Talk:Climate change

Still No Adequate Representation of Skeptical Perspectives In This Article

Every now and then I check back to this article to see if the "Editors" have allowed any skeptical information to creep into the article. Unfortunately, this article is still lacking any serious acknowledgment of the skeptical perspective.

The only times the skeptical perspective is even mentioned it is at the end of the article and couched in the fact that skeptical scientists are "funded" by the oil industry. Well, they aren't ALL funded by the oil industry. And sadly, there is no mention of the fact that many of the advocates' funding comes from government sources that would benefit from increasing regulation on energy production.

In the past, I have suggested that the folks who have editorial control over this page would be more intellectually honest if they would include a prominent skeptic who could negotiate a more balanced perspective. My suggestions were deleted by some ambitious editor. I suppose it was vandalism of some sort.

So, here I am again, pushing the idea of AT LEAST INCLUDING someone from the skeptical side of the aisle who could provide proper balance. I mean, are you people so threatened that you can't even listen to the other side?

Now, there is plenty of precedence on Wikipedia for including alternate perspectives in the presentation of controversial subjects (even when the alternate view has it's own article). Some examples:

• If you look at the page for Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism), the article is fairly balanced between explaining the views that support and those that differ. The article explains the sources of various perspectives on the issue. There is also an article for Natural Selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Selection) - so, there is precedence for including the contrarian view even if there is an article dedicated to the contrarian view.
• The page for American Exceptionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism) includes the counter-argument for American Exceptionalism in the second paragraph. So, that's very prominent.
• The third paragraph of the article on Animal Testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing) includes the perspectives of both those who favor the practice as well as those who oppose it.

I propose that the Global Warming article would be stronger if skeptical perspectives were given proper treatment. Unfortunately, I expect that some "editor" will simple delete this suggestion as irrelevant. And of course, that would be dishonest. Mcoers (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

COMPLEXITY ISSUES - - Another area of concern that should be addressed is the very complex nature of the issue. The issue is not an either/or issue, yet too often climate change is presented as if it were, and that people should support one position or the other. The truth is not just a question of whether climate change is happening, but several other questions, such as: - - How severe is the climate change, if any? - What part do humans play in climate change? - How important is CO2 in affecting climate change? - Whether the other influences on climate, such as the sun's variability, outweigh the impact of human actions. - - The economic costs of climate change - Whether the effort to prevent climate change is possible, or desirable. - The economic costs of trying to mitigate or prevent climate change. - Whether CO2 is a pollutant, it being a natural substance useful to plants. - - Scientists no doubt would add many other aspects to this list. - - It seems likely that the debate on climate change is a "false dichotomy", in which many people seem to demand people choose either/or, rather than recognizing that there is a multiplicity of possibilities that are not clear cut, and which, therefore, do not allow for an easy solution, even if one is desired. - - The costs of trying to prevent climate change, for example, could be disastrous to poor countries, just as some claim that climate change itself is disastrous to such countries. - - Some have also pointed out that humans have generally been better off in warmer climates rather than colder (due to the impact on crops, etc.) - Higher temperatures might cause problems for some areas, while opening huge areas for growing crops, such as in Canada and Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.25 (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have a reliable source or a specific piece of text to add, removed, or change. Therefore what you have isn't a "proposal" in the sense leading towards an edit to the article, but a "request." I'm sure someone will disagree with your request, but in my opinion ignoring it would be preferable giving your comment's lack of good faith. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem in the case of this article is that the editorial process is controlled by people who delete all information that doesn't support their political cause. So, in this case, the proposal is to add qualified "skeptical" reviewers to the process so that people who do propose legitimately sourced information can have it reviewed in a process that is actually democratic. Rather than the current process which is terribly flawed.

In this case, I properly sourced the issue of providing alternative points of view within Wikipedia articles. So, no, it's not in bad faith. It's presented here in the context of the circumstances where information is systematically deleted if it doesn't support the cause of global warming. In this case, we can't improve the article until we improve the review process for making edits. Mcoers (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who has graduated grade school is "qualified" to know that every single Global Warming prediction made prior to this date has turned out 100% false, and there have been many Global Warming predictions made prior to this date.98.165.15.98 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what you or I believe, I appreciate your act of good faith by proving a proposal. Before I move on to the discussion below, I just have one thing to say. Article talks are for the article, never the editors. What you are suggesting belongs at a notice board, I suggest either reliable sources noticeboard for the wider community to look at your sources, or more directly the administator's noticeboard if you believe there is editor abuse. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already posted this information months ago to the administrator's noticeboard. I might as well have explained the problem to the rock beside my garage. Nothing has changed. It never does, despite the fact that hundreds of people have been on this discussion page proposing well-sourced information that has been summarily deleted. Wikipedia loses credibility when it does not include the ENTIRE story. Mcoers (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what I have in reply:

1. So you have posted to the Administrator's noticeboard? Perhaps not under a different name, because your edit contributions says otherwise.
2. I looked at the proposal. A link to Archive 58 would have sufficed. In reading the previous discussion, this is my view:
1. If this is about content: You don't have to YELL. What you are saying is clear, but others disagree with you, and you have not provided a satisfactory reply that would convince them otherwise.
2. If this is about actual editor abuse: I'd like to see evidence, or you may present evidence at the administrator's notice board (which would be better).

Beyond that I have nothing to say. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, this is what I have to say to you CaC:

1. The only reason I re-posted the article proposal is because you said that you wanted to see a properly sourced article edit. So, I re-posted it. Obviously just leaving it in the archives doesn't do any good.

2. Yes, I did post a complaint about editor bias. If you can't find it, then perhaps it isn't there anymore. I have only one user credential for this site, and I don't pretend to be other people.

3. So, if people disagree with me, then that is grounds for eliminating my proposal from consideration? Well, that's great because I disagree with the way the entire GW article is written. So, by your logic the entire thing must be removed immediately. Hey, we may not agree, but the way these things are supposed to operate you need to give the opposing side a voice.

Obfuscating the lack of editorial diversity here by discounting dissenting opinion on the basis of any of dozens of technicalities does not make the case for Global Warming. Want proof of it? Well, I've just pointed out the fact that there is no mention of legitimate skepticism in the leading paragraphs of the article. If you need a link in order to make the point legit, then here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming. I have also sourced other articles that cover controversial subjects that do contain dissenting opinions. Those links are in the above thread. If you need me to repost them, I can; but then you'd get after me for re-posting information.

There is no mention of climategate at all.

The graphs that are included are created by some "dude" with an organization called, "Global Warming Art Project". What the heck is that?! So, if I have an art project called the "Skeptical Global Warming Art Project", then does that mean my stuff qualifies for publication here?

The timelines of these charts are cherry-picked to show a far more dramatic climb in temperature than what would be shown if the author used almost any other timeline. An improvement would be to show a chart of the last 10 years of global temperatures (which would show a decline). That way readers can see that, in fact, temperatures stopped going up around 1998. Mcoers (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you believe your points are self-evident, which they are not. You don't need to repost an earlier post. List your main points, because right now I'm not quite sure which points you want me or someone else to reply to. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? You mean to tell me that you actually don't understand what I'm saying? Here, let me say it again.

I want the editors who have authority to modify this page to allow skeptical information to be included in the presentation. There, do you understand that? Mcoers (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Obviously your discussion lies with the "editors" and not me. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Since global warming is a long term change in the ten year average, looking at one particular decade would show nothing about global warming one way or the other. Look at the graph. The yearly averages go up and down, the ten year averages go up and up. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

COMPLEXITY ISSUES

Another area of concern that should be addressed is the very complex nature of the issue. It is not just a question of whether climate change is happening, but several other questions, such as:

How severe is the climate change, if any? What part do humans play in climate change? How important is CO2 in affecting climate change? Whether the other influences on climate, such as the sun's variability, outweigh the impact of human actions.

The economic costs of climate change Whether the effort to prevent climate change is possible, or desirable. The economic costs of trying to mitigate or prevent climate change. Whether CO2 is a pollutant, it being a natural substance useful to plants.

Scientists no doubt would add many other aspects to this list.

It seems likely that the debate on climate change is a "false dichotomy", in which many people seem to demand people choose either/or, rather than recognizing that there is a multiplicity of possibilities that are not clear cut, and which, therefore, do not allow for an easy solution, even if one is desired.

The costs of trying to prevent climate change, for example, could be disastrous to poor countries, just as some claim that climate change itself is disastrous to such countries.

Some have also pointed out that humans have generally been better off in warmer climates rather than colder (due to the impact on crops, etc.) Higher temperatures might cause problems for some areas, while opening huge areas for growing crops, such as in Canada and Russia.

W —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.25 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

These issues are already covered in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition

In the first sentence, why is the term "Global Warming" defined using the phrase "since the mid-20th century"? That seems to be an arbitrary restriction on the definition with no reference given. Global warming has been happening for 12000 years (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation#Land-based_chronology_of_Quaternary_glacial_cycles). Has this definition been erroneously transferred from "anthropogenic global warming"? Or does Wikipedia make no distinction between cause and effect? Mrdavenport (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As per the article hat-note (before the first sentence), what you're looking for may be in Climate change or Paleoclimatology. --Nigelj (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, the 'global warming' that has been happening for the last 12000 years was us comming out of an ice age. In other words, that doesn't really count because it would have happened anyway. The point is that it should have slowed down, and it hasn't. If it hadn't been for human intervention in the last couple of centuries, the climate would have stablised. Just because to things have the same effect doesn't mean they are the same. 81.187.148.35 (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for clearer definitions of terminology and wikipedia page structure on 'climate change'/'global warming'

I would suggest the wikipedia articles for 'climate change', 'global warming', etc. are in need of re-organising and re-writing in order to give the most accurate, impartial definitions of the terms according to common international usage. It is apparent to me that the definitions of climate change and global warming currently used in wikipedia have been overly influenced by contrarians in the debate. This is further evidenced by the comments in this discussion page on a 'fairer representation of the skeptical side'.

This article in the guardian gives a far clearer explanation of the term 'climate change' and 'global warming':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/21/what-is-climate-change

"Any process that causes adjustments to a climate system – from a volcanic eruption to a cyclical change in solar activity – could be described as creating "climate change".

Today, however, the phrase is most often used as shorthand for anthropogenic climate change – in other words, climate change caused by humans. The principal way in which humans are understood to be affecting the climate is through the release of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the air.

Climate change is used interchangeably with another phrase – "global warming" – reflecting the strong warming trend that scientists have observed over the past century or so. Strictly speaking, however, climate change is a more accurate phrase than global warming, not least because rising temperatures can cause a host of other climatic impacts, such as changes in rainfall patterns."

Please could people respond if the agree or disagree? (86.152.178.230 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

I think the best bit of that FAQ answer is where they say that the two are used "interchangeably". That's what we do here - allow normal usage rather than try to impose some structure from on high - in this regard. Any attempt at such imposition upon article naming would, I fear, just stimulate dramas where they are not needed. Ones that may take effort away from the real issues of keeping the actual material in the articles sane and realistic. --Nigelj (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

@Nigelj - In my opinion the best thing about the FAQ i posted is that it gives a short, accurate and useful description of both climate change and global warming. Having read some of the discussions above I can entirely understand your fear of stimulating dramas. I am certainly not suggesting that a definition is imposed from on high as it were. However, I think the goal of the article(s) should be to give as accurate descriptions as possible of common usage, rather than ones that merely have sane and realistic content. Can you see what I mean? 217.43.25.223 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I think our article naming and textual usage shows, the two are used "interchangeably". Which is what the FAQ says. There is no real wedge you can drive in between them. Use whichever you prefer. --Nigelj (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

. I agree that climate change and global warming are generally used to describe the same phenomena (ie recent anthropogenic climate change). However the term climate change is more commonly used, because it is more descriptively useful. It makes sense to me to have the main article on anthropogenic climate change in climate change with well written introduction explaining the various terms. Perhaps Global Warming could be a subsection of the main article, explaining the historic use of the term and including information on recent warming trend in averaged global temperatures. I hope you take this as a contructive suggestion rather than criticism, I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the article especially given the difficulties involved in this subject. 217.43.25.223 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The top of climate change says "For current global climate change, see Global warming." Seems pretty clear to me: this is about general climate change on Earth, for current changes see this. GManNickG (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

@GManNick , I think its reasonably clear, but I was trying to say that it could and should be better. Particularly it seems strange that the current article on climate change does not reflect the terms common usage. Most of the content of the current article would perhaps be more appropriately included in climatology. I'm sure there is a way of re-structuring the climate change related articles in wikipedia that would give more accurate useful descritions. The reason I raise these points is that I think it is important to have well written articles on these particular terms.217.43.25.223 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's some reading relevant to this debate:

- nasa article on why they use climate change on their website rather than global warming http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

- this article and study suggests that using 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' could negatively affect public perceptions of the issue. It notes that conservative strategist Frank Luntz also thought that switching terms from "global warming" to "climate change" would be an effective way for climate skeptics to downplay the urgency of the issue. Personally I don't agree with their interpretation. Cases where local temperatures don't increase tend to get interpreted, by certain politicians and sections of the media at least, as evidence against global warming, particularly the recent cold winters in Europe and US. I have noticed so called 'skeptics' trying to capitalise on this on many occasions.

- this study suggests the two terms are rated more or less equally in terms of their importance: http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/gw-language-choices.pdf (notes that this is contrary to Luntz interpretation)

- this study suggest that the two terms usage depends on politcal positioning, but suggests that recently 'climate change' is used more by democrats and 'global warming' by republicans http://sitemaker.umich.edu/jschuldt/files/schuldt__konrath____schwarz__in_press__poq_.pdf

I suppose there are various issues around the psychological responses the terms tend to elicit in the lay audience, and around the history of the politicisation of the two terms (particularly in the US) and how this interacts with public interpretation. However, I still maintain though that 'climate change' is both more accurate and useful. I would be interested to hear others' opinions. I hope people don't think I am wasting time and energy. I think this debate is worth having, and is certainly relevant to these articles. 217.43.25.223 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you need to be clear about what you are proposing. Are you saying that "Global warming" should be a redirect to "Climate change"? If you are unsure or looking for input, then my response is no. If you search the archive, issues similar to this have been raised before.[1][2] The consensus has been: (1) GW is about the current change in climate, (2) CC is about changes in climate in general, and (3) GW should link to CC in the hatnote. The reason being is the current rise in temperature is not projected to decrease significantly (significant being a 30 year average downward trend per the WMO), since GW does not suggest cooling/decrease, GW therefore gets the current rise in temperature. CC is more general, therefore CC describes a general changes in climate.

You don't have to agree with the line of reasoning. If you want to change this, you need be a whole lot more convincing than either GW and CC has been used interchangeably or CC is a more accurate term than GW. The level that would convince me is if (1) the majority of dictionary and etymology resources agree that CC and GW are synonymous or CC is a more accurate term than GW, and (2) the change in public usage of CC and GW is ubiquitous with CC or GW as the most common name. So far, dictionaries reflect the current usage on Wikipedia,[3][4] and it is not apparently clear that the common name of GW is CC or vise-versa. 155.99.230.82 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't saying that "Global warming" should redirect to "climate change". I am saying that the contents of climate change should describe GW/CC with an appropriate introduction explaining both terms' techincal meaning and common usage. I understand the difficulties here, in that the terms' technical meanings are different from those commonly used, they are sometimes used synonymously, and their relative usage has varied over time. I think I could show some evidence that (1) CC is generally considered more accurate and that (2) the most common name for GW/CC is CC. I don't want to waste peoples' time though, and I suppose I can understand if people feel that the current articles are as good as can be hoped for.217.43.25.223 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate. Sorry for misjudging your earlier posts. Of your two points, the Terminology section in CC already gives (1) the technical definition, and (2) its common usage that is synonymous with GW. In my opinion, this fulfills your second point. As for the first, in my opinion a technical definition of what it is, is better than a tangent about GW.

All this aside, do you have a proposal providing a specific piece of text to add, removed, or change? It's nice to argue abstracts, but if you're really inclined to not "want to waste peoples' time". Then an actual proposal leading to an edit to the article would be better than a request about something you believe. 155.99.230.140 (talk)

I would think "climate change" has to be considered a better/more accurate term, given that even proponents of the "global warming" theory state that global warming can actually cause cooling in certain circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.25 (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Global warming refers to the increasing ten-year average temperature of the earth. One effect of this warming is more extreme swings in temperature and also shifts in temperature in some parts of the world. For example, if the melting Greenland glaciers shift the Gulf Stream, England will become much colder and other regions may become much warmer. Climate change considers these local effects. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Satellite temperature measurements article seems to go well beyond its title

The sea surface temperature article has been revamped due to improvements made in the numerical weather prediction article. When doing a web search, I ran across the wikipedia article regarding satellite temperature measurements, so I started incorporating some of the SST article information into it. After I noticed the article structure, I was initially confused. A cursory review of the article shows that its content goes well beyond its name. It looks strongly linked to this article, and even mentions information you would not expect to be involved in an article with its name. My question is: Should that article be renamed, something like Satellite temperature measurements (climate change), or should the information within the article be aligned with its current title? If so, the order of the article would need to be flipped, surface information/SST first (since that's where we all live and that information was first available via satellites, so it makes sense chronologically as well) with a decent amount of material eliminated since it goes beyond the scope of its title. Thoughts? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you should keep that discussion on the talk page of Satellite temperature measurements, and not place it here as well.--CurtisSwain (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have. I posted it here as well because it appears to wharehouse global warming information on it (almost a content fork), so it appears relevant to this article. Right now, there is undue weight given to the global warming information within that article (which takes up nearly all its content). No further response will mean that the satellite temperature measurements article content will be refashioned to fit its current title around a week after the original talk page comment was made (the 16th), and the percentage of global warming information within it will be reduced in kind. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

minor typo

"Most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is, with high probability,[D] atttributable to human-induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.[86]" change to attributable. 98.28.17.36 (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Dan

Done. GManNickG (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

nonexistance

where is the criticism about the nonexistance of global warming from many scientists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.69.205 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-existent, of course. I'm not aware of any recent claim in the scientific literature that there is no warming trend. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

See FAQ#2, or Global warming controversy, which this article links to in several places.--CurtisSwain (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely the question is whether or not global warming is man-made or just part of a solar cycle. I think the main article should be more balanced with respect to this question.Sushisurprise (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to balance. Since solar output has been more or less constant for the past 100 years (with the most recent data in fact suggesting a slight decrease over the last decade), recent warming cannot be attributed to the sun. See Solar constant#Variation or Global warming controversy#Solar variation for a more detailed explanation. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for settling that for me. I needed an expert's opinion.Sushisurprise (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Other Views section

After a discussion on Stephan Schulz' talk page, I have made some revisions to a previous edit of mine and moved it here for further debate. The current text of this section is as follows. The proposed addition to this section is underlined.

Most scientists accept that humans are contributing to observed climate change. National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions. However, some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science.

Organizations such as the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, conservative commentators, and some companies such as ExxonMobil have challenged IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls. The ARC has argued that placing stringent restrictions on industry in the name of reducing emissions would make the effects of climate change more difficult to cope with.

In the finance industry, Deutsche Bank has set up an institutional climate change investment division (DBCCA), which has commissioned and published research on the issues and debate surrounding global warming.

Environmental organizations and public figures have emphasized changes in the current climate and the risks they entail, while promoting adaptation to changes in infrastructural needs and emissions reductions. Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years, or called for policies to reduce global warming.

• Reference: Lockitch, Keith (April 2009). Climate Vulnerability and the Indispensable Value of Industrial Capitalism. Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Retrieved 11-01-08. "The dramatic degree to which industrial development under capitalism has reduced the risk of harm from severe climate events in the industrialized world is significantly under-appreciated in the climate debate. Consequently, so too is the degree to which green climate and energy policies would undermine the protection that industrial capitalism affords—by interfering with individual freedoms, distorting market forces, and impeding continued industrial development and economic growth. The effect of such policies would, ironically, be a worsening of overall vulnerability to climate."

The ARC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank (as is the Competitive Enterprise Institute discussed in the preceding sentence), and an arm of the larger Ayn Rand Institute. Dr. Keith Lockitch, the author of the article in question, is a fellow at the ARC who has written numerous press releases and articles on the organization's behalf^[5]. Being as this paragraph in the article is about the stances of libertarian think tanks and free-enterprise institutes, I think this addition is both context-appropriate and notable. There are, however, as discussed on Stephan's page, some questions about which organization this article should be attributed to. The article was written by (as seen on Page 2), and is currently hosted on, the ARC's Web site, but was printed in Energy and Environment. Thoughts? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the primary issue here is one of weight. Personally, I've never heard of the Ayn Rand Center or its parent org. Even if Lockitch is speaking for ARC, the question is are they notable enough to warrant inclusion?--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

They've been around since 1985, and they're basically the authority on Objectivist philosophy. Dr. Leonard Peikoff, the founder, was Rand's legal heir. I'd suggest looking into their Wikipedia article, to be sure, but I'd think they're weighty enough for mention. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Curtis, why should the ARC receive weight comparable to "Competitive Enterprise Institute, conservative commentators, and some companies such as ExxonMobil" combined? --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, our handling of those organizations is highly questionable in itself. We have four citations for that sentence: Newsweek's "The Truth About Denial", Guardian's "Royal Society Tells Exxon Stop Funding Denial", ABC "Big Money Confusing Public", and MSNBC "Exxon Cuts Ties with Skeptics." The sentence is ostensibly talking about the positions (and they're not all the same) of these organizations, but we're showing it through the lens of Newsweek opinion columns shrieking about denialism? Simply put, if these organizations are notable enough to warrant mention, then can they not speak for themselves? I think it would be better if we used maybe a sentence each for their individual positions (the ARC being one), cited directly to them, then included notable responses/rebuttals offered to these positions as appropriate. It would certainly make for a more balanced perspective, and would make it harder for people to complain that skeptics aren't getting a fair shake. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 08:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, we do prefer secondary sources. And, to be honest, from a world-wide perspective, being the authority on Objectivist philosophy is about as notable in the context of global warming as being a rice packer in Shanghai. I also doubt that claim - from what I can tell, they are not an authority on Objectivism, but a free-market think-tank claiming to apply Objectivist principles. They have also commented on a large range of other topics - Creationism and ID, the war in the Middle East, Globalization, Health Care... - do we cite their opinion in these articles? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears in this article, then, that we prefer secondary sources - except where we don't. The very next sentence in this section cites Deutsche Bank as a primary source three times. And in terms of weight, why does this one financial organization get as much mention as Competitive Enterprise Institute et al lumped together? Why are we presenting the perspectives of these aforementioned organizations only through vocally critical sources? Please read a bit more about ARI, Stephan. And also, as I noted on your talk page, the issue in this context which the proposed addition is addressing directly is the economic effects of environmental controls, which is what these organizations (CEI et al) are critical of. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 10:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The essential difference between science and other ways of acquiring knowledge is that scientists spend at least as much time trying to disprove their own ideas as they do trying to prove them. They know that their ideas will not stand up to replication if they are flawed. Taking Global Warming as an example, in the decades since the idea was generally accepted, if there had been a decline in ten year average temperatures, it would have been back to the old drawing board. But average temperatures continue to rise.

The ARI, in contrast, has already made up its mind. It is not interested in putting Objectivism to the test. Instead, it puts facts to the test, and if the facts contradict Objectivism, then it argues against the facts instead of modifying its beliefs to fit new data. It is not a good source for scientific opinion. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect, MSNBC, Newsweek et al are not scientific organizations. I know this won't go anywhere, but the fact remains that some of them have previously demonstrated a willingness to blatantly manipulate their own footage in order to push an editorial perspective (MSNBC was harangued for its coverage of the Taxpayer March On Washington, where it carefully cropped and looped footage of a black man in the crowd with an AR-15 to disguise his race, then spoke of the danger of "white supremacists." But I digress.). And in my opinion, that makes them less than reliable sources for accurately conveying the positions of organizations they openly disagree with. Additionally, ARI is not arguing that global warming isn't real - what the article I provided is discussing is whether restricting production and the use of energy which allows us to, say, keep cool in summer and warm in winter, is really the best way to protect ourselves from climate fluctuations. It's not arguing science, it's arguing government policy. On further thought, this is probably a perspective more appropriate for Adaptation to global warming, but the issue of our blatant double-standard regarding which organizations are permitted to express their own positions must be addressed in this article. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a matter of weight, but also mainstream vs fringe. There is no way ARC stacks up alongside ExxonMobil et al, but also, those mentioned are mentioned because notable secondary sources (Newsweek, The Guardian, ABC and MSNBC) have mentioned their stances (in relation to the mainstream, which is not "shrieking about denialism"). Deutsche Bank is also a huge organisation, and by setting a CC division, commissioning and publishing research, they are following another important mainstream trend (multinationals taking GW seriously in their business). Another right-wing US think tank muddying the waters is really neither news nor notable, especially since no secondary source (that we know of here) has even bothered to report on their (predictable) position. Not just weight, mainstream and noteworthy vs fringe and predictable. --Nigelj (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, what is our policy for determining which organizations can speak for themselves as primary sources (Deutsche Bank), which organizations cannot (CEI), and on what grounds is this standard justified? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Detusche Bank is not a primary source. Only science published in refereed journals is a primary source. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Rick - You're off base here. We're talking about inclusion in the Other views (as in non-scientific) subsection.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, why is Deutsche Bank permitted to explain its own position, while the positions of organizations like CEI can only be relayed through secondary sources? Why can't all of these organizations speak for themselves? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

  I think organizations can speak for themselves, and in that respect an editorial (say) in the Guardian would be authoritative for the Guardian itself. But the Guardian giving its opinion of what the science is should distinguished from any scientific opinion of what the science is. I think the real question here is why the opinion of the ARC is any more notable than the opinion of the CEI. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and as I stated above, I think it would be appropriate for these separate organizations to each be given a sentence or so to explain their positions - weight-appropriate, of course, and with any appropriately notable rebuttals to those specific statements. I've been thinking that perhaps the ARC's expressed position is more relevant to the Adaptation to global warming article, since the organization has criticized policies responding to global warming, but hasn't disputed the science of global warming itself. The article basically argues that adaptation is a more feasible and less painful solution than mitigation, and is more likely to succeed. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, let's focus on how. The section "Other views" is summary section of Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming; you've also said that it would be appropriate on Adaptation to global warming. Summary section is a Wikipedia guideline, and this is a fact. For this reason, I believe we should focus our efforts on improving coverage on those subsidiary articles. I'm sure S0CO that your proposal would receive much less resistance at "Global warming controversy" or "Politics of global warming." And after you are finish, I'd be glad to see a proposal on how to improve the entire "Other views" section. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm dropping my proposal to add the ARC source to the Global warming article for the time being - as I said, I'm thinking now that it's more relevant to a subarticle anyway. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

CurtisSwain: I was responding to SOCO just above my previous post, who seemed to think Detusche Bank was being quoted as a primary source. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  I think we need to dispel the notion that every little group that dabbles in an inherently fringe position warrants "equal time", which might inflate a minority position in violation of proper WP:WEIGHT of the issue as a whole. If the ARC was saying something that the CEI didn't then it might warrant inclusion, but that would depend on the balance of how much coverage of detail was given to the majority view. If the scope of an article does not warrant coverage of such details, one voice might well represent multiple voices. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification on terminology, I was under the impression that "primary source" meant something which was being referenced directly (such as a press release by an organization), while "secondary source" meant another organization had picked up on it and reported it (such as a newspaper article which makes reference to the press release). My stance was that every organization whose viewpoint was judged to be notable enough for inclusion ought to be permitted to speak for itself, instead of picking and choosing which to portray through intermediaries. Does "primary source" refer exclusively to scientific literature, as the term is used on this talk page? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The article primary source gives a good definition. In the case of global warming, a primary source is a published, refereed paper by a climate scientist. An article in a journal reporting what the scientists published is a secondary source. So is a book or textbook by an expert which summarizes the published literature. An encyclopedia article which summarizes what the secondary sources report is a tertiary source. Wikipedia usually uses reliable secondary sources, and is itself a tertiary source. Commentary is not a "source" at all -- except that commentary by Joe Smith is a primary source on what Joe Smith has written. It belongs in the "Joe Smith" article. When a subject such as global warming becomes so controversial that Wikipedia has a second article on the controversy, what Joe Smith says becomes a primary source for that article, and commentary by knowledgeable people on Joe Smith's views becomes a secondary source for that article. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  More particularly, Primary source says: "Primary source is ... source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied." (Emphasis added.) Also relevant here is WP:Identifying reliable sources ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources....") and WP:PRIMARY. The latter says:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. [Emphasis added]

  In respect of scientific research the primary sources — those closest to the research — are those published by the researchers themselves. Whether a scientist's interpretation/opinion of the research (and this is not limited to the original researchers themselves) is reliable depends on other factors, such as publication in respected scientific journals (which implies exposure to editorial requirements and peer-review). The enduring issue in all of the climate change articles concerns the reliability of sources regarding, on one hand, the views of, say, the WSJ editorial board, the CEI, "John Smith", Heartland, and various random scientists — and here I say that the WSJ, etc., can speak for themselves — as distinct from science (or scientific research) itself. I would say that editorials in the WSJ are primary and presumably reliable and even authoritative for the WSJ's view of the science, but not of the science itself. Similarly, when the editors at Science invite a prominent and respected expert to comment on recent research, that is a secondary source, but much more reliable than, say, comments coming from Senator Inhofe's office or ExxonMobil's hired guns.

  So my answer to to SOCO is no, "primary source" does not necessarily refer exclusively to scientific literature, though that is the implication in regards of any scientific matter. Perhaps more importantly, the views of the ARC, though possibly of interest in an article on that organization, are not reliable concerning any scientific issue. And even in the political debate re AGW their views would probably notable only to the extent that they are a notable player in that debate. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia

I would think that the best source would be a reference work that specializes in science like Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. Their article on "global warming" certainly takes a more balanced view than this one does, which takes the "hockey stick" interpretation at face value and contains no hint that there has ever been any controversy about it. Currently, the references are overwhelmingly to primary sources. This is quite problematic since thousands of scientific papers have been published on this subject and they often express divergent views. Kauffner (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the IPCC reports, the NAS/NRC reports, the Academies statements, the Met Office, the WMO, Weart's book, are all excellent secondary sources, and, between them, make up a huge proportion of all references. They are certainly better than an 8 year old tertiary source intended for general audiences, including secondary schools. It's typically sceptics who push individual papers into the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If high school students are using Van Nostrand's I'm impressed, since it's certainly higher-level science than, say, Britannica. The latest edition of was published in 2008,[6] so it is actually more recent the 2007 IPCC report that is currently referenced. I'm sure you know perfectly well that many, many books and other secondary sources have been published on this topic expressing, if anything, a wider variety of opinion than in the primary sources. So choosing a group of secondary sources that agree with a single POV is easy enough to do, as you have just shown. So there is a need to look at other encyclopedias to establish is what kind and amount of coverage is "due" to the various relevant points of view. Kauffner (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds a bit odd to hear somebody promoting a mere encyclopedia in preference to our multiple authoritative sources. I remember Lar and I looked at the Britannica once to determine whether there was any imbalance in our coverage. His view was that there was, but I couldn't see it. Our coverage over the whole encyclopedia was huge compared to Britannica which barely mentioned alternative views at all. Searching Britannica for the names of prominent skeptical scientists, for instance, drew a blank. I'd be frankly surprised to see any significant difference in Van Nostrand's coverage, but perhaps somebody might want to raise concrete examples from that book and we'll see where we can go with this. --TS 14:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The "global warming" article in Van Nostrand is more than five pages long. Plus there is a lengthy "climate" article, about half of which is about the greenhouse effect, so that's 2-3 more pages. I'm guesstimating around 1,200 words per page. So they have several times the coverage of Britannica, which has 1,650 words in their "global warming" article. It's Van Nostrand's "climate" article that presents skeptical views, especially in a half page section entitled "The Theory in Perspective." My favorite line is, "One should recall that it was only a few decades ago that some scientists and numerous lay people feared the return of the Ice Age!" (Yeah, but one does not recall ever seeing any other exclamation points in an encyclopedia!) McGraw-Hill's Encyclopedia of Science & Technology is an even more authoritative source and would have more extensive coverage of this issue, although I have not looked at it myself yet. Kauffner (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It was only a few decades ago that people had to wait for their radios to warm up before they could listen to music, but we don't mention that in the MP3 article. This book sounds like a pretty awful source, but I've never heard of it. --Nigelj (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether you think it's "pretty awful" or not, the book is accepted in the scientific community as an authoritative source, as this review shows. The 1970s cooling scare was promoted by many of the same people who later became leading AGW affirmers, including Stephen Schneider and John Holdren, now Obama's chief scientific advisor. Kauffner (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that vacuum tubes take a while to warm up was experienced by people who now listen to MP3s. Vacuum tube radios were promoted by shops that now sell iPhones. What is the point you're trying to make, because I don't see the relevance? --Nigelj (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Insensitive clods, the wireless part of my radiogram still takes time to warm up, the penalty of sound quality :-/

Kauffner, you're rather out of date. The late Stephen Schneider miscalculated the balance of warming and cooling effects in 1971, recalculated and published his correction in 1974. By the sound of it your encyclopedia is similarly behind the times. By the way, I don't listen to MP3s. . . dave souza, talk 10:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Schneider's 1971 study was designed to show that the SST would generate particulates that would destroy the climate. After the 1973 oil embargo, the focus of environmental movement shifted to hydrocarbons. So his "science" was always about politics, or did no one know about the greenhouse effect in 1971? The movement has always been predicting apocalypse and can switch glibly between overpopulation, resource depletion, ozone hole, warming, and cooling. The scientific encyclopedias have far better quality control than those for the general publication. They are the logical place to look for the scientific consensus. "Out of date"...if you don't like something, it's either too old or too new, I've figured that one out. Kauffner (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional Source?

I recently had a discussion with a gent who thought volcanoes produce way more CO2 than humans could ever spew into the atmosphere. I told him he was dead wrong and HE produced the following source. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-volcanoes-affect-w The salient quote is "There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity." TimL (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Um... good for you? Are you proposing that this source be added to the article somehow, and if so, could you maybe post your proposed revision for consideration? This isn't a general discussion forum. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I was posting it for those who actively edit the article, which does not include myself. I will out it on my TODO list to see how it might be integrated into the article. Also I do not see how posting a source is 'general discussion'. TimL (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we have this in the FAQ at the top of the page, linked to a New Scientist article which is a quite good overview over the many ways we can confirm where the CO2 comes from. We do write that humans emit 100 times more than volcanic activity, but that may be because our source (which I remember vaguely to be the USGS, although the link seems to have vanished) included all volcanism-related emissions, in particular deep sea vents. Or someone at SciAm got their decimal point mixed up ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I know this is probably an article that has every source imaginable (I mean that it is very visible, highly contentious (to some), (I'm not being sarcastic)). Sorry for not looking at that. TimL (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. One thing we (as in all of us ;-) should be carful about is to let this be an encyclopaedic article on global warming, not a blow-by-blow discussion of discredited arguments. We do discuss the relative contributions of different sources in Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere#Sources_of_carbon_dioxide, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Figure caption glitch

In the first panel of the very first figure on the page, there's a right-bracket "]" between the caption and the figure, just hanging there and looking weird. I looked at the page code but couldn't find the source of the error, and would rather not screw things up with test edits. Mokele (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I see it. I cannot figure out what causes it. The Template:Multiple image code looks complex enough to hide all kinds of nasties, but seems to work fine elsewhere... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, unlinking "mean" in the figure caption makes the extra "]" go away.[7] No idea what that means though. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed the external link to a wikilink to GISTEMP which also seems to fix things and also keeps the attribution of the graph to a reasonable destination. The problem has something to do with the fact that the image is surrounded by double brackets in the mutiple image template, but more than that I couldn't figure out. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Rain

I've moved this section "Rain" here from the "Attributed and expected effects" section because I think the sourcing is a bit hit-and-miss by our normal standards on this article:

A very strong effect is that with evaporation increasing by 6.5% for each degree Celsius, global precipitation is expected to increase. [8][9][10]

Softpedia? Don't think so. The other two links are to abstracts, one from a 2008 AGU paper and the other from a 2008 letter to Nature. Our other attribution sections are referenced to the heavily reviewed IPCC AR4, so this looks a bit too much like cherry picking for my taste. --TS 15:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I was tempted to delete that bit, partly because it was such a puny little bit that certainly did not warrant a whole subsection, and partly because the citations were wholly inadequate. Not that I have any objection to papers from the AGU or Nature, but if someone can't bothered to provide a few basic bibliographic details (like who wrote the paper, etc.) there is a strong presumption on ineptitude. If someone wants to include the effect of global warming on rainfall they really should start from the IPCC AR4. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A full decade of global cooling - any mention here?

Around 4 years ago I mentioned the lack of cooling and I was told it had to be 10 years of cooling to get into the article. Well now we have a full decade of cooling and/or no warming and with January 2011 just about falling off the scale, it doesn't look likely we'll get any warming soon. We are now well below the IPCC prediction of 1.4-5.8C warming per decade, there's not a global warmist model that predicted this period of cooling. When will this article be brought up to date? Isonomia (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)