, as a practical matter we probably should stick to the consensus that has held for some months. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus has never held as far as can be seen from the archives or revision history. When the phrase was not changing it was protected in some manner. Great care in maintaining rigorous encylopedic neutrality and standards is of great importance because it helps safeguard the credibility of the article (sourcing in general is always good for this) and because it promotes stability by defusing at least some accusations of POV entrenching. I think the obvious best solution is a citation that offers some qualifer on the number of scientists who have voiced disagreement with one or more of the main conclusions of the IPCCZebulin (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this sentence has been here for so long, more than indicates consensus. That it has often been the focus of revert-wars or random pass-by editors, indicates that this is a subject that has some heated opinions. Would this sentence do it for you? "However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points, even if there is still some uncertainty about particular aspects, such as how the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change in the future." [15](p.3, misleading arguments 2.) - few is after all just the reverse of an "overwhelming majority". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this sentence has been here for so long is nothing more than the result of incessant reverting by a bunch of people who apparently have no respect for these dissenting scientists' opinions, who revert to the uncited "few" version immediately upon ANY change to it. The stability of the article can be attributed to there being more of these type of people watching than people committed to making the encyclopedia better verifiable and factually accurate. --Tjsynkral (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

any sourced qualification even one using "overwhelming majority" would be superior, yes.

Mr. Petersen, you and I both know that's not how consensus works. Just look at the flow chart. It explains it pretty well. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points, even if there is still some uncertainty about particular aspects, such as how the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change in the future." followed by the http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 reference. It's longer but not cludgy and decisively settles the issue with sources.Zebulin (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively we could from the same source use:

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points. "Zebulin (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good except for the last phrase, "the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points". That is a circular reinforcement. Of course they agree. They are the ones making the points! ^rossnixon 02:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That would only be a valid objection if we had already clarified that nearly all scientists who work on climate change had input into either the main points of the IPCC or at least had input into the endorsements of 30+ societies and academies. As it is we have a sentence that declares that at least 30 scientific societies and acadamies of science have endorsed the conclusions of the IPCC followed by one that says that individual scientists have disagreed with some of those conclusions while the overwhleming majority agree on the IPCCs main points. That's not really circular referencing at all.Zebulin (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Zebulin, your language won't work not only because it's too wordy and complicated for the lead but because it's a copyright violation. You can't use the wordings from outside sources (unless they are public domain). You can quote the source, or you can paraphrase it, but you can't use their words. I think Kim D. Petersen was simply suggesting that as a source to cite for the current wording. Enuja (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion is to not use disagreement with the IPCC as a benchmark. It may not be a good suggestion since the IPCC is well known, but it is a suggestion nontheless. Brusegadi (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! all this argument about one word. Might I suggest the addition of another word to qualify it? How about comparatively or relatively, as in "comparatively few" or "relatively few". When compared to the great majority of climate scientists which accept AGW the skeptics are few, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there are literally only three or four. 63.196.193.204 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of endlessly warring over this one word, how about we focus our efforts on improving the article itself? More time and energy has been spent butting heads over this one word in this article than most articles on this website see for the duration of their existence. How important is this, really? Unless someone finds a reliable and relevant source supporting any form of descriptor, there really isn't a case for any change from what is the present status quo (a few). The time would be better spent trying to research and improve upon these two articles instead, at least in my opinion. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right Jc-S0CO, lets stop focusing on the word. And an easy way to do that is to get rid of it. That will also save us a lot of time arguing over the source, because there wouldn't need to be one. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC the vast majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them."

reworded enough to meet those objections without giving wiggle room to claim the source doesn't support that wording. As to those who say this is not worthy of our time it makes no difference that it is unworthy of our time. The problem doesn't go away by wishing it away as the archives have shown. The approach for a while now seems to have been to keep reverting to the same version in the hopes that it will stop being brought up and resorting to bizarre one sentence 1rr rules to protect it. It's even leading to the article getting protected from edits in general. Let's just solve the damn thing. "a few" is called original research, leaving it off gives the wrong impression. fine let's reword it as I've been trying to do and give it a source. The best way to get rid of a distraction like this is to just defuse it not complain about it or wish it away. In any event what with the revert wars constantly leading the article to be protected from edits improving it is not really possible while these recurring revert war triggers are left unresolved.Zebulin (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't "solve the damn thing" though of course I wish we could. It will be an ongoing point of contention no matter what we do. Sure, let's settle on something now, but in a couple of months we'll be back here again. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We can write a wiki article on this issue, it is a notable dispute.  :) Count Iblis (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Some" carries no POV; it is a vague word that leaves it to the reader to decide if it's object is actually many or few or negligible. Some editors have historically insisted to have "few" because it carries their POV. How can Kim say that there is a consensus for "few" despite these numerous discussions, I dont know (perhaps looked at how Oreskes worked, i.e. ignore the dissidents), but the fact that the word "few" has been here for long is not indicative of anything, and certainly not proof that there are not many editors who have tried to have it changed scores of times. I am of those who think that "some" is NPOV since it would simply lead to the list without giving an opinion, which list then should strike readers of how "few" the dissidents are if that's the case. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What about this study? Does this not directly focus on scientist agreement with the IPCC? Here is your source that at the very least makes it clear that a significant number of scientists disagree with some of the IPCC's conclusions. Zoomwsu (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the obvious problems (self-selection, no peer review), that study says that 100% of the polled scientists agree that there is real warming and 97% (well, I compute 97.86%, but let's not quibble) agree that CO2 is a significant contribution, i.e. they agree with the core points of the IPCC, even if they disagree about details. It also shows the IPCC squat in the middle of responses. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of either "some" or "few" but I think it is Undue weight to use an organization that is biased on the issue as a source of "fact" over how many (Overwhelming Majority) are on one side or the other without attribution. In other words, it should say "According to X 'an overwhelming majority' agree with it in general". That way the OPINION that is expressed is attributed. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any source disputing the statement there is no grounds for saying there is an "issue".Zebulin (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

But there are sources that say that there is overwhelming pressure to conform to the "majority" view. Shall we add that to the article also?--Blue Tie (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"An organization that is biased"? Holy smokes, this is the Royal Society we're quoting here (the equivalent of the U.S National Academy of Sciences). One has to ask, is there any source that you would consider unbiased? Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not quarrel with the current sentence. I don't think it's flawless. In a perfect world, it would read, ". . . an overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them, according to the Royal Society" (i.e. attribution). But I'm also realistic. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be interesting to write the whole article along the lines of "the Royal Society says X, but Rush Limbaugh says Y; the National Academy of Sciences says A, but global warming skeptic Penn Jillette says B." But I suspect someone might disagree. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's quite an argument, unless of course it's your own. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's not meant as an argument one way or the other, just an observation that it would be an interesting approach. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was just confused. It would be interesting. You could always try that here, where I'm sure there will be much credence given to "authorities" on both sides. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"individual scientists have voiced disagreement"+"overwhelming majority agree" seems redundant. The sentence also seems a little awkward. Perhaps this: "An overwhelming majority, but not 100% of scientists agree on the main conclusions of the IPCC. - Sagredo^Discussione? 03:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good proposal but if you find that the existing sentence "seems redudant" you must see how your proposed version is likewise "redundant" in the same way. Neither version is in fact redundant. Both the existing version and your proposed version attempt to allow the inclusion of the dissenters list without using an OR quantification or leaving it vague. The sentence is only important in as much as it was leading to edit wars and other headaches. I'd only want to mess with it in a way that clearly made it more bulletproof with negligible impact on the quality of the article.Zebulin (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolute global mean temperature?

Neither this article, instrumental temperature record or average surface temperature seem to contain the absolute global mean temperature. All references are "anomalies" relative to some period, but the absolute value of the mean during this period isn't stated. Is this standard in climatology, an oversight, or not considered relevant for some reason? For what it's worth, I found "Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14C = 57.2F".[16] Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The absolute mean is much harder to determine than the anomalies. Consider two thermometers a thousand kilometers apart that have not been calibrated against each other. You cannot determine the average temperature at both places from them (as they may both be off to an arbitrary amount), but if both now show 5 degrees less than last year, you can indeed determine the average anomaly (and please substiture "two" by "very many", but you get the idea...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(conflict) Its a fair point, and far more entertaining than discussing "few". Your reference is a fair one. Anomalies are easier to calculate than absolute values, so people use anomalies; and the global absolute mean doesn't really mean very much. But it should be in the T rec page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec a-go-go) Climate change is almost always expressed as a deviation from some baseline rather than as an absolute temperature. This allows us to factor out small differences in the absolute value between different data sets (as Stephan notes above). The baseline period most often used is the mean for 1961-1990. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, the baselines for various estimates are also different. For example, when we chart the warming from the 1800's until now, and then also chart the computer models estimates, the use a different baseline. I have no idea what would happen if you overlaid the two (or just corrected the offset from one to another). Here's a previous discussion. The article on the HadCrut3 methodology is very good and the more recent graphs from that office are better than the ones in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible resolution to "the few" argument

I'm terribly sorry if something like this has already been said.

I can't help but see an problem in the way the last part of the intro flows. Suggesting that it is even relevant that "a few" of scientists disagree with the mainstream assessment of global warming only feeds the misconception that scientific consensus is based on the subjective opinion of scientists and not on a convergence of many empirical (and otherwise), peer reviewed studies that converge on a given conclusion (recent warming trends can ONLY be explained with recent increases of CO2). I believe the inclusion of this sentence PERIOD is inappropriate for encouraging the reader's understanding of the topic. I recommend it be replaced with something more relevant to the scientific method, like "and to date, there exists not a single prevailing alternative hypothesis to contradict the IPCC's assessment of recent warming trends."

Much of the skepticism around global warming seems to be borne of a misunderstanding, and therefore lack of confidence, in the scientific method. Skepticism is built into the scientific method. We are talking about science here, and let's be sure the article itself in confident in saying this.

I know the editors are trying to maintain neutrality here. It may be relevant that there are dissenting points of view among scientists. But among these scientists, there exists not a single published, peer reviewed theory that "debunks" the AGCC theory. I believe this is what is important, not their respective opinions (some of which are based on unfounded scientific "ideas" (global warming comes from the sun), or belief that the IPCC is "politicized" (see John Christy's opinion article published by the BCC)).

I won't post the edit myself, I merely suggest this be discussed and considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veloce (talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying but disagree. It's quite notable that not an insignificant number of scientists are critical of the IPCC conclusions and many have offered ideas AND research that supports their positions. Just because the AGW theory hasn't been definitively "debunked" is no cause to ignore the notable and critical opinions of dissenting scientists. Zoomwsu (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ideally we'd do what Veloce suggests. There's no need to include small-minority positions in the lead; they are more appropriately mentioned in the main text. The problem arises from a well-intended but unwise attempt to accommodate editors who tenaciously promote these small-minority views. Thus we mention the small-minority position in the lead, which then requires that we qualify the small-minority position as such, which then leads to conflicts over the precise wording, and round and round we go. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but to agree. I think a sentence about it in the "Causes" section where it mentions other theories would be a more suitable. Perhaps something like "This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. (Some/There are/nothing/w.e) individual scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that recent warming is mainly attributable to elevated levels of greenhouse gases, and other hypotheses have been suggested to explain the observed increase in mean global temperature." ~ UBeR (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've not been involved in this debate before. How about "These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries, though there is some disagreement from individual scientists." I didn't search the histories extensively, so please, no stones - I'm just suggesting an alternate wording to try to break the impasse. :-) ATren (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the wording really matters that much. So long as it's supported by a source we don't need special rules to protect it. It's been under constant attack because it's always either unsourced or sourced by a reference that was obviously discussing a different number. It's like having a big bullseye painted in the article and being annoyed that people keep taking shots at it. If properly sourced people may not like it (and many other things about the article) but they won't have a leg to stand on in unilaterally removing it.Zebulin (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC

This is true and why I left "Few" alone when that (shaky) source was in there. For lack of a better source we can only either say there are "few" dissenters based on quaternary or remove the whole sentence altogether. Or say something NPOV which obviously pisses our climate bloggers off. --Tjsynkral (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 source mentioned above is much better than the shaky source used earlier. It is clearly discussing exactly the number the sentence is referring to. So long as the wording used fits with that source I expect the level of attacks and attention to that sentence will drop to that seen in the rest of the article. Probably even lower since the sourcing for some other items is somewhat less obvious.Zebulin (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This could work. Per that source we could state the "overwhelming majority" agree, which carries the natural implication that there are others (an underwhelming minority?) who disagree. But whatever we do, it will be challenged all over again in a couple of months. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that before but if done right they will spend more time challenging other parts of the article. It's like whack a mole but I've seen at least one unstable article achieve greatly improved stability with this workmanlike approach.Zebulin (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One problem would be getting a link to the Wikipedia article, albeit poor quality. One possibility is what I suggested above in reply to Dr. Arritt's post that it shouldn't be in the lede in the first place. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Overwhelming majority" is a literal quote from the proposed source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that after I posted. See what I changed above. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we clearly have enough material here now to resolve this. How do we formally initiate the process of forming an interim consensus so that we can get the article unlocked and get on with improving content that actually matters? I have already suggested some wording but I don't much care what wording is used so long as the source backs it up. I recommend we either proceed with:

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC the vast majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them."

or we have a suggestion of:

"and to date, there exists not a single prevailing alternative hypothesis to contradict the IPCC's assessment of recent warming trends."

although that one, needs a source before it's likely to solve any of the editing magnet problem.Zebulin (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this version. Zoomwsu (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It could work, though I'd prefer "overwhelming" to "vast" since that's what the source actually says. We shouldn't link to the "scientists opposing" article since it includes many who haven't done science in a long time (and some who never did, except according to the tortured criteria for inclusion in that article). Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I like overwhelming better too to be honest. the wording change was intended fluff out the copy edit changes but if we can get away with "overwhelming majority" so much the better. Including the list is a useful way to defuse editors trying to add their exceptions. Concerns about the linked list are probably best hammered out there. A link to some sort of article that gathers up sourced dissenting views (such as they are), is probably prudent for an article that is such a fringe magnet. It's like linking to moon hoax in an Apollo article that keeps getting edited by hoax advocates as an alternative to addressing it in the main article itself or trying to ignore the fringe zealots.Zebulin (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with "overwhelming", but I still think a link to the dissenting scientists is appropriate, although not in the lead. Zoomwsu (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"How do we formally initiate the process of forming an interim consensus . . . ?" See WP:CONSENSUS. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just the normal consensus page. it doesn't state at what point blocks that await consensus can be lifted.Zebulin (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wait until it expires. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If we have consensus, and everyone promises to play nice, someone can ask Tariqabjotu to unprotect. But to be honest I don't mind the R&R. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed to the new wording and unprotected. Good luck! Kaldari (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

An accord of four people can now be considered a consensus. Interesting--probably one for WP:CON as well. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to continue debate. My only concern is that there is enough agreement to diffuse the edit warring. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it's a quote, but shouldn't that be "an overwhelming majority" instead of "the overwhelming majority"? Sln3412 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WGI SPM link

Broken source link for reference 1, entitled "Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change".

This link is quoted 8 times in support of scientific statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.217.114 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I noticed a couple of days ago that IPCC had redone their site, so please report any other broken links. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed it has. Probably had to do with their various changes to the site in lieu of the Synthesis Report. The appropriate link is: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf. I also wonder if the publisher should be listed as Cambridge University Press instead of "IPCC." ~ UBeR (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Because of the protected article status, there are some changes I've proposed. Some source URLs need to be changed because of changes to the IPCC Web site.

• In the "Terminology" section, "(AGW)" is superfluous because the acronym is not used anywhere else, so it should be deleted.
• Reference #1, WGI SPM for AR4, should have its URL changed to http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
• Reference #2, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, should have its URL changed to http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
• Reference #57, WGII SPM for AR4, should have its URL changed to http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf

~ UBeR (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the broken links. I've left the AGW for now, as its a) generally useful b) might potentially be more contentious, thus should be left until protection is lifted. ---Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AWG may not be used on *this* page, but it is used other places and, thus, adds value. On the other hand, under *Adaptation and mitigation* (and other sections), most references to "Global Warming" should be changed to "AGW" since nothing we can do will be worth anything UNLESS the warming is due to people. In this context, it is very important to make the distinction. Q Science (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats hoping that some of the proposed "geo-engineering" solutions do not mess up the world. This only applies if the geo-en stuff is seriously discussed in the article you link to. Brusegadi (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Aviation and climate change

Hi editors. Recently I found the article Aviation and climate change - by chance, as I realized that none of the climate change/global warming articles link to it. I think, it would be a good idea to add a link to that article here, once the protection of the article is lifted. Where in the article, do you think would be a good place for that? --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 21:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably the glossary. Try attribution of recent climate change though. It might be a good article to get some details in. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer. Yes, that makes sense, I'll add it there. --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A place for sceptics

Can we add to this page a section for the skeptics to voice their opinion? This article is basically one sided and the other side has no chance of changing this page as of now, too many people will just change it back. If we add a new section label something like "The argument against" or what ever, we can stop arguing about many things that we are arguing. It's possible that many of the skeptic will have very valid points to convey, with sources to back it up. This way most of the article will be for explaining/proving this theory but a part of it will be for people, including skeptical scientist, to show their own evidence. I believe this is a place to have a real discussion on the topic which means that both side must have places to say what they believe. I have done personnel research that have valid points, such as the lag between temperature and CO2 change throughout history, that are not addressed in this article. (for those who want a citation: http://icecap.us/docs/change/Greenhousegasesclimate%20map.pdf) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.24.156 (talk • contribs)

• See Talk:Global warming/FAQ #11. Criticism sections are discouraged. This article is about Global warming, not the Global warming controversy. If you don't believe your arguments are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the main text of the article, they might belong there. If you believe your arguments are actually relevant to the topic of Global warming itself, go ahead and present them here instead of assuming that we will reject them without a reason. johnpseudo 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• You are mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. We don't do original research, but rely on what reliable sources report. We strive for a neutral point of view without giving undue weight to minority and fringe positions. The talk page is emphatically not the place to have a general discussion on the topic itself - see WP:TPG - although many of us (not excluding me) fall for it over and over again. If you have notable, reliably sourced positions to include, by all means do so. It would be very helpful if you would understand the current state of the science, though, to avoid arguing strawmen. Your example point is well understood and fully accounted for in the standard view.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is basically one sided and the other side has no chance of changing this page as of now, too many people will just change it back.

As pointed put above, this article reports on the scientific perspective on this issue. The "other side" does have an equal chance to get their ideas published in the scientific literature, provided their ideas are scientifically sound. This wiki article must do with whatever is published in these journals. So, there is no inherent bias against climate skeptics. Count Iblis (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a link to a complete sceptics article in the *lead paragraph* of the article. That is more than most articles offer.Zebulin (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam

For an article that gets as many edits as this one, I can't believe there was spam sitting in the Further reading section for 4 months! Congratulations to Andreisaioc for the improbable feat! Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding it! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That--coincidentally, of course--coincides with the date someone took a much-needed break from overseeing the article. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

References

• I am wondering if some kind of agreement was made in the past about whether to link to a pdf or the html page of a given reference, as often both options are available. Or maybe even a WP guideline exists about this issue? To me it seems that in this article for most references a link to the pdf was given whenever possible.
• Second question. I went through the references of the the section 'Causes' and find them quite messy. 1. There are references to two papers of Henrik Svensmark: "Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges" (PDF). Astronomy & Geophysics. 48 (1): 18–24. and "Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 81 (22): 5027–5030.. Does it make sense to cite both? I just had a quick glance at them but it seems the main point of the two papers is the same: the influence of cosmic rays on the climate. That brings me to the next point. Both papers were given as references for the sentence One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of variations in solar activity. Are cosmic rays and the solar activity the same thing? From my understanding solar activity in the context of global warming refers to our Sun only?
• Last question. The reference: Forster, Piers. "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. pp. 188–193. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) by the IPCC is given as a reference for the section In contrast to the scientific consensus that recent warming is mainly attributable to elevated levels of greenhouse gases, other hypotheses have been suggested to explain the observed increase in mean global temperature. In other words, the IPCC report (which represents scientific consensus) is given as a reference for 'other hypotheses' (such as solar variation) that are in contrast with the scientific consensus. That doesn't make sense to me. Yes, the pages of the IPCC report that are given as a reference here, deal with solar variation but they are part of the consensus and not conflicting with it. --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re solar/cosmic rays: After direct solar variations have been ruled out as the cause of recents global warming (the effect is to small and the distribution of warming is all wrong), the sceptics have now discovered Svensmark. His idea is that cosmic rays are important cloud condensation nuclei - more cosmic rays -> more clouds -> higher albedo -> climate is cooler. For very long time periods, this has been linked to the sun's movment through the galaxis. However, it is also claimed to be linked to solar activity via the chain high solar activity-> stronger solar magnetosphere -> less cosmic rays penetrate. Several of the links in either of the two chains have come under scrutiny and not held up well. But the theory has the advantage of being complex and impressive, and hence easily used to impress laymen. But I digress - yes, Svensmark belongs into solar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see. But do we need two of his references in the same sentence? --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The two references to similar papers was probably a bit of an overkill, which arose after a person came demanding for evidence that other hypotheses exist. One of them could probably be removed. Check with other people though. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: points one and three: There is no de jure agreement, that I'm aware of, or any stated guidelines that would suggest linking to PDF in favor of HTML or vice-versa (there may be though). De facto, however, it appears direct links to the PDF is favored in this article, which is also what I prefer personally. As for IPCC Chapter 2, that was given as a source to demonstrate that in fact solar variation is discussed in the scientific literature, where as the aforementioned person complained that it was not. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

GWC?

I don't see why the GWC gets quite such a high priority [17]. I'm inclined to remove it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm undecided on this one. It could be useful to have something to the effect "this article focuses on the science; if you want to read about political babblings go somewhere else" but the GWC article is so weak that we probably don't want to point to it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, take it out. What remains of the Global Warming controversy decreases every day. Even the Republican presidential candidates acknowledge warming, at least most. The skeptics are going the way of the flat earth society. Following this "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them.[4]" the article could have "See Climate change denial " -Sagredo^Discussione? 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's probably good to keep it in the see also links. It's importance may actually increase as serious debate about mitigation continues.Zebulin (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Its already in the navbox William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Zebulin, I think we've decided to keep "See also" links in the glossary, because the section gets bloated otherwise. I do believe the article link is already in the glossary; if not, feel free to add it. The article is also linked to in the lead. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Im with Uber on this one. All those links should go in the glossary page, otherwise the see also section gets clogged. Brusegadi (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection

With the recent level of IP vandalism I've semiprotected the article for a while. I assume this will be uncontroversial but if anyone has concerns I'll unprotect. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. It should be indef... Brusegadi (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP edits may be interesting to social scientists studying the global warming controversy/denial, though. :) Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Mortality Rates

I know that some of you are annoyed at me because of other articles, but this was not my addition. I only provided additional citations. I would ask that you don't take your annoyance at me out on others, if in fact that is the case here.

For those who are interested, some of the details, diagrams, and quotes from the second study are available at this website which you undoubtedly won't consider WP:RS but if you read past the bits you don't like the information is there.

--GoRight (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Who expressed annoyance? You added some cites, which motivated me to look for others. I found that more recent results tended to give different answers than the older work, and so I edited the text and replaced the cites you gave with the more recent ones. Stephan then deleted the material as being too US-centric. I'm not annoyed with Stephan for doing so, and it's puzzling that you should think anyone is annoyed with you here. Just the normal give-and-take of article refinement. Carry on, everyone. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention any names, but in your case your lack of annoyance is duly noted.  :) --GoRight (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with you in particular. As far as I am concerned, this topic is fine to be discussed in Effects of global warming. Given the rather different results of various studies, I don't think this can be easily summarized. If we find a consensus that it has to be summarized, I would e.g. suggest "Warmer climate may directly influence mortality rates, but it is not yet clear in what direction" to reflect the various sources. But anyways, WP:SUMMARY suggests that we should first hash it out in the detailed article, of which the section here is only a summary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In this particular instance, I agree that the evidence is conflicting since both sides can produce references to support their positions. So I simply choose to spend my time on other battles going forward. But we are all aware that on a variety of topics on any number of pages that if you are collectively against something you have sufficient numbers to enforce your will regardless of the evidence at hand. In the end these pages become a tyranny of the majority, or possibly even a tyranny of a well organized minority, despite the ideals expressed in the wikipedia policies. This much is evident on the GW pages, IMHO, and I am certain that others agree. --GoRight (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should first be included in the effects article, and then summarized here. I also agree it's U.S.-centric--because that was the focus of the study. But if you're going to remove things for being U.S.-centric, at least be consistent throughout the article. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, why do you say that the second citation doesn't support the statement. It makes the general observation that people are less adaptable to cold than to warm. While this text comes from the website mentioned above the substance is from direct quotes from the article:

"Actually, with respect to any temperature rise due to global warming, the research team found “For both men and women mortality was higher at low temperatures, suggesting a lesser ability to adapt to the cold.” Based on another related study, they state “In England and Wales, the higher temperatures predicted for 2050 might result in nearly 9,000 fewer winter deaths each year.” Laaidi et al. conclude “our findings give grounds for confidence in the near future: the relatively moderate (2°C) warming predicted to occur in the next half century would not increase annual mortality rates.”"

Doesn't 9,000 less winter deaths annually equate with lower mortality?

At any rate, if you are determined to keep the reference out I guess there is nothing to be done. --GoRight (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...without the actual text of the studies, it's hard to figure out. But in general, no "9,000 less winter deaths annually" does not "equate with lower mortality". That depends on how many more people die in spring, summer and fall. Also, these studies talk about modern, developed societies in mid-latitude countries, and hence are unlikely to generalize directly to the world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also the work by such investigators as Martin Beniston, Christoph Schaer, and Sonia Seneviratne arguing that future climates are likely to produce more high-mortality heat waves like the summer 2003 heat wave in western Europe. Taking the different studies together, the bottom line is that there's likely to be fewer deaths from cold but more deaths from extreme heat, and we can't say at present which way the balance is most likely to tip. The AR4 WGII report discusses all this in more detail. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, if you all are determined to keep the references out it is obvious that you have a group with sufficient numbers to prevent any dissent or opposing views from being expressed, at least none that you don't "agree" to allow to be expressed. So there is nothing to be done. --GoRight (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? We gave some reasoned discussion of the science, and you respond with indignant commentary about squelching dissent. I'm not sure whether that's a non-sequitur, a red herring, or a simple failure to communicate. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. The consensus of the organized group is that what we are doing on these pages is having "reasoned discussion". I stand corrected. There is nothing else to be done. --GoRight (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll openly admit that I'm on the skeptical side of the global warming debate... but as far as the squelching of dissent goes, GoRight, I'm not seeing it here. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In this particular instance I will even agree. In this discussion of mortality rates legitimate exchange and debate has occurred and so this is not an example of an organized squelching of dissent. There are a myriad of examples, however, where views and concerns are simply dismissed out of hand and enforced through numerical superiority alone and, in fact, no serious rationale for their objections are ever even voiced.

Just for the record, note that having numerical superiority does not imply any violation of WP:AGF nor am I claiming that it does. They clearly believe that they are acting in the best interests of the articles, as am I. I do believe that objectivity and neutrality are compromised under the current circumstances, however. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe part of the problem comes from hearing the same debates over and over again. Relatively new people who have not heard them before might pose them in good faith. To those who have been watching a topic long enough to have heard the same debates several times, however, it seems like repeating a debate just for the sake of repeating it (i.e., good faith is not necessarily assumed). It's a human flaw, and one we should all work on. That said, there's nothing wrong with kindly introducing a newcomer to where in the archives that debate has been discussed before (referring to the archives without a specific pointer is much less helpful). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will admit that I have not read every discussion on every archive page of every GW related article.  :) Out of fairness to you all I will pledge to read through any pointers to explicit discussions in the archives before pressing a point too strongly. Out of fairness to me I reserve the right to reopen a discussion if I have something new to add or if I simply believe that further discussion is warranted. I do intend to be WP:BOLD and in some cases to try and assert WP:CCC if I disagree with past decisions. --GoRight (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The archives are only meant to help us avoid repeating old discussions. New information or insight is always welcome. It might also be helpful to point out the reason that many of us seem to agree on several issues (I'm thinking of WMC, RA, KDP, and SS off the top of my head) is that we have a similar background in sciences, including advanced degrees. That doesn't mean we're always right, of course, but it does explain why we often have a similar (although not identical) POV. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I reckon we haven't really discussed mortality rates, or at least not in a very long time or thoroughly enough, so to suggest to read the archives of a discussion when none exist seems rather moot. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I took Ben Hocking's point to be more general in nature than just this mortality rate discussion, but your point on the specifics of that are noted. --GoRight (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my point is correct. AFAIK, UBeR is also correct that this mortality discussion has not been had before (although WMC, SS, RA, or KDP might know better since they've been around longer). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if that's true, then it probably hasn't been discussed in quite some time, as I said above. I find it relevant and pertinent to discuss. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

country or region specific information in the main GW article

Recently we had a source concerning possible implications of global warming on mortality in the US removed from the article as too detailed and region specific to deserve mention here and being more appropriate to the effects of global warming article. I found and also removed a specific reference to possible contributions of global warming to the extinction of a particular species of butterfly native only to california. However this edit [18] appears to highlight the need for some clarification of what place if any country specific information has in the article. The text removed and then reverted back into the article did indeed relate only to specific countries and indeed it appears in the main kyoto article. When is it appropriate to insert information specific to certain countries in this article and when is it not? I perceive the need to establish some guidelines here to avoid rampant edit wars of people including region specific details because other specific information has a long history of being in the article or removing country specific information simply because other country specific information was removed simply for being country specific.Zebulin (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also try to weight in the importance of something regional to the world. The golden toad is sometimes mentioned as the first specie to go extinct because of gw. Although confined to Costa Rica (and maybe Nicaragua) it would be appropriate to mention because of the significance of being first. This is just an example, so dont take it too seriously, but my main point is that if you can find notability in some other aspect, then its regional confinement can be overlooked. Brusegadi (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, if certain information is going to be removed for being U.S.=centric, at least be consistent throughout the article. This should also for anything that's overly-specific when it's not important for such a macro-level article to do so (e.g. the butterfly). I recall that the toad information was already tried to be added, but was promptly removed. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It has to be kept general. Even if we tried to include one specific effect per continent, there would be a never ending war over which effect got included and which did not. The other problem is that it's nearly impossible to conclusively attribute events to being caused by GW. The golden toad [19] is a good example. I got mighty tired of breathing smoke from forest fires last summer and think the blame is primarily GW. The evidence is, I think, fairly strong, but there are still other possible causal factors for fires. The cause section of the killer 2003 European heat wave [20] has several citation required tags and only one reference. A reference that says, "global warming probably contributed. Emphasize probably. 20,000 to 50,000 dead, and I don't think we can even go there. - Sagredo^Discussione? 04:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Climate Change

I think that this article could be merged with climate change becasue they are pretty much the same thing. Global warming is basicly the climate changing in an upward trend.Chessmaster3 (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. In fact, read the "Terminology" section of this article. Climate change is quite a bit broader than global warming, and WP:SIZE would have us have separate articles, as the scopes of each topic are quite different. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical Data

If the carbon dioxide level from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ is plotted on the same time scale as fossil fuel usage from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm it is discovered that the carbon dioxide level started to increase about 1750, a century before any significant fossil fuel use. If average earth temperature from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html is plotted on the same graph as fossil fuel use it is discovered that there is no correlation between rising fossil fuel use and average global temperature to 1976. The hypothesis that since 1976 increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the temperature to rise is refuted by the carbon dioxide level and earth temperature determined from the Vostok ice cores. If these are plotted on a precision time scale it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level lags earth temperature change by hundreds of years. See e.g. http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html. Also, if average global temperature from C. R. Scotese and carbon dioxide level from R. A. Berner are plotted on the same graph as shown at http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html it is discovered that 440 million years ago carbon dioxide was over ten times the current level while earth temperature was about the same as now for over two million years. Many may have the ability and initiative to evaluate these historical data and if they do, the number of people who question that human activity is a significant contributor to the planet getting warmer will increase accordingly. Dan Pangburn (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article, not the concept of climate change itself. As I'm sure you know, it is not acceptable to add your own original research to article pages. Instead, all facts on this encyclopedia should be verifiable. If and when this analysis is published in a peer reviewed source, then it would make sense to discuss where this information might go in the treatment of global warming in this encyclopedia. However, what you have posted here is not currently relevant to the article, and so this is not the place to discuss it. Enuja (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The material does not address the concept of climate change. There is no original research but simply presenting legitimate data sources. All facts are verifiable at the data sources given. It is relevant because it refers to cause which is a section of the article. Dan Pangburn (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe WP:SYN is more apt. If the material does not address climate change, then it would be synthesis to present it in a way that did (unless a reliable source did so first). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Friends of Science and mysite.verizon are not reliable sources. Sorry. Your best bet is sticking with the peer-reviewed research published in scholarly journals. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

These 'not reliable' sources provide a vehicle for access to convienent graphics generated from credible sources e.g. CDIAC, Scotese. Dan Pangburn (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial warming

I'm not a scientist or science writer but I am very interested in this topic and have read a lot about it. I understand the arguments made about the degree to which solar radiation cycles and solar flare activity can affect the temperature of the atmosphere, as well as the concepts of global dimming and how greenhouse gases/particulate matter may be mitigating warming. I've seen the charts of solar irradiation used by proponents of anthropogenic global warming and the conclusion that the effect from solar cycles is small. However, if the ice caps on Mars and other planets are subliming at rates similar to ours, and if the temperatures on these planets are, as well, rising concurrently, isn't that some powerful evidence against anthropogenic global warming. I saw mention of Jupiter and Pluto on the FAQ's page, but nothing about the one planet we know the most about ... Mars. Why is none of this mentioned in the Wikipedia article (the warming/subliming on other planets)? It seems to be a major piece of the puzzle. I'd love it if some knowledgeable people could tell me if my premise is altogether wrong, wether its insignificant due to planetary differences (distance from sun, atmosphere or lack thereof, etc.), or wether we just don't know due to the limited, only recently-collected data we have for these planets. After all, I tend to be skeptical in general, and one of my skepticisms about global warming is the constuction of ancient temperature estimates using ice cores and other means. Therefore, I certainly can't turn around and deny global warming based on insufficient data. But now I'm digressing and introducing other topics for discussion. Let's stick to Mars, our closest neighbour (no offense to the Moon). Someone please enlighten me as to why the current subliming of Mars' polar caps doesn't poke a hole (even if its a tiny little ozone hole) in the theory of anthropogenic global warming.Clioworship (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for discussing your curiosities. I suggest you take a visit to one of the articles here that I've started, extraterrestrial atmospheres. The reason we don't discuss them here is because they really have nothing to do with the global warming here on Earth. I don't know where you've read that whatever melting that is occurring on Mars is occurring at a similar rate here on Earth, but I can tell you that the mechanism involved are quite different. The issue with Mars is probably dust storms that occur on a near-global scale. Other mechanism also play role in the warming observed on other planets, like Pluto, and maybe Mercury and Jupiter--but there is no common cause on the whole. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Clioworship: please also see Climate of Mars - if you've been reading Abdusamatov, please realize that his work is not accepted by the scientific community, and violates some fundamental physics besides. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)