Talk:Climate change

Historic Low of sub-400 ppm CO2 Levels

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that at 380 ppm today, we are at an historic low of CO2 concentrations when we look back at past CO2 levels? The only other time CO2 has dropped below 400 ppm has been the late Carbiniferous some 300 million years ago, but at all other times CO2 has been above 400 ppm. The graph here [1] shows CO2 levels with a black line, and temperature is the blue line. In fact it's been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was so favorable to life that it resulted in the famous Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. This seems to contradict the predictions that our 380 ppm level will result in dire consequences for life. It's a basic crime of omission by leaving these facts out. JettaMann (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The concentrations in prehistoric and prehuman times are relevant to paleoclimatology, but of only contingent relevance to the current warming. The current warming is not predicted to have effects such as mass extinctions and the like; rather, it's likely to cause changes that we'd rather, as humans, avoid. Costly changes lasting many human lifetimes.. --TS 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Or you could say that humans originated and evolved in a special niche in which CO2 concentrations were extraordinarily low. That's to say that one can speculate either way, so it probably shouldn't be included here. Awickert (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's also say that "historic" usually refers to written history. CO2 is at an all-time high for at least 100 times longer than written history, and possibly for 2000 times longer than written history. The 20 million years currently most likely is about 10 times the average life time of a species. And Tony, global warming is predicted to cause mass extinction, although it will be hard to separate it from the holocene extinction event that's ongoing anyways. An extinction event does not require every third animal species to drop dead and rot away immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption about "Historic" is erroneous - just convenient for your argument.Dikstr (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that this "historic low" is really relevant. However, it is yet another example of an issue that people should find if they search the article. Having found it, readers should be diverted to another article that (maybe) gives this feature the attention it deserves.

The list of missing key-words may include "historic low", it most certainly does include words such as "Antarctic", "desertification", "Amazon" and many others which are currently missing from the article. Two of those in my short-list above were removed immediately when I put them in. (Comments on "advocacy" of this kind by me to my TalkPage, please). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the resistance you're encountering here is because most other editors don't share your view of what this article should contain. You can't just stand around and say "X is missing", "Y is missing", and so on. You have to persuade by presenting evidence that a significant aspect of global warming is omitted. --TS 12:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann believes a discussion of this "historic low" needs inclusion, I've told him that a mention would indeed be valuable, but i couldn't support the whole nine yards. I trust others to contribute in a similarly balanced and article improving fashion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, isn't it worth noting in the article that historically CO2 bottoms out at about the 400 ppm level. If you look at the Tertiary period in that graph it clearly shows CO2 levels starting at about 1000 ppm, then leveling out far before industrial production began. They have no where to go but up, at least it appears that way from past behavior of the planet. This just seems like relevant information that people reading up on Global Warming would want to know. JettaMann (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tell us the "key-words" that help guide people to find out about this feature, and I'd support including them. But there is said to be a problem with article-bloat, so the discussion presumably needs to go somewhere else. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Jetta, that is not true. CO2 levels during the last half million years (i.e. "historic period"*100) or so have been between 200ppm and 300ppm (during the warmest periods of interglacials). Our best current estimates are that CO2 has not been as high as it was today in the last 20 million years. Assuming you talk about the graph labeled "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time" at [2], that graph is intended to show, in broad strokes, CO2 and temperature over half a billion years. It simply does not have the resolution to show details on the million year scale. The uncertainty for the last 20 million years in that graph goes from about 0 ppm to approxiately 350 ppm. [:File:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png] shows the last 400000 years in some detail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yes that's true, we are at another low point in CO2 concentrations. As I said, the current period started at around 1000 and decreased gradually then *leveled off* far before industrial inputs, leaving no where to go but up. Likely if we had more accurate records the Carboniferous would also show levels bottoming out at a similar number (you can see the error bars in the graph go to about 0). On examination of the micro level it was probably spiking up and down as we see today. But my main point here is that it is important to give data in context. You can look at smaller periods of time such as the transition from winter to summer and predict a massive trend in warming, or 1940 to 1970 and predict a massive decline in temperature, etc... up to all different time scales and periods. Without context, it can make people panic unnecessarily. The context here that is important for people to know is that: 1) the earth is at historic lows of CO2 2) It's been as high as 7000 ppm 3) Life thrived during the warmer periods 4) CO2 levels have gone down and up without any industrial activity in the past. This is important information for the average Wikipedia reader to know. JettaMann (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. First, you write "the only other time CO2 has dropped below 400 ppm has been the late Carbiniferous (sic)" - i.e. you talk about hundreds of millions of years. Then you talk about the Tertiary, i.e. about time spans of 10s of millions of years (and CO2 was below 400 ppm for large parts of the Tertiary). Now you talk about a thousand years? Or a 1000 ppm? Anyways, no, the Earth is not at "historic lows of CO2". It is likely at unprecedented heights during the current geological age. Going back even 20 million years, you are talking about a different planet. The Mediterranean dried up about 6 million years ago. Both the Tethys Seaway and the Isthmus of Panama closed up during the last 20 million years. Sure, life "thrived" during higher CO2 concentration. But "life" the last time we had 3000 ppm was the dinosaurs, not humans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - JettaMann - the details of what you're talking about are not important for the reasons you've been told. No matter how good things may have been all those years ago, the re-imposition of those CO2 levels will likely be catastrophic to our way of life and possibly to our species.

However, it is an interesting and perhaps significant discussion. Rather than try to argue the details of these 'historic lows', we need to provide readers with a) a signpost they'll be able to spot amongst the forest of other signposts and b) a proper discussion of this effect. The latter will almost certainly have to be on a sub-page because it cannot be fitted in here at the moment (though later it might come to be more important and be fetched back). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

@JettaMann Can you give us a statement, boiled down to one sentence, with a ref so we can see it. I don't think the addition of one sentence will damage the page. We can point to the relative sub-article with a wikilink. Mytwocents (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a simple statement that's more-or-less consistent with the designated scope of this article: "The current rise in CO2 levels is unprecedented since the appearance of homo sapiens on the earth approximately 200,000 years ago." Don't have time to provide a citation right now, but there are secondary RSs out there for this. The last time CO2 levels were 1000ppm, dinosaurs and ferns dominated the Earth. ... Kenosis (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple statement C&P direct from Atmospheric_CO2 "Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 [million years] and certainly higher than in the last 800,000." How that adds up to 'historic low' is beyond me, but a statement that says something like "Even though ancient pre-historical atmospheric CO2 levels may have been higher, present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 [million years] and certainly higher than in the last 800,000." (with the same cite as that article) might be a useful addition? ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, per "These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[25][26][27] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago." already included. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is that we just present the data to the readers of Wikipedia, unvarnished. It seems to me like some of the people above are trying to interpret the data for people, which strikes me as problematic. Malcolm McDonald's statements above are bordering on original research and Kenosis' statement would be repeating what is already said in the article. The proposed addition would be something like, "In the geologic scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which resulted in the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered." The reference for this is provided above in my first statement.JettaMann (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What's "unvarnished" about "CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm [...] which resulted in the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity"? Moreover, why do you feel this data should be included? I'm not aware of any serious scientists who claims that conditions during the Cambrian or Carboniferous are in any way comparable to conditions today. Continents are configured differently, the biosphere is completely changed, heck, even the sun was significantly fainter back then. There also is no serious scientist who claims that the current increase is some kind of natural recovery. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

^^^ That ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AEB

The statement above is not interpretation of any kind. It is a fact that CO2 was at 7000 ppm and the Cambrian explosion followed. There is zero interpretation there. Whereas the claim that CO2 levels today are unnatural and deadly is controversial to say the least, as you are well aware. That claim is not an observation, it is an interpretation. So I'm saying let's just put these facts in the article, which are not interpretations, which put current CO2 levels in proper context to the earth's past, and which put the interpretations of AGW scientists in context as well. I'm also not sure why you are saying scientists don't think the earth's past is comparable to today. In many ways it is comparable, and in some ways it is not comparable. For you to say it is in no way comparable is your interpretation and sounds like original research to me. JettaMann (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? I thought we're discussing an article on global warming not an article on historic (or even current) levels of carbon dioxide. If the current or historic levels of CO2 are relevant to this article, as established by reliable sources then it should obviously be included in a relevant context but otherwise it doesn't matter whether it's 'a fact'. It's also a fact that Venus has an atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide by volume and has a surface tempeature of 740 K; and evidentally that "Republicans have received 75 percent of the oil and gas industry's $245 million in political contributions during the past 20 years" [3] and evidentally, at least as of 2005 [4] that "Bush, who has received more from the oil and gas industry than any other politician" (in the US); and that in 2006 the US had the highest per capita emissions of CO2 of any country with a population over ~6 million; but in all cases again, not something that particularly belongs in the article unless there's some established relevance Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• That the current CO2 level is unnatural is a fact, not an opinion. We don't claim that it is "deadly" in the article, so that's a straw man. If CO2 levels were 7000ppm in the Cambrian explosion is uncertain - look at the error bars. However, this is picking nits. The main problem is that you wrote "resulted", suggesting a causal link for which you have provided no evidence, let alone reliable sources. But that still misses the point. The "explosion" took some 70-80 million years. The dinosaurs left us 65 million years ago, leading to an explosion in the diversity of mammals. Does that make a major asteroid strike desirable? Granting you your nit, yes, the precambrian Earth was in "some" ways comparable to today's Earth. However, you cannot usefully compare the climate system. The sun was about 6% less luminous than today, equivalent to a forcing of approximately 20W/m², or more than 6 doublings of CO2 compared to preindustrial modern levels. The continents were configured very differently. Oxygen content started at 3% and rose to 15% or so - something that might be much more reasonably be connected to the Cambrian explosion. In short, it's a different system, and trying to frame parameters as "normal" because they are within boundaries experienced within the eep geological past is fallacious. For that concept of "normal", an Earth without humans is normal, as is one without mammals, as, indeed, is one without multicellular life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

warming from pre-industrial times to 1950

"The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3]" I'm not sure this is quite right - I've followed the two references

I'm fine with the first reference ""Recent estimates indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the second half of the 20th century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings" that's direct from chapter 9 of AR4 and so I'm fine with the statement that there is a small natural cooling effect from 1950 onwards.

I'm not sure about the first bit of the sentence "The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950"

1) I can't find that in the IPCC chapter 9 2) The reference to the PNAS paper isn't conclusive proof for the statement

what is says in chapter 9 is

A substantial fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability of the seven centuries prior to 1950 is very likely attributable to natural external forcing, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records

which is not quite the same thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteB99 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it you have :

pre-industrial to 1850 - No significant anthropogenic forcing 1850-1950 - anthropogenic forcings (mixture of Greenhouse gases and aerosols) and natural forcings combined but of the same sort of order. The error bars would make it difficult to say which is greater 1950 - dominated by anthropogenic forcings with a small natural net cooling

e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Personally my preference would be to just completely remove that sentence. If we had to have something then

Prior to 1950 a mixture of natural and man made effects produced the warming observed in the earlier part of the century PeteB99 (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that sentence can't stand as it is (who wrote it anyway?) so I've cut it to "The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism had a small cooling effect after 1950". I'm sure we've had big arguments about the pre-1950 stuff - how the sentence ended up in that state I don't know William M. Connolley (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Reads like an ad

This article reads like an ad and is in a generally erroneous state

Elements that must be repaired:

1. Article implies that global warming is isolated to earth, however other planets very likely undergo natural global warming and cooling just like the earth. This focus upon the earth has caused the article to be heavily written with an undertone that it contains an implied realistic hypotheses. This is really a theoretical hypotheses, especially since anthropogenic influence on global warming cannot be measured directly and may yet cause unpredictable effects. Thus the article should transform from a focus on earth, to the general phenomenon of global warming, globe warming of other planets and possibly include the surface of the sun and moons, then an explanation of possible causes such as effects proven by the IPCC, then known and hypothesised effects.
2. Article has a focus on warming of earth over the past century and does not express our knowledge of global warming before 150 years ago.
3. Article contains a strange fixation on the works of the IPCC with 26 citations of their direct works. Sources should vary a bit more than this.
4. Mathematical incompetence is implied with such example phrases as "Expressed as a linear trend, this temperature rose by 0.74 °C ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005," "relative to the 1961–1990 average" and immediately following "relative to the average temperatures from 1940 to 1980," firstly temperature graphs are not linear in nature and differences between two time points do not require linear plotting to establish error bounds, secondly the associated graphs are presented relative to differing averages and these graphs are then presented next to each other, this may cause an unrealistic perception of recent global warming (especially since the global graph of average temperatures is 1 year out of date and contains a very strange comparative average). These graphs shouldn't even be in the introduction since global warming has occurred at other points in time, they should show a longer time period of global temperatures.
5. The introduction includes an unnecessarily complex explanation of the IPCC's hypothesises, and does not give any credence to alternative theories attempting to explain this scientific phenomenon. The length and complexity should be reduced, and a reduced focus on the IPCC. An example of subtle advertising is "these basic conclusions [by the IPCC] have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science."
6. "The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent. Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so are considered separately from water vapor and other gases. Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750." This information is not disputed, however since there is such a heavy focus on the human effect there should be a calculation of the total percentile contribution to these greenhouse gases by humans, and there should also be a note that increasing one greenhouse gas reduces the concentration of other greenhouse gases which may have a stronger effect to global warming than the introduced gas. A calculation of human contribution based on the above figures would be (note that the figures don't indicate the percentage of gasses released by humans, thus this calculation assumed 100% contribution by humans, or is above the maximum anthropogenic contribution): 0.36/1.36 * 0.09-0.26 + 1.48/2.48 * 0.04-0.09 = 5-12% Since 100% of all green house gases today cause 33 deg temperature warming, the theoretical cumulative anthropogenic effect is 0.05-0.12* 33 = 1.65-3.96 deg.
7. The introduction includes hypothesises of the effects of global warming upon the earth which have weak citations and is probably unnecessary.130.56.88.227 (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I've refactored the list to be numbered, makes it easier to refer to each point. You're okay with that, right? Before we begin, do you really believe the article reads like an ad? I don't think very many people would appreciate an accusation like that, and I don't think that's the focus of your proposal. Anyways, the direction of this discussion is up to you. It's a big list, which one do you want to start with? ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does read a bit like an ad. I wouldn't expect a GM advertisement to tell me whether, for instance, there had just been a gigantic recall to fix the brakes of every vehicle they've ever made. But I expect the article on GM here to tell me all about it (if it's sufficiently notable, naturally) and if it fails to do so, I'm likely to walk away thinking to myself that Wikipedia is POV.

Similarly for the GW article here. If Prof Latif (a firm believer in GW/AGW) is quoted in the Daily Mail as saying there may be 20 years of cooling ahead, I expect to quickly find what the reference work of record says about him and his words and the possibility that he's being mis-quoted and what his colleagues say. Or, I expect to be sent to a sub-article where this information is discussed, anyway. Currently, it would appear that Prof Latif is a top climatologist making a startling prediction the credibility of which WP will not tell me! The Mojib Latif does not tell me what's going on, but then I'd not expect it to. So where is the discussion? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like an ad in that it unnecessarily continuously promotes the perspective of the IPCC which is especially unneeded in the introduction. Having "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism had a small cooling effect after 1950.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries" in the introduction is far too much. The first point I would like to address is #1 in which global warming occurs on planets other than earth and should have a reasonable weighting in this article. 130.56.91.147 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be saying that you don't want the lead to reference a scientific conclusion that is universally endorsed, but you do want it to reference your opinion that global warming on planets other than Earth is a significant fact. Do I have it right? --TS 12:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

change to intro - restarting from archived version

The previous conversation got archived (short archive timeframe on this page - I had no idea). Maybe a good thing, that. So let me revive it with a formal proposal. I suggest the first line of this article be replaced with the following two sentences:

Global warming refers to empirical observations of a global increase in average oceanic and near-surface atmospheric temperatures, and to theoretical constructs which try to explain that increase in terms of human-derived or natural causation. It falls primarily under the scientific purview of climatologists, but because of the complexity of the subject matter other scientific disciplines have noteworthy investments in the debate.

I have provided detailed reasons for this change in the archived discussion - Talk:Global_warming/Archive_57#inconsistency_in_intro - and will repeat them if necessary to pursue further discussion.

Note: I have already read (and disposed of) a sufficient number of ITSCRUFT-type comments to recognize that a lot of people don't like this change. I'm sorry. However, I don't need any further reminders of general displeasure, so please don't comment unless you have some valid reasoning that opposes this change and are willing to engage in proper discussion towards consensus. Thanks. --Ludwigs2 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this text for two reasons. First, because the words "global warming" do not refer to the theoretical constructs which try to explain it, so it is inaccurate. Second, the last sentence is purely original research as far as I can tell. — DroEsperanto (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

well, sorry, that's not going to work.

1. Your first statement (as I have discussed extensively) is clearly and unambiguously wrong. Global warming does refer to the theoretical constructs, this article itself deals extensively with theoretical issues, and there is no way to separate 'theoretical' and 'empirical' issues in the way many people on this page try to, not without violating basic tenets of scientific methodology. I will happily explain this again in detail, if you like - just say the word. basically I'll be copy/pasting the argument I made in the archives, if that makes your life any easier.
2. Your second statement is specious. Line two is neither 'original' nor 'research': it simply notes that most of the scientists who study the issue are climatologists, but that other specialties (oceanographers, physicists, etc.) have some input in the debate. I assume this is a self-evident and unobjectionable description based on the references I see on this page, but I'm open to revisions if you want to craft a more (to your mind) precise statement.

do you have a more sophisticated argument to make? --Ludwigs2 07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Refers, but what is it? Well, Ludwigs2, I do have objections, but I'm more interested in what's wrong with the current lead. Re-list your reasons from the archived discussion. Feel free to restart the thread. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The first two sentences in the existing lede paragraph are particularly clumsy and refer to two different time periods. The alternative suggestion is a significant improvement on what's there now viz: [see lead para 1, oldversion CaC]

I'm not currently seeing persuasive opposition to the new version. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Right, and I'm not seeing persuasive reason as to what in the current lead is wrong. MalcolmMcDonald, elaborate "clumsy and refer to two different time periods." A quote of the whole first paragraph from the article isn't an explanation, and I've refactored it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ ChyranandChloe: Granting what Malcolm said, I think it's more important to note that the lead and the article as a whole refer to theory without ever addressing the fact that they are referring to theory. For example (just looking at the first paragraph), the increase in global surface temperature over the last 50 or so years is an empirical observation (yes), but the projected continuation of that trend is unambiguously a matter of theory, as is the conclusion that most of the observed temperature changes were caused by greenhouse gases, as are the conclusions about solar variation and volcanism. This broad confounding of empirical measurements with the models and theories that empirical evidence is designed to support (or refute) makes for a lot of confusing language throughout the article. Specifying clearly up-front that global warming refers to a theory or theories about what is happening to the earth (theories that are well-supported by the available empirical evidence) will begin making the article clearer, more scientifically accurate, and less contentious as a whole. --Ludwigs2 08:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty much putting FAQ 8, but in the article, right? Here's where I'm confused about. When you said "Granting what Malcolm said", so you also believe that the lead is also "clumsy and refer to two different time periods." I don't see how your later statements support that. It sort of sounds like you want to side, I don't think it's wise to have your comments tied with his, but that's just me. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

well, sort of. FAQ 8 sidles past the issue, giving a fairly good description of the difference between the colloquial and scientific uses of the word 'theory' but not really applying them to the topic, and most editors here seem to rely on the 'global warming is only about the observations' argument implied by FAQ 8's first line. I'm really trying to get past that misleading 1st-line assertion to something more like scientific theory as it's expressed later in FAQ 8.

With respect to Malcolm's point... I'm trying not to play politics here, despite the pushme-pullyou tendencies of this talk page. I think this: (1) I don't disagree with his assertion that it's a bit of a clumsy construction, (2) I don't think I'd object to the phrase merely on the grounds of clumsy language construction, but (3) I kind of suspect that his objection to the construction is really an objection to what he perceives as a violation of NPOV in the article, and I'm leaving an opening for that to be expressed more fully later if need be. I'll give that same grace to anyone in this debate, so long as I get the sense they are trying to communicate (not just beat someone over the head with words). --Ludwigs2 09:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all I'm concerned that the article fails the reader. I have repeatedly come here for information and I've found it is not helpful. I've made suggestions for improvements, but the conduct of this page makes it very difficult to have any kind of sensible discussion. That's why I've not come back to try and fight for "Amazon" "rain-forest" "flames" and "go up in" to appear. Even desertification and the Antarctic are missing, which is pretty astounding.

Secondly I'm concerned about the poor writing of this article in places (such as the lede) which it is extremely difficult to improve, as you're discovering.

Thirdly I have concerns about POV in parts of the article (eg the ridiculously titled "Debate and skepticism").

I should not need to state that commenting must relate to improving articles and not concern other editors. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical construct?

What is a "theoretical construct"? I had to look it up - according to Blackwell, it's not something that is commonly used among scientist, but a philosophical term that describes "a term for something that is unobservable and postulated, such as force, atoms, field, or electrons", and "scientific realists reject the notion of a theoretical construct".(link may not persist) I strongly suggest that a term with such a specialized philosophical meaning has not place in the introduction of an article of general interest. I'd also say that the term would be grossly misused. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I had no problem understanding "theoretical construct". It suggests a linkage based on theory and seems to fit well with "which try to explain that increase in terms of human-derived or natural causation". Your objection may be that the words "try to" are surplus, I'd agree to leaving them out. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That ignores the point that "technical construct" is apparently a terminus technicus that is used outside the boundaries of its understood meaning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the phrase get it's meaning across to me, and do I accept that its use complies with NPOV? My answer would be "Yes" on both counts. (Well, the words "try to" could be chopped but the rest of it reads properly). Newspapers manage to be interesting and infomative and credible (even the notorious Daily Mail talking about Prof Latif) and the WP article should aim to be better than them. Currently, I fear that it's worse, sometimes much worse.

I would like to congratulate you for attempting "constructive opposition" to the proposed version, something we're not always seeing. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but either you don't get the technical meaning of the term "theoretical construct", or I don't get it. As far as I'm concerned, while there is a somewhat fuzzy interpretation consistent with an naive reading of the term (see the FAQ Q8), there is no plausible interpretation that is consistent with the technical meaning of the term. It's like saying "the mechanic used a spanner to move the car" when talking about a mechanic driving over the Golden Gate Bride to move the car from Oakland to San Diego. Yes, bridges "span", but its still a wrong use of language. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be right and if you wish to change those two words I'd not object. However, the proposed paragraph makes a lot more sense than what we're using currently, which manages to use unnecessary temperature and mathematical precision to support a different statement.

Why do I get the impression that this discussion will be dragged out until those who can see the problems with the article and genuinely wish to improve it are forced to abandon the attempt? I want to re-write the "Feedback" section to cover the 4 most important elements (and remove the irrelevancies) and I want to incorporate desertification of the Amazon rain-forest, a significant gap. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

@ Stephan. I'm happy to use the word 'theory' instead of 'theoretical construct'. very minor point. I had't meant anything special by the phrase, I just speak jargon by default. I'm confused, however, by the bit about 'scientific realists' - do they not believe that electrons exist, or do they believe that we can see electrons directly? both claims strike me as a bit... odd. --Ludwigs2

Pedantic

That proposed introduction looks excessively pedantic to me. We should use plain English wherever possible, especially in the introductory sentence where we have not yet defined our terms. Currently we say: 17:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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

That's a pretty short sentence, but it gets the message across without all the fiddling and scraping employed by the first sentence of the proposed alternative. As for the second sentence in the alternative, I don't know what it's doing there. --TS 12:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "Global Warming" as we know it is somewhat more than those straightforward words imply, in some quarters they're a swear-word. We need to pay lip-service to that view if we don't want to immediately lose that half of the visitors who, like me, came here to find the root of an NPOV discussion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is about the science. The nonsense in the newspapers should stay in the newspapers. People who cannot tell newspaper reports from fact may have difficulties with the content of this encyclopedia, but the solution to that problem is not to change the content of the encyclopedia. Indeed we have no business trying to solve the problem at all. We are neither propagandists nor educators, we only write the facts about science from reliable sources. --TS 13:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would debate you on the degree to which very knowledgeable editors of this article live in ivory towers where they can afford to ignore public debate and what's going on in the real world. However, I'm not going to do that because Wikipedia doesn't live in an ivory tower. The issue at stake is not the perfidy of newspapers or even the disastrous consequences for the planet but the dreadfully uninformative state of this article. And the poor writing, a problem that Ludswig2 is trying to fix with my support. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Tony: as a statement of science, the current lead is wrong. I'm happy to use plain English where and to the extent that plain English correctly explains the situation, but I see no reason to use what (at best) amounts to scientific baby talk. If you'd like to revise my proposal to be more accessible, we can discuss that, but what you've said here does not constitute an argument for not using it. --Ludwigs2 17:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We disagree about whether the introduction is wrong. I think it's correct, and I regard objections from pedantry as unhelpful. --TS 17:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter of personal opinion. Try [5] and [6]. Bertport (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Tony: You are entitled to disagree, of course, but you are not entitled to disagree just for the sheer heck of it. I've given carefully thought-out explanations of why I think the article needs to include what I've included. Unless you have an argument that counters the explanations I've given, then I will acknowledge your disagreement but will be forced to ignore it. The article shouldn't suffer from misinformation simply because some editors don't like the information that's missing. --Ludwigs2 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Bertport: dictionary definitions are now the final word in scientific discussions? when did that happen? --Ludwigs2 18:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, please don't misrepresent me. I have told you that I disagree because the wording is correct and your objection seems to be sheer pedantry. Please don't falsely claim that I disagree "for the heck of it." --TS 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Ludwigs2: No, dictionaries do not supplant scientific discussions. The first sentence of this article should not be a "discussion" of any sort. But you have stated that the intro, which is a definition, is incorrect. Definitions are the domain of dictionaries. Bertport (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No pressing need

I see no pressing need to change the existing lede. This looks like being yet another pile of unproductive and possibly acrimonious talking likely to lead nowhere. In particluar, I see no "misinformation" in the existing lede: L, if you want to insist on this point, you'll need to make it rather more clearly William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Tony and William: again, I have spelled out my reasons in detail in this section and in the archived discussion. If you would like to address those reason, I'm listening. If you would like me to repeat those reasons, I will do that (within reason). If you don't want to read or discuss the arguments I've made, that's fine, but then you really don't really have anything to contribute to the conversation. All I'm hearing from the two of you is that you don't like it, and that's just not a valid reason in a debate of this sort. --Ludwigs2 18:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read and understood (i presume) all your arguments, and reasons. Despite this i disagree with your change, for much the same reasons as that given by others. Your introduction is worse than the current one, readability is worse, explanation too complex, goes into details that is outside of the lead's purpose, focus is too narrow ... etc etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Asserting that you are listening is no substitute for listening. Mischaracterizing the responses of others does not pass for answering them. Calling yourself reasonable does not amount to being reasonable. Bertport (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Kim, I'm not sure I'm following you. you understand (and presumably agree with) the substantive change that the lead should acknowledge global warming as a theory, but you disagree with making that change on stylistic grounds? or am I misunderstanding you?

@ Bertport: if I've mischaracterized something someone has said, please clarify. I am listening, but I might have misheard.

With respect to reasonableness, I stand by my behavior. --Ludwigs2 19:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The gravity analogy

This is the problem:

Gravity refers to empirical observations of the motions of mass-bearing objects, and to theoretical constructs which try to explain that motion in terms of their mass and distance from one another. It falls primarily under the scientific purview of physicists, but because of the complexity of the subject matter other scientific disciplines have noteworthy investments in the debate.

The problem is one of inappropriate distancing motivated by a pedantic wish to provide an exact and pathologically precise, defensive definition of the facts. By applying such distancing, we traduce the subject and give undue weight to alternative suggestions, such as that global warming will not continue, or that it's primarily of natural cause, or (in the case of gravity) that the Earth sucks. --TS 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, on the gravity article, no one has any issue with referring to gravity as a theory. There are major headings about the history of the theory and alternate theories, yah? and that even considering that the theories of gravity are much more solidly based in empirical evidence than the theories of global warming. If you're going to make reference to that page than we should have much more thorough discussions of theory on this page than it currently shows.

not my business if you want to shoot your own argument in the foot... --Ludwigs2 18:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you seem to have misunderstood the gravity example above. That is not the introduction to that article, but shows what an unnecessary mouthful that would be if it followed your proposed wording. The actual introduction there is much simpler, as are those for Evolution, Electron and most other articles on established scientific topics. They all begin, "X is..." and go on to explain in simple terms the established science in a clear sentence or two. Your proposal, to begin, "Global warming refers to empirical observations of..." and to go on to talk about "theoretical constructs which try to explain..." clearly sets out to muddy the water before the reader gets started. Such a rhetorical device may go down well in a political debating society, or in a lawyer's speech to the jury, but is not relevant (or normal) in a scientific context. Try as some people may, one cannot turn GW itself into a debating matter - it may be one of the first times that science has led politicians into doing the right thing, but trying to turn the science itself into a matter for debate, among those who do not understand it, is not relevant. The politics, debates, brinkmanship and gambling begin where the science leaves off, not just before it begins. --Nigelj (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigel, I haven't misunderstood anything. I have no objection to any stylistic critiques you care to make - I'm sure that we can arrive at something nice if we work at it - but the substantive changes I'm quite set on. if you want to model things on the gravity article, then I will immediately add 'history of the theory' and 'alternate theories' sections to this article, and once they are in place and properly developed I will give up my concerns about the lead. Is that what you'd prefer?

I do not put style over substance, ever, and I am not inclined to sacrifice an accurate description of this topic over petty stylistic concerns. let's agree on the substantive point first, and then we can haggle of style issues. --Ludwigs2 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it depressing that we're spending so much time refuting misrepresentations of clearly stated arguments. The key question is, or should be: Is there actually any reasonable argument to replace the clear and accurate first sentence of this article with a sequence of unreadable circumlocutions? --TS 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've given one that you refuse to address. Tony, please note: I will continue to raise this issue until it is resolved (one way or another) to my satisfaction. You can keep trying to avoid it - as you've done repeatedly in this discussion to date - or you can settle down and start editing cooperatively to address my perfectly valid concerns in a way that satisfies us both. I'm ok with either choice you make, but judging by your comments above I think that in the long run you'll be happier having taken the second option. Up to you. --Ludwigs2 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the issue is resolved: there is no consensus for your proposed change and I've given you my opinion of it. Feel free, within reason, to advocate for your version. But please refrain from repeating your false claims that those who disagree with you have done so without engaging with your suggestions properly. I've stated my reasons above and I will not continue to repeat them. --TS 23:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

that's your business. however, I am obliged to disregard your opinion since you refuse to make any actual argument. I want to discuss an improvement to the encyclopedia, you're simply being obstructionist, and that is all that needs to be said on the matter. Oh... that, and 'have a nice day!'

now, if anyone would actually like to discuss the matter, I'm listening. --Ludwigs2 00:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretending that you (one person) have the right to hold this article and all its contributors to some kind of ransom regarding changes you want to make to it, is unrealistic. You have been making similar demands here for some weeks now. This is not the way WP:CONSENSUS works. Many people have explained that the changes you propose do not improve the article, for various reasons. WP:ICANTHEARYOU --Nigelj (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have said (repeatedly) until someone shows me my actual substantive point is invalid, I am obliged to argue for it. Consensus does not have anything to do with majority rule, it's a tool for improving the encyclopedia. This is a question about whether GW should be identified as a theory - I've given good reasons for it, no one has given good reasons against it. what would you do in my shoes? --Ludwigs2 17:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A shorter version

After going through some of the history I think you make some good points. However, you suggestion would have to be shortened and changed to get any traction. My suggestion to your previously stated alternative.

Global warming refers to empirical observation of a global increase in average oceanic and near-surface atmospheric temperatures since the mid-20th century, and the theory which tries to explain that increase in terms of human-derived causation.

Arzel (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with that. Human-derived causation is an inference, and not an integral part of anybody's theory. If we discovered tomorrow that the warming trend was significantly natural in causation, this would not make the trend go away. We would only have made an adjustment to the attribution of different mechanisms. --TS 14:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion is not any kind of improvement on the existing opening sentences. It would replace some simple and easily cited facts with a lot of mealy-mouthed verbiage that achieves nothing except inviting the possibility of picking uncited holes in the basics of the science that this article is about. Almost every word and phrase can be challenged, and all together it amounts to WP:OR to synthesise a whole new view of the published science: "refers to" - why can't we just say "is"? "empirical observation" - why qualify even this half of the new definition? Is there some other kind of observation that we're going to discuss? "average oceanic and near-surface atmospheric" - what's wrong with "near-surface air and oceans"? "the theory which tries to explain" - that just drips of an unspoken allegation that science itself is basically corrupt or ineffectual. "tries to explain that increase in terms of" - that is an actual misrepresentation of the way scientific modelling proceeds from observations towards explanations and projections. The science in this area did so many years or decades ago, and there is no need to imply in the first sentence that it is still struggling to emerge from its own primordial slime and assemble its first coherent thought. --Nigelj (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, thank you for trying. I'd personally be happy with your version, except that it needs to be expanded - it's not just about human-derived causation but about the relationship between possible forms of human and natural causation.

Nigel: The reason we can't just say 'empirical observation' is because empirical observations have no meaning in and of themselves. As I have said before, empirical observations are measurements of isolated events in time - they only have meaning to the extent that they are tied together by a theoretical structure which gives them meaning. saying that science has theories does not "drip[s] of an unspoken allegation{s] that science itself is basically corrupt or ineffectual", it is a simple and accurate description of the way science actually works. --Ludwigs2 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As pointless as ever. There is no reasonn to re-write the lede. Stop fiddling, do something useful, there is plenty to be done William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

piffle. When everyone stops arguing about irrelevancies and gets down to discussing the substantive issue I've raised, then this will move forward. If not, not. either way I am not about to give up on a credible improvement to the article because a few editors are on a tear about it. --Ludwigs2 17:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

alternate approach

I've had one editor who has suggested that I might forgo revising the lead and instead work the idea of global warming as a scientific theory into the main body of the article. Since I think that will need to happen eventually anyway, I'd be happy to begin there and table the discussion of the lead to some future point. It's a bit more work, of course, but that's alright. if there's consensus that that would be a better approach, I'll post some specific revision suggestions here for comment. Is that what you all would prefer? --Ludwigs2 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to Leade, Wording clarrification

I suggest a change of wording to the following sentence in the lede. "Warming will be strongest in the Arctic and will be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice." Changing the first will to may and the second will to would per WP:CRYSTAL I don't believe anyone knows for sure what might happen. Also, it is not clear if "Arctic" is referencing only the North Pole or both artic regions. Arzel (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Arctic amplification of climate change is very widely accepted -- regardless of whether one considers past changes or future changes, or whether the global change is anthropogenic or natural. It's fundamental to how the climate system works. There's also no "both artic" regions; there's the Arctic, and Antarctica. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have heard people refer to both poles as the Artic Regions, that must just be a misunderstanding on my part. I am not saying that the Artic will not warm, only that the paragraph states definatively that it will be strongest in the Artic, do we know for sure that it would not be stronger in say sub-artic Siberia, or sub-artic Canada, or Greenland or thousands of other places? I would say it is not possible to say what areas would experience the greatest warming in the future. The second change from will to would is a grammatical/stlyistic change. "Would" is showing that retreat in glaciers is a characteristic of global warming in the Artic. Arzel (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you're thinking about the term "polar regions". The term arctic comes from an ancient Greek word referring to the constellation of the Great Bear. --TS 15:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding changing 'will' to 'may', the way it works is that the WP:LEDE summarises the main points in the article, where 'main points' are defined by WP:WEIGHT. So, what you would need to do is to find a large enough body of published science that says that warming may not be strongest in the Arctic, get this added to the relevant sections of the article, then discuss changing the lede to reflect the new information in the article. It's not mentioned as an option at the moment because there is not the weight of legitimate science that warrants coverage of that specific possibility in the article or the lede. So, there is a process here, and just reading the lede and trying to get "does" and "will" changed to "tries to" and "may" at random is not it. Start by reading up on the science, from peer-reviewed sources, bearing in mind WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. --Nigelj (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I cannot even find a section in the main article that makes this points it doesn't even belong in the lede to begin with. Also, I would ask that you AGF, I read the section, noticed that it made a future statement of fact which doesn't appear to be possible to make and isn't even backed up in the main article. Arzel (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All this fiddling with the lede is a symptom of Not Enough Real Things To Do. If you have nothing but this to contribute to the climate change articles, then find something else of interest to edit William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have nothing better to do than attack other editors perhaps you should not even be editing on WP. Arzel (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say something like that. I have plenty of real things to do - re-write the "Feedback" section so it tells us which are +ve and which -ve. Re-title and re-write the "Dissent" section. We could divvy some of these things up between us because there's no shortage. Find the part of the IPCC that said Himalayan glaciation would be almost gone by 2035, insert it and then insert a grovelling apology. Write up "Arctic to be free of ice by 2013" and it's denial. Write up the 20 years of cooling that we could be getting and explain how it's been missed ignored for 8 years but doesn't affect the overall picture. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

2035: if you're clueless about that (as you do appear to be) go read the crit of Ar4 article, where you'll find it all laid out in detail William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I found that exact article before you prompted me - but I did it with Google, there are no clues of any kind here. Even finding it again via WP was clumsy, I had to enter "AR4" in the search box and search for "2035" in the IPCC AR4 article. Oops, it's not there! Fortunately, having gained some experience I know to search for "criticism", from which I discover the sub-article Criticism of IPCC AR4.

So that's how I discover that WMC's already been there (before the scandal broke in the newspapers) and written it up to say that the WWF meant to predict that, in the next 200 to 300 years, the glaciers will shrink from 500,000 km2 to 100,000km2 and meant to give the date of this as 2350 (mis-printing it as 2035, the wrong figure picked up by the IPCC). So the IPCC is in the clear (other than the lack of common sense). However, the changes you've made so far do not deal with the damaging allegation that the WWF report was not peer-reviewed research, and yet, that's what was used when writing the 2007 report!

If you weren't fielding my objections here, you would be completing "Criticism of IPCC AR4" article with the other needed information .... however, pestilential people are still going to come here and expect to be informed.

WP obviously can't compete with Google (even on information already contained in an article here!) but once I'm here, the article should inform me and answer specific questions that I have. Believe it or not, that's what brought me here in the first place (Dr William Happer, then soot).

I don't have many of the answers to make this article a credit to you, but I can tell you it is uninformative now and that commenting on editors rather than on the article still further highlights concerns about POV. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Try reading it again, in particular It has been suggested that this report should not have been used, as it does not appear to be peer-reviewed [7]. However, IPCC rules [8] permit the use of non-peer-reviewed material, providing it is "internationally available". William M. Connolley (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

IPCC AR4 comes in 4 volumes of print, and it's incredibly difficult to read eg "some paragraphs and graphics were repeated up to five times – in SYR SPM, SYR TS, a WG TS, a WG ES, and a WG chapter, in similar but not identical forms.".

So I did a search for "peer" (at www.IPCC.ch, using the trusty "site:" command in Google) and the first entry I came across was p.10 of IPCC Meetings Session 28: "The credibility of the IPCC reports is based on the fact that they summarize and integrate existing research, which itself has been scrutinized through publication in peer-review journals."

Did nobody tell them?

Actually, the next sentence but one might be even more relevant to our deliberations: "It is critical to communicate better how the statements in the reports are produced, because the thousands of supporting studies (and the work behind this) are not visible when these statements appear in newspapers and television."

I'm a believer. Or I was when I first came here as a visitor. Can it be that the IPCC process is operated in a way that make a travesty of "consensus" and hands the entire work-in-progress over to believers who reject anyone else's input?

To any of the people who once thought the direction I've taken is sound, but now think I'm repeating myself, please tell me to "shut up". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you should shut up. You're adding nothing useful here. The crit-of-AR4 article provides a link to the IPCC rules which makes it clear that non-PR stuff is allowed. I found that link easily enough; you failed to. But having failed, and having had it pointed out to you, the correct response is "thank you", not a long tedious pointless self-justification pointlessly clogging up this busy talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Time for a major rewrite of this article?

This article is getting a bit stale (you can see this by looking at the nature of the talk page discussions), so it is high time for a complete rewrite. The contents will stay more or less the same, but the presentation can be completely different. This is best done by one editor offline. Perhaps we should vote on who should do this. Count Iblis (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

well, while I agree with the notion that this article has gone a bit stale, I don't think an offline, single user revision is going to make a difference. the 'staleness' is in the editing atmosphere, not the article itself, and unless things loosen up on the talk page any offline document made will either be a carbon copy of this article or will be rejected out-of-hand the same way current changes to the article are rejected. Mediation is probably the best approach, but (based on commentary at the last mediation attempt) I don't suppose people here are ready to go that route. sorry, I don't mean to be a complete naysayer, because I'd like to see this work. I just can't quite imagine how it would be successful. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me suggest that a RFC be conducted on issues for a rewrite, to collect many views, and then a team take up task in a user space. Really, I would like to see this process for many pages in the project. If it goes well here, then there is real hope for improvement. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish you luck and support your push for an RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds pointless. The reason we've run out of senseible things to argue about might be that the article is just about right. Artificially creating a whole pile of things to argue over seems silly William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Stale?!? What do you mean by "stale"? This article gets over half a million views per month. How is it stale?--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a question I've been quietly waiting to be answered. Count Iblis says you can tell the article is stale "by looking at the nature of the talk page discussions." What is it about the talk page discussions that suggests staleness in the article content? --TS 10:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)