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 November 2007
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

Wikipedia: An Embarrassment to Science

This is what will embarrass WIkipedia in the future- quotes like this: " the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them"

This Wikipedia article is politically driven, rather than scientifically driven. "We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," from a team of scientists at the recent UN conference. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

Wikipedia, by literally treating global warming skepticism as "junk science" is setting itself up for a major embarrassment in the future.

The authors of this article know nothing of science. They only know their own personal religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk • contribs)

Using a politician's blog to decry "political science" - this is really hilarious. If we could use Inhofe's spin to turn a turbine, fossil fuels would become obsolete overnight... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia won't be embarrassed. It reports what is "verifiable", not what is "true". It is only the "scientists/politicians" who push the climate change hoax who will be embarrassed is a few years time. ^rossnixon 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a scientist, I say that the few remaining skeptics of global warming will be convinced when the north polar sea ice vanishes in a decade or so. Speaking as a Wikipedia editor, I observe that ArbCom has determined that Wikipedia will reflect the scientific consensus - and that includes the scientific consensus on climate change. This really isn't about the article, though, is it? End the thread. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"I say that the few remaining skeptics of global warming will be convinced when the north polar sea ice vanishes in a decade or so." Willing to take bets? ;-) ~ UBeR (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh! I certainly won't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Me neither. It'll all be the fault of the sun, or mysterious "natural variations," or whatever you like. Any explanation will do, as long as it's not a certain nameless phenomenon that is consistent both with observations and with the principles of radiative transfer and atmospheric thermodynamics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[moved interjection to the end--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)]

Looking back at the past I have to say that the phrase "the overwhelming majority of scientists working on <particular area of research> are in agreement with <developed scientific consensus>" would not appear to be embarrassing had it been applied to a contemporary article dealing with any other topic in which scientific conclusions had broader implications whether it had been theories of natural selection, recognition of anthropogenic species extinction, or adverse effects of pollution. No matter how the future plays out I don't see how that phrase would somehow become an embarrassment.Zebulin (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

People! What is wrong with you? It is not a scientific journal. It is a merely a resource to get background information on a topic. If you are attempting to glean in-depth information from this website, then you are frankly PATHETIC. It is astounding how accurate Wikipedia is, considering the vast amount of information cataloged. So if it gets one or two facts wrong, this is understandable. So stop whining, suck it up, fix the mistake, and MOVE ON. Don't waste your time writing complaints on the discussion board. --143.195.150.44 (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a "discussion board." Usenet is three doors down the hall. HTH. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(Well fed troll returns to den for the night satisfied) --BozMo talk 08:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't suspect skeptics will be convinced based on polar see ice anytime soon. Polar sea ice levels INCREASED from 14.5 million square kilometers in 2006 to 14.7 million square kilometers in 2007 according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Atmospheric carbon dioxode would be expected to grow 1.65 PPM (NOAA recent averages) in 2007. Sea ice up AND Carbon dioxide both up, now that is an inconvenient truth! How does FACTUAL sea ice level data reconcile with the unsupported assertion on the main page that the Global Warming definition includes rising ocean temperatures? Antartic sea ice data is as flat as a pancake, but maybe we should ask the opinion of the global warming tourists who's ship (MV Explorer - owned by friend of AlGore) recently sunk (and they nearly froze to death) due to hitting an antartic sea iceberg? (WikiDine (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

In the future, please don't inject your comments in the middle of an unrelated discussion. You cannot determine trends from a single season worth of data. From the very press release of NSIDC that announced the 14.7 million number: "This year's low wintertime extent is another milestone in a strong downward trend. We're still seeing near-record lows and higher-than-normal temperatures. We expect the downward trend to continue in future years." That statement was made before this summers season, which brought an absolute record low in arctic sea ice.[1]. And I would very much like to see a source for Gore's alleged ownership of MV Explorer, although this would be rather off-topic for this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So how many qualified scientists does it take for Wikipedia to stop its political slant on this topic and start reporting it as a controversial topic? Here is a reference to an open letter signed by 100 eminent scientists who state that humans are having no effect on global warming: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002 Is 100 eminent scientists a large enough group to have any impact on the politics of this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.129.34 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Check the discussion here. In short, several of the signatories are not scientists at all, very few are either eminent or climate scientists, and at least one is plain nuts. Most of the list is recycled, anyways. Ball does not become more competent if he repeats the same nonsense a hundred times. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

At one time "the overwhelming majority of scientists" thought the earth was flat too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.129.34 (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#There_was_once_a_time_when_the_majority_of_scientists_believed_the_earth_was_flat.21.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The lesson learned from this discussion is that it is vital to always check your sources. If "blog" appears in the URL, then its credibility is suspect to begin with. That's really all I have to say on this topic, as I don't see anything constructive coming out of it. But for future reference to my fellow skeptics, please, this is a scientific subject, and as such it is best to avoid political outlets for information on the topic. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NewsMax: "New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story"

What are the thoughts on this article? [2] How does it line up with the contents of this article? Chris M. (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

One study. Two studies. Too few to merit weight. The mainstream is discussed. Brusegadi (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To complement Brusegadi above. The article in Newsmax is complete hogwash. I'm sorry but there is hardly a word in the article that describes the paper even remotely close to reality. You can find the preprint here. A nice example of why you shouldn't trust media on science issues such as this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

and yet this article cites such 'scientific' non-media outlets such as The Guardian (28), USAToday (97), AP (93), Reuters (90), and others I'm sure. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you call for no trust in media at least be consistent and call the above outlets "hogwash" also. They ALL have their political and economic future to think of. I just wish I could make some money selling carbon credits like Al Gore does!! Flesh Over Steel (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of your examples discuss the political reaction to climate change, not the science. For such topics, the general press is usually the best available source. As for the scientific points sourced to the popular press, it would be nice if we could find better sources. However, they have not been challenged so far, while the NewsMax article is crap (and the underlying study has a number of problems that have been exposed already). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I favor in general allowing some mention of some studies which appear in credible news sources. (I'm not saying this particular study necessarily meets that standard.) Doing so would only increase our credibility, as the few studies against global warming theories would make clear how many studies do favor it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested additions to the Adaptation and mitigation section

Per capita greenhouse gas emissions

Adaptation refers to efforts at adjusting to a warmer world. Mitigation refers to attempts to slow down or reverse the warming.

Some (environmental groups) have gone so far as to suggest a quota on worldwide fossil fuel production, citing a direct link between fossil fuel production and CO₂ emissions. references: http://sustento.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/climate-control.pdf http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/12/11/rigged/

China's per capita emissions remain at a fraction of the U.S. or other developed countries.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanPater (talk • contribs) 00:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Per country greenhouse gas emissions

Yes. And China's population remains at approximately five times that of the United States, which makes their net output of greenhouse gases practically equal (some recent studies say China has overtaken the US in this regard). I might redirect your attention to this previous discussion. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that every country in the world, no matter what their population is, should have the same total emissions? AlanPater (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, please do not take me out of context. I am simply reminding you that there are multiple ways to interpret the data, each with their own merits and disadvantages. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum. The suggested change is not about whether you or I believe the per capita emissions are important or not. It is a large part of the international discussion, however, so I feel it belongs in the wikipedia article. AlanPater (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is posting to a forum here? If you would read the discussion that I directed you to, you would see that there is an agreed-upon reason why none of those images are present in the article. And if your per capita argument truly has nothing to do with your proposed changes, then why bring it up at all? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think these figures are quite relevant for the global warming issue. I understand that there are different ways to count to the greenhouse gas emmissions. Therefore I suggest to add both images, per capita and per country, to the article. This way the reader can draw his own conclusions. --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see the reasoning to not display any images on this topic. I think the text, however, needs to mention that the G77 countries feel that per capita emissions are the important number. As the article now stands, only the rich countries feelings on this are stated. AlanPater (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jc-S0CO, if you've read the discussion and the apparent consensus was that we'd use all three images or none, why did you take it upon yourself to add two of them? ~ UBeR (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone else had already added the per capita image, I added the second for balance. I would not object to removing them both, so long as it is all or nothing. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that the third map (accumulated GHG emmisions) is very informative, too, I think the per-country and per-capita maps alone give a balanced view on the issue. Any more maps will lead to confusion. Removing the two maps is not a good option either. They are quite important to understand the debate over global warming and why e.g. the US argues on a per-country basis while China refers to the emissions per capita. --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 21:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As User:Jc-S0CO said, there is a reason these figures aren't presented. I and many others would argue such figures would be incomplete without also presenting a similar graphic of GHG per unit of economic production. Zoomwsu (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

look at these:

Ice age, climate can change without human activity, and Western Interior Seaway which shows that oceans have risin in the past.

Maybe you would also like to look at:

deforestation

water and soil pollution

poverty

habitat destruction

Im sure they are all interlinked. T.Neo (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't help you if you don't have any suggestions for the article. This isn't a forum. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll add them to the see also section. T.Neo (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, everything is "somehow" connected. We cannot have one article on the sum of human knowledge, though. Yes, climate can change without human activity. People die without being murdered - that does not mean that we should ignore the concrete blocks tied to the feet of a corpse found in New York harbor. The Western Interior Seaway went away about 65 million years ago. At that time, climate was a lot hotter than today. But anyways, its end was not due to sinking sea levels, but due to continental uplift. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What Im trying to say is that the climate doesnt stay the same and fluctuates. Back during the cretacious the polar caps didnt exist and sea levels were higher. During the last Ice Age there was more ice at the poles and the sea level was lower, exposing the sea floor between america and asia, creating a land brige that humans and mammoths traveled through to north america. The mass-mania total destruction version of global warming is not the real thing, Its a product of the curious human trait to want to have a huge disaster looming ahead (like Y2K). The media makes global warming the main huge problem but it is in fact one of a bunch of problems (look at habitat destruction, pollution, HIV/AIDS) that are facing mankind and the planet today. T.Neo (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You are mixing up several very different things. Yes, climate changes. But it changes in different ways over different time scales. In the Cretaceous, the continental layout was very different. Sea levels were much higher due to rifting (making for shallow new oceans). There was no Himalaya. The composition of the atmosphere was very different (a lot more of both O2 and CO2). Climate change over tens of millions of years is dominated by geological processes and feedbacks. Ice ages (like the current one) are triggered by a combination of geographical and orbital parameters. Glaciations in an ice age (we are currently in an interglacial period) are primarily triggered by orbital parameters. All these processes are very different from the current anthropogenic process that is caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. I don't know what you mean by the "mass-mania total destruction version of global warming". This article is a fair representation of the current scientific opinion on climate change. Have you read it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Complexity

Just a note about this edit [3]. It is widely documented that the Earth's climate is a complex system, so I think it should be re-linked (see for instance [4], [5], [6]. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Climate is a complex system. Who would have guessed? Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well William seemed to disagree it is, so instead of reverting his edit with no discussion, I chose to explain my view first. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit link suggests he disagreed with the choice to specifically reference turbulence and with the choice of the complexity article to link to. Perhaps there is a better choice of article for that kind of complexity? Although, the article linked does in fact list climate as an example of that sort of complex system.Zebulin (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not desperately bothered (in fact I took the link to be something more specfic; it turns out to be so vague as to be near useless :-). Put it back in if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Climate models: physics-based?

Just as a matter of discussion in case an adjustment would be warranted, the sub-section about models states that "These models are based on physical principles of fluid dynamics, radiative transfer, and other processes". Is this fully demonstrable or should it be qualified? Can it be sourced and can someone point towards the physical principles of turbulent flows, water evaporation and such? --Childhood's End (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

AR4 Chapter 8 is as good a reference as any. It's an important point; I suspect many people think climate models work by fitting curves to past observations and extrapolating, or something like that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove phrase 'scientific consesus'

In light of the recent US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Report, can we rebalance this article:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Full report:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Scientific consensus is no longer a point of fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaseFace (talk • contribs) 07:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The report is very strongly biased, as you'd expect. Its not a useful source for wiki William M. Connolley (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

William, to quote your exact words earlier today: "Thats as may be, but who produced this report is irrelevant. We're not using their authority to trust it; its merely a list of possible names William M. Connolley (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)" [7]. It's a useful list of sources. Vegasprof (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't hold out any hope of it being useful; maybe it is to you. The point is that the report itself can't be used as a RS for what its saying, though you are of course free to use the contents to prompt further research as you see fit William M. Connolley (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Why can't it be used as an RS? By what rule? It's an official United States Goverment document. If it is not a reliable source, then either someone must exert judgement over which government documents are reliable sources, or else none of them are. (Where does that leave the IPCC report?) I'm sorry that you don't find it useful. Why not? I find it very useful, because I want to know the spectrum of expert opinion on this important subject, and it gives me lots of links. Vegasprof (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

While it might be "an official United States Government document" in a formal sense, it's also a partisan political statement, and has to be interpreted differently from something nonpartisan like census records. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The US Senate Committee should stick to politics. :( Count Iblis (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

They have :-) The problem is that they've fooled some people William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny. Brusegadi (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

William, the above remark is quite puzzling. In what way did the Senate report "fool" people? Did they fabricate the quotes? Vegasprof (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There's the "over 400 prominent scientists" claim. Many on the list aren't scientists at all, and quite a few have had near zero scientific impact. And that's just in the report's first sentence... Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to toss around numbers of "real" scientists, I will point out that there has been some question as to how many of the "thousands of scientists" involved in the IPCC consensus process are actually scientists working in the area of climate change. If you're going to make ad hominem attacks on the opponents of global warming, it might be interesting to analyze the credentials of the scientists on both sides of the issue. I wonder if anyone has actually done this analysis for both sides of the debate. I think it's unlikely, given the partisan nature of the debate. It's far more likely that each side of the debate assumes their "experts" are all wonderful and importantant scientists, while the other side's experts are obviously incompetent and bought off.Fredrik Coulter (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I contributors are given here;[8] Working Group II contributors are given here[9]; and Working Group III contributors are given here.[10] I will be interested to see your comparison of the publication records of those individuals versus the "400 prominent scientists." (BTW I don't think most of the latter are "bought off"; most really believe whet they're saying.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That was quick! Brusegadi (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Non-Believers

I have no idea how the article should be updated for the following information. Any suggestions would be appreciated. However, 100 scientists are on record as strongly opposing the conclusions of the IPCC. I wouldn't consider this to be "only a few." They published an open letter to Ban Ki-Moon, available at http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002. Interestingly, there are also scientific claims made within this letter (such as the claim that there has been no global warming since 1998) that probably also need to be addressed in the article. I don't have the time or expertise to amend the article to include this information in a fair and balance manner, but if it's not included I'd argue that the article is misleading at best.Fredrik Coulter (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing new. It's the usual suspects, with a few more retirees and nonscientists thrown in to get the number up to 100. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Also be careful with the 1998 deal. It was an outlier so you will not see any hotter years for a while. You are not supposed to look at single years, you have to look at trends. When I see stupid errors like that is when I stop taking those 'letters' seriously, it is obviously PR. Brusegadi (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Typical. Write off the credentials of your opponents. (Sorry, I'll turn my sarcasm off.) Has there been an analysis comparing credentials of the thousands versus the hundreds? I asked this above, and there has been no response in the five minutes that have passed since I posted the question. On a different note, I just noticed that the wiki article is citing the IPCC summary reports rather than the full reports. Given that there is at least some comments that the summary reports don't always match the full report's conclusions, shouldn't the full report's conclusions be cited rather than the (possibly biased) summary reports. Assuming that the summary report is an accurate summarization of the full report, this shouldn't be that hard to do. I don't feel like doing it, because I'm not a big fan of the consensus and don't want to spend my time supporting positions I disagree with, and because my wife says that I've got to pack for holiday travel NOW.Fredrik Coulter (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Given your interest in the topic I would encourage you to undertake such a project when you have the time. The results would be quite interesting. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also heard the SPMs don't always match the full reports, but I've not seen anything that would give that claim merit. The SPM is fine for now. It's much easier to cite than the full report, and I'm sure our readers would rather read the SPM than the full report. For more technical or detailed portions, using the full report would be good--but I see no reason to replace the SPM with the full report at the time being. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

While I know that we wish to keep this as short and sweet as we can, should it not somehow be said that the increase in temp is largely the fault of humankind? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It would make the second paragraph, which I think is fine there, rather redundant. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Full protect

I think it rather unnecessary. I also doubt Sterculius is a brand new user. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this was not called for. There was a revert war between several users. Discussion is required by the use of the keyboard, not the revert button. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks more like Sterculius and a random IP to me. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Need I say more? ~ UBeR (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks familiar... William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(un)protected

I've blocked Sterculius for tendentious editing and also as probably yet another sock. With that done, I think most of the edit warring is gone and we can go back to semi-protection? I really don't think an important article like this should be protected just because of one, new, ill-disciplined editor William M. Connolley (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The Roman gods may smite you; be weary. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, as an uninvolved person, I wasn't really aware of whether there was really a content dispute, or whetehr the edits were plain POV, really. If you think it should be unprotected, then, fine, I was just filling a request at RFP. Forgive me for not delving deeper than I probably should have. If you think a block is required, go for it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite weary, but its nearly Christmas :-). AD: no problem; S is now indef sock-blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job. It was an obvious sock. Brusegadi (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, all is well, then. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Stern Review

We should put the Stern Review article's link to the {{ }} global warming's blue table (under) .--Tamás Kádár (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Regarding this edit, I think it's a little much for the intro. Obviously the stated increase in temperature is not the 100-year period since 2008, but rather 2005, and this should be noted there in the intro. But the increase since 2000 bit would probably fit better in the body, where the same IPCC findings should be stated.

The quote inside the ref should also go for multiple reasons. First, I think it's unnecessary. Second, and more importantly, is that every inline citation of the reference will have the quote, which would be rather out of context for some of the other information that uses the same reference. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Image to right of table of contents

Hi. I inserted an image to the right of the table of contents. See here. This was reverted, so now there's just blank space to the right of the table of contents. Maybe I did something wrong. Any advice? The image is completely self-explanatory, and is more dramatic than any other image in the article. No caption should be needed. And the size is necessary to make out the detail.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Its about something too specific to be placed in the intro. Thats the problem I see (it also did not look good, but maybe I am just used to how it looked before and I liked it :) ) Brusegadi (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The North Pole is on the verge of melting for the first time in human history. This photo is the most compelling proof that global warming is real and urgent. When temperature rises, ice melts. This melting is direct and visible proof of warming. I agree that it doesn't look good (though probably not in the way you meant). An actual photo of the melting Arctic is more powerful than a graph or other mathematical representation. (P.S. I also miss the Yangtze River dolphin, as you say at your user page, Brusegadi.  :-))Ferrylodge (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Human history is a very short interval. There is evidence [11] that the Arctic Ocean was free of ice several times during the Pleistocene. In fact, in the 1950s amd 1960s there were articles in Science that proposed that Pleistocence glaciations were triggered by melting of the polar ice cap. I remember reading, at that time, that the polar ice cap was melting, and the Arctic Ocean would become ice-free fairly soon, at which time a new glaciation would start, eventually leading to the formation of a new polar ice cap, and then repeating the cycle. You can look at the original articles by Donn and Ewing in Science Magazine. Vegasprof (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Vegasprof, regardless of how long the Arctic has had an icing, the image that I've tried to insert into this article shows that the icing is rapidly vanishing, which obviously and dramatically supports the notion of global warming. It is the most obvious and dramatic indicator of global warming, so what's the problem with including the image?

The question of how long the ice has existed is a side-issue. Anatomically modern humans have existed for about 130,000 years, and no one suggests that there has been any ice-free Arctic during that time span. Estimates of the age of Arctic ice range from 700,000 years (Worsley and Herman) to 4 million years (Clark). Those estimates are discussed, for example, in a thesis titled "The Sensitivity of the North Atlantic Arctic Climate System to Isostatic Elevation Changes, Freshwater and Solar Forcings" by Odd Helge Ottera (2003). In 1982, Clark rejected the theory of Worsley and Herman:

"Recently, a few coccoliths have been reported from late Pliocene and Pleistocene central Arctic sediment (Worsley and Herman, 1980). Although this is interpreted to indicate episodic ice-free conditions for the central Arctic, the occurrence of ice-rafted debris with the sparse coccoliths is more easily interpreted to represent transportation of coccoliths from ice-free continental seas marginal to the central Arctic. The sediment record as well as theoretical considerations make strong argument against alternating ice-covered and ice-free….The probable Middle Cenozoic development of an ice cover, accompanied by Antarctic ice development and a late shift of the Gulf Stream to its present position, were important events that led to the development of modern climates. The record suggests that altering the present ice cover would have profound effects on future climates."

See The Arctic Ocean and Post-Jurassic Paleoclimatology by David L. Clark, in Climate in Earth History: Studies in Geophysics (1982). Later, in 1997, Melnikov noted that, "There is no common opinion on the age of the arctic sea ice cover." See I. A. Melnokov, The Arctic Sea Ice Ecosystem (1997). No one suggests that the age is less than 700,000 years. And at the present rate, it will be gone within ten years.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is not about inclusion (you guys can battle that) I just think that, if included, it should not be in the intro, it should be further down in a relevant sub-section. The intro is reserved for the most general cause, which is raising temps (there are many ways to illustrate the effects of raising temps, one of them being the image you provided.) Ciao, Brusegadi (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems: 1) Is its size: It's too big. 2) Is its placement: not important for the intro 3) Yes, it needs a caption 4) Is its usefulness 5) The article already is probably above its image capacity. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, do you think it's a mistake to mention the imminent disappearance of Arctic ice, in this article? I see that you have reverted this edit. My understanding is that disappearing Arctic ice is a separate issue from disappearing glaciers.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not UBeR but will add my inflation-adjusted US$0.02. Changes to Arctic sea ice should be mentioned in the article, but not in the lead, and not with a figure. In a topic as wide-ranging as this one we have to be especially careful about how much we stuff into the lead and how much detail we add, lest the article collapse under its own weight. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

This passage from the second paragraph: "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." should surely be referenced. The reference that appears at the end of the paragraph does not address either of these statements. For a featured article, that receives the amount of attention that this piece does, I believe the references provided are inadequate. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The source can be found later, a bit down in the body. It's reference #10, found here. I think there was an additional source with the science academies of some other nations, but I'm not sure where that went. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry but, no, that is not a comprehensive source for those statements. The first statement is most closely supported by: "In May 2000, at the InterAcademy Panel (IAP) meeting in Tokyo, 63 academies of science from all parts of the world issued a statement on sustainability in which they noted that "global trends in climate change... are growing concerns" and pledged themselves to work for sustainability – meeting current human needs while preserving the environment and natural resources needed by future generations. It is now evident that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change. Business as usual is no longer a viable option."

To reduce 63 to 30 is bizarre, to say the least, and within that reference, the academies of science specify only that global trends are a growing concern. No mention of the cause of global warming is made at all.

As for the second statement, the reference provided mentions the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, UK. Missing from the G8 are: Russia, Japan and the U.S.

Furthermore, the final sentence of the second paragraph: "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." is correctly referenced but that is simply the opinion of The Royal Society. No mention of any study is done other than the analysis of 928 papers - in which no information is offered regarding the methods of paper selection.

So, to conclude, the G8 countries were not all involved in crafting that previous source. No mention is made regarding the causes of global warming in relation to the 63 scientific socities. And only one major scientific body claims that the majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC. All this adds up to a VERY different second paragraph than what we have now.

I'm not sure if this has been discussed in the past, but I strongly believe that these statements should be removed, or at least toned down significantly, until they can be properly referenced. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead section of this article is the result of a lot of past compromise. If you want to improve it, the best thing to do would probably be to suggest, here on the talk page, additional or new references along with new language. It is less constructive to remove things than it is to improve them. I think the current state of the lead is quite good, but, hey, this is wikipedia, so there is always room for improvement if someone wants to do the work. - Enuja (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that, in this situation, I disagree with the sentiment "It is less constructive to remove things than it is to improve them." Perhaps I will consider what to replace the problem passages with, but obviously I believe that, in this situation, removing statements would be improving it - as I believe it's better to give no info than false info. And as for "I think the current state of the lead is quite good"... that's a little worrying, I must admit, considering the statements I highlighted are blatantly uncorroborated... especially when you consider your point that it took a great amount of time to end up on the current version. At the end of the day, the second paragraph is significantly misleading at the moment. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In relation to this passage from the second paragraph: "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 working on climate change are in agreement with them [4]"

Here is a corroborated, factual replacement: The IPCC has been recognized "as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes" by the National Academies of Science from the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, Cuba, France, Germany, Guadeloupe, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Suriname and the United Kingdom [1]. This includes a majority of the G8 countries - missing only Russia, Japan and The United States. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC, the "overwhelming majority" of papers on climate change, published in refereed scientific journals, are in agreement with them [2].

References: [1], [2]. I'm less concerned with the prose than I am with providing unambiguous statements of corroborated fact. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, it makes sense to reference the 'disagreement' statement as well. So, I offer this for consideration instead: The IPCC has been recognized "as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes" by the National Academies of Science from the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, Cuba, France, Germany, Guadeloupe, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Suriname and the United Kingdom [1]. This includes a majority of the G8 countries - missing only Russia, Japan and The United States. While small groups of scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC [2], the "overwhelming majority" of papers on climate change, published in refereed scientific journals, are in agreement with them [3].

References: [1], [2], [3]. I had to remove the word 'individual' as that reference clearly demonstrates that it isn't just individuals anymore. And you'll note that the word 'scientist' is used, rather than 'climatologist' - as the signatories to that letter aren't all climatologists. Again, I'm less concerned with the prose than I am with providing unambiguous statements of corroborated fact. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The lead section should be a summary of the article. There has recently been a fair amount of dispute about what citations in ideal lead sections should look like; the current consensus language in Wikipedia:Lead section essentially says "cite when you need to." However, a lead section should be a summary, so it should contain concise and general language, instead of very specific and exact, and therefore somewhat dense to read, language. Your suggestion of listing countries whose academies of science have apparently agreed with a particular quotation is out of place in the lead section of this summary article. I just searched the United States Academy of Science website, and came up with this quote from a 2001 publication "The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WGI) scientific report, but seeks here to articulate more clearly the level of confidence that can be ascribed to those assessments and the caveats that need to be attached to them. " Your language is misleading in suggesting that the US Academy of Science disagrees with the IPCC. The current language is broader, and encompasses the variety of strengths of endorsement of the IPCC from the difference academies. (I'm not citing my source, because I don't think it belongs in this article, as it's old, general, and the US academies' position in detail is totally out of place in this article.)

Putting a quotation around "overwhelming majority" looks like scare quotes, instead of like a direct quotation. A direct quotation is out of place in a lead section, anyway.

The "individual scientists" bit provides a link to the main article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I don't understand using your reference #2 to support "small groups of scientists" because it is an open letter signed by about 100 individual people. The letter does not claim to speak for a scientific society or group at all; it claims to speak for around 100 people. This explicitly verifies the idea that individual scientists disagree with the IPCC, so I don't understand why you are using it to change the language. Another source should be (and is) used to say that most climate scientists agree with the IPCC.

Maybe we do need new language and a new source to say what groups support the IPCC; I admit I haven't read the source, nor the huge amount of discussion on that phrase and source in the talk archives, nor have I been editing Scientific opinion on climate change, which does provide quotes from joint academy statements and sources for them. What we need is general, summary language that tells an interested reader that lots of climate scientists and lots of groups of scientists have explicitly endorsed the existence of global warming and the conclusions of the IPCC. - Enuja (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The verifiability policy advises that "material likely to be challenged and quotations should be cited". Considering how contentious this issue is, it makes perfect sense to me to reference statements made. Furthermore, there was already a reference provided - it was just incorrect. They can all be bunched up at the end if you prefer. My point here is that, considering the verifiability policy, references should be provided here. So I strongly disagree with you on this issue.

My listing of the countries was a correction from what was there previously. It stated that all the G8 countries have endorsed the IPCC's conclusions and then didn't provide a reference. I asked about this and was given another inadequate reference. If a significant statement isn't referenced, it should not appear. Period. The references that were present only made mention of the countries I listed in detail. It seems clear to me that the only options are: 1) Remove what we have now, as it's unreferenced opinion, 2) Use my [edited] suggested replacement, 3) Find proper references for what is present. What I wrote didn't mislead people into believing that the U.S. didn't support the IPCC, the reference provided did that (if such misleading occurred).

You think that putting a quotation around "overwhelming majority" looks like scare quotes. Well, to be honest, I think that's irrelevant. It's proper referencing procedure. Additionally, I notice that the choice of words to use there was a contentious issue. Putting direct quotes around it removes the need to debate it... as it shouldn't have been a debate in the first place. Again, I disagree that it's out of place in the lead section.

As for the "individual scientists" bit, here's my take: 100 people is a group. Using the word individual, by definition, suggests lone dissenters, isolated from everyone else. I agree, though, that you could make a case for not using reference [2] there and the individual/group thing could be debated as well. To be honest, this is a minor point to me as it's more semantics than anything else.

It seems quite clear to me: If you are unable to cite proper references, then it's just your own opinion and it does not belong here - especially considering how contentious this issue is with people. Whether or not you actually list the references is another issue, but, to me, that's a no brainer. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How about [12] the 2007 Joint Academies statement, which is referenced in Scientific opinion on climate change?

Oh, and I carefully re-read the 2nd paragraph; it is currently very bloated with quotes, but I still support it, because I doubt a simple version that I would think would be clearest would last an hour on this very contentious issue. Enuja (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! What a great reference (and I grabbed the one from 2005 as well). Okay, so I would now like to suggest this instead: These basic conclusions have been endorsed by the National Academies of Science of 25 countries; including each of the G8+5 [1][2][3]. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC, the "overwhelming majority" of papers on climate change, published in refereed scientific journals, are in agreement with them [4].

References: [1], [2], [3], [4]

I know you, personally, don't think we should have so many references in the lead but with this being such a contentious issue I think it is inappropriate to not provide as many references as possible. In the end, it's concise, comprehensive, correct and properly referenced. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that G8+5 is interesting and relevant enough to go into the lead; G8 is a big deal, G8+5 is new. The new language you've substantiated with sources is limited to "National Academies of Science of 25 countries". I do not understand why you've substituted papers on climate change for scientists; both can be verified, but if I remember correctly, the Royal Society paper only verifies the majority of scientists (which is a much tougher thing to find a citation for). Because both can be verified; the question becomes which is most important. The current grammar uses the overwhelming majority of scientists bit to put into proper context the fact that some individual scientists do disagree. Also, I think we should wait at least a day for other contributors to find or remember what source verified the 30 academies bit. While sources are good, there is no reason to cite the 2005 joint statement since the 2007 one is essentially an update of it. - Enuja (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has wandered away from the original point. The wording in question is "at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science." So, to the national academies we add the AMS, AGU, and so on. More at Scientific opinion on climate change. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say 'wandered', I'd say that it has evolved to be a more detailed discussion regarding the second paragraph. Regardless, I don't think dismissing the majority of the discussion is useful or appropriate, considering our progress. Some significant language in the article has been highlighted for correction and a replacement has been suggested. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think G8+5 is useful because it's more specific - being new shouldn't be a negative. You remember correctly regarding the "majority of scientists" source but I believe that particular statement is misleading - my replacement is directly from the text also (it's their basis for the current statement that appears on the page) and it's much more specific and leaves no room for misinterpretation. If the current statement was to be kept, I believe it should be entirely in quotes - as the study didn't actually evaluate the majority of scientists working on climate change, it evaluated exactly what I stated. I disagree that the 2005 joint statement is redundant as the 2007 statement references the 2005 paper itself. And again, with something this contentious, the more integral references the better. Finally, people can always add in the 30 academies bit again later on, with proper references.

Once again, I believe that my replacement is concise, comprehensive, correct and properly referenced. I do not believe any of the points you raised discredit or remove any of those qualities from it. And if that's the case, I see no reason not to use it - surely that's the goal of all Wikipedia articles? Still, I have no problem waiting a few days to hear other peoples' thoughts on the matter. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The only consensus on this (otherwise inconsequential) issue is that we don't want any edit warring arising from it to lock the article again. If changes can be identified that make it even more unassailable and if those changes can be aired here with no strong objections for a time (a day or two of consensus) then I recommend that we not be afraid to continually tweak the thing in that careful manner until the critics of the sentence no longer have any ammunition to use against it.Zebulin (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

DISCUSSION SECTION CLOSED. See 'Second Paragraph: Conclusion' below. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Second Paragraph: Conclusion

In my opinion, the current state of the highlighted section in the second paragraph reflects poorly on Wikipedia and its standards - especially considering the significance of this particular article - it's plainly not up to professional standards.

At best, the highlighted section is uncorroborated. At worst, it's uncorroborated and misleading:

"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 the conclusions of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with the conclusions [4]."

Throughout this discussion, I am the only person to suggest an alternative:

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by the National Academies of Science of 25 countries; including each of the G8+5 [1][2][3]. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC, the "overwhelming majority" of papers on climate change, published in refereed scientific journals, are in agreement with them [4]."

References: [1], [2], [3], [4]

In addition to being properly referenced, this is, indisputably, more accurate and more informative. The only substantive objection to it so far is that it's "bad writing" - which I disagreed with. To be perfectly honest, I'm really not sure why this solution has been overruled; I've yet to receive a rebuttal on any of my prompted explanations for why I believe my suggestion to be a great deal more appropriate than the current text. In the end, the majority response seems to simply be "No" or "I don't care"... which obviously isn't very productive.

Regardless, it seems we have four options:

a) Leave the passage as it is, b) Leave the passage's text as it is but add more references, c) Change the passage to my suggested replacement, d) Change the passage to something else [alternative suggestion required]

I am trying to make the article better by providing the reader with more information and references. I am truly having difficulty understanding how people can object to being more precise in a scientific article. Nevertheless, I have no intention of forcing my change (or any change) on the article. If the majority of people here believe option A is the best way forward, then I guess that's just how it is.

I leave the decision up to you, the community. Shall we just take a vote? After 7 days, the option with the most votes will be acted upon. Obviously I vote for option C. Please just be sure that what you do (or don't do) has what's best for the article in mind - having a quick glance at the referenced passages from the sources wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Thanks for listening. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

While voting is probably not the best way to come with a consensus, I do have an opinion about your suggestion.

First sentence; either version works for me. I am somewhat concerned that Icanhasnawlidge's version doesn't have a good place to link Scientific opinion on climate change and that it is less inclusive than the current language (it ignores the non-national academy societies referred to in the current version). On the other hand, it also more specific, and that might make it last longer and appear to be more convincing. Since I see advantages and disadvantages with both version, as long as Icanhasnawlidge's version does include a link to scientific opinion on climate change, I don't have an opinion either way.

Second sentence; I prefer the current version because it has a more logical parallel structure. Icanhasnawlidge's version of this sentence addresses both individual opinions about global warming and the publication record. Personally, I'd be happiest with just removing any mention of individuals who challenge the conclusions of the IPCC, but consensus on this talk page is that the existence of climate change skepticism is important enough to go in the lead of this article. Therefore, the existence of climate change skeptics needs to be put in context. Previous context has been the words " a few individual scientists" (the word "few" was subject to an extremely high amount of edit warring and constant talk page discussion) and current context is "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with the conclusions of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with the conclusions." Icanhasnawlidge's suggested sentence makes little sense. It implies that the IPCC conlcusions come first, and peer reviewed publications then agree or disagree. In fact, the IPCC does not create new data; it is instead a consensus review of the current state of knowledge (=peer-reviewed publications). The Oreskes 2004 review shows that the IPCC is building on a literature that generally agrees, instead of a literature with two diametrically opposed camps shouting at each other, of which the IPCC chose the opinion of one camp. However, if we want the conclusions of the Oreskes 2004 review, we should cite it instead of citing the Royal Society public information publication, and we should include it for its own sake, not as context for the existence of individual skeptics. If someone wants new language, I can suggest "While indvidual scientists have voiced disagreement with the conclusions of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists are convinced of the reality of anthropogenic global warming.[4]"

To summarize; the IPCC is essentially a consensus literature review; we don't need to mention that the literature agrees with it in the lead of this top-level, introductory summary article. Because we are required to mention that some people disagree with the consensus, the sentence that mentions this should be all about individual scientists' personal opinions, not published research. - Enuja (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Overwhelming Majority

I reverted User:Jeff dowter's removal of the word "overwhelming" in the second paragraph of the lead. Here is the talk discussion that lead to the insertion of that language and that source. Jeff dowter in the edit summary said that the language in the article was a misrepresentation of the source. However, the source is not a review of papers or a survey of climate scientists, but instead the considered opinion of the Royal Society. - Enuja (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true there is no indication in the source what percentage of all climate scientists actually agree with all IPCC findings. "Overwhelming" is an adjective arbitrarily chosen by the Royal Society. This really cannot be in there. Bacteriophage (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What percentage of physicists accept Newton's laws as a reasonable approximation for macroscopic phenomena? What percentage of biologists accept that DNA encodes genetic information? What percentage of physicians believe in the germ theory of disease? Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

These are all deterministic phenomena, not stochastically derived climate predictions. Apples to oranges. Bacteriophage (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The relevant issue isn't how the principle works, but instead your implicit statement that unless we have survey results we can't make any statement as to agreement. (Also note that climate models aren't stochastic, but that's beside the point.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And a better comparison is "apples to barrel of monkeys". -- SEWilco (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Produce a reference with the results of a sampling of a statistically significant number of climate scientists (not just those on the IPCC and not just a survey of published papers) that indicates a number much greater than 50% agrees with all the IPCC current findings AND future predictions...and then we can include the term "overwhelming", if that is the term the authors of the published survey choose. Bacteriophage (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You arguments boil down to "I dont like it." The source says it! (one as reliable as they get.) Brusegadi (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there is simply no evidence to support the use of the term. Contributions are thrown out all the time when the reference is some nonsense blog with no supporting data. Even the Royal Society has to produce evidence. You are pushing an "appeal to authority" argument...a very common fallacy. We cannot have that here. Bacteriophage (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, if we were arguing pure truths then you may be right, but this is not about truth, this is about a reliable source saying something and us reproducing it here. See the difference? Brusegadi (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed in the section above as well ("Second Paragraph") - where, in addition to other changes, I recommend we put "overwhelming majority" in quotes and change the word scientists to "papers on climate change, published in refereed scientific journals" (as is specifically mentioned in the source [paragraph below 'overwhelming majority']; that's the study they use to back up their use of the word 'scientists'). Please read the section above for the full text of the suggested change (it's underlined). In my opinion, your subjective arguments are out-of-place in this instance; if we agree that the source is reliable, then directly quoting the source removes the need to debate what language to use. This is proper referencing procedure. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. ~ UBeR (talk)

I am not the one insisting a subjective qualifier modify "majority." Bacteriophage (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

10:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This suggestion is a pure WP:OR attempt to critic a notable and credible source. --BozMo talk 16:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bacteriophage argues above that using the Royal Society source is an appeal to authority. Bacteriophage also argues that a poll is needed to verify the proportion of climate scientists who support the conclusions of the IPCC, and that the word "overwhelming" could only appear in this article if it appeared in the aforementioned hypothetical published poll. I think this is a misunderstanding of the idea of citing sources that other users share. It is okay, and in fact preferable, to use original language when writing anything. This article should hang together coherently, and speak in the tone created by collaborative editing. It should not be a quilt pieced together with words from journal articles and societies' proclamations. That's just bad writing. The facts should be supported by sources, but the wording itself should come from us, not from the sources. - Enuja (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Scientific articles often use direct quotes from sources, surrounded by quotation marks, before the cited reference. This is perfectly normal. And for such a contentious topic - dealing with one of the most contentious groups of statements within the article - it seems logical to be as specific as possible. The idea that this would turn the entire article into a quilt of quoted statements is obviously ridiculous. Once again, my suggestion is concise, comprehensive, correct and properly referenced. I have yet to see a valid argument presented against its use. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Enuja. Brusegadi (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree to quoting it as well. Presenting it without quotes implies that the "overwhelming majority" is a generally accepted fact. In reality, it is the opinion of one source and should be noted as such, either with quotes, or saying that "The Royal Society claims that an overwhelming majority of ...". If I found a source that claimed that global warming dissent is growing among scientists, I don't think anyone would allow the article to say that without qualification, and this source should be no different. Oren0 (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read 'Second Paragraph: Conclusion' above. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Semi-protect does not seem to be on, though the icon is in the corner. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Turned semi-protect back on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

External Link

I placed an external link to a wikiHow article on Global Warming Prevention and someone removed it. I recently noticed that it was removed from the article. I added it again this evening and found that User:BozMo removed it with the reasoning that it is not notable. Is this a joke? Since when do you need to have all your external links be notable? Yes, before starting a new article, you need to make sure your article is notable... Not an external link. I strongly support re-inserting this external link as it is very applicable to the topic, and very resourceful and informative. Ayudante (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a very good resource. We're not a repository of links. Sorry. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And to be fair the edit summary I gave also listed "very shallow" as part of the reason. We cannot be soft on poor links just because they are on Wikis. Neither notable nor of any quality leaves very few arguments to include it. --BozMo talk 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent Senate Report

I have changed the introductory paragraph slightly to reflect the recent senate report that says that the minority of scientists who disagree with the anthropogenic nature of global warming is on the increase: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Since this is a controversial topic, I felt I should mention this change here.

Tullie (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)