Talk:Global warming/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 20


Advocacy links

What are general feelings on links to advocacy organizations as references? My view is that links to groups that 'spin' the science to promote a particular viewpoint -- whether the Sierra Club on the one hand or the on the other -- belong in a separate article on policy. At the very least, links to such organizations shouldn't be under the general heading 'Scientific', which to me implies some attempt at objectivity. Raymond Arritt 01:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropogenic global warming

Seeing as how it used to redirect here-- 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Carbon absorption

Could somebody more familiar with global carbon absorbtion please add that oceans actually absorb over 50% of the worlds carbon, a common misconception is that plants and trees absorb most of the world's carbon. This is important as the more carbon the oceans absorb, the more acidic they become (carbonic acid). Once ocean acidity reaches a certain level it will start to kill the ocean wildlife, starting with plankton, and as plankton is at the bottom of the food chain, this will decimate the entire chain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:57, 2 August 2006

  1. That would belong in a carbon dioxide level article rather than this one.
  2. I'd like to see a source, as carbonic acid is actually a very mild acid.
Samsara (talkcontribs) 14:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, mild acid. Is not so much the "mild acid" part but the pH. The point is that no matter the acid, if the pH goes down too much so of the excessive H will begin reacting with vital minerals in sea water. As the presence of such minerals decline, the calcium that makes up the skeletons of some of this animals becomes a very attractive reacting partner for the excessive H ions.

See: Ocean acidification. Dragons flight 14:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I got this information from a documentary I watched a couple of months ago, however I have about 20 or so documentaries about global warming and I can't remember which one it is right now and seeing this is just one small point it will take a while to find, will post the source when I find it. Thanks for the link to ocean acidification, do you think a note should be added in the predicted effects of global warming section with a link to the ocean acidification page? Also, addressing the above point about carbonic acid being a mild acid, I remember the documentary saying this wouldn't happen any time soon and after checking the ocean acidifcation page I found this "Between 1751 and 2004 surface ocean pH is estimated to have dropped from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 (Jacobson, 2005)." Weak acid or not it will still cause a pH drop eventually and if trends continue there definetly will come a point where the level of acidity will kill plankton.
As a rule, popular science documentations can give a good overview, but are not very good sources. They often not reliabiliy and they are rather bad at adequately covering multiple viewpoints. Anyways, we do cover this topic already. I've just added a link to ocean acidification.--Stephan Schulz 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Is acidification of the oceans a potential compounding effect? i.e. if plankton start to die due to acidification, will that release methane or cause the oceans to absorb less CO2 thereafter?

Al gore editing?

Anyone think Al Gore had edited some of this page? I am sure he has......he loves the subject.

Well, it does conform to his POV. Perhaps we need to distinguish between the undisputed facts, and matters of scientific dispute.
What is the determining factor for deciding whether a given proposition is a "fact", a "theory" or a matter of "scientific consensus"? And should Wikipedia articles consider as 'undisputed fact' ideas which are held to be 'consensus' even if they are disputed? --Uncle Ed 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So, since evolution is disputed in the US we should indeed give some room to creationist in wiki? It would lower our standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Its all wikiality. :P Whichever side shouts loudest wins. Kyaa the Catlord 13:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank God for Al. It's been so hot this week, and only he understands why. I love you Al! Smooches!!

Good idea Ed. Lets insist that "flat earthers" be allowed to dispute that the earth is round, and add POV warnings to all the astronomy articles on that basis... while were about it, lets re-write the NPOV policy to remove the undue weight clause... William M. Connolley 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WMC, perhaps you shouldn't be so cavalier when casting aspersions on Flat Earthers. Someday Global Warmers may be just as ridiculed even though they currently enjoy the same "scientific consensus" Flat Earthers once had. Everyone wants to be part of a disaster; maybe that's why every generation thinks the world will end during its lifetime. -- LoudMouth 19:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
When ever in history did the Flat Earth theory have a "scientific consensus"? bikeable (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, just for a good long while, until it was debunked. Now people laugh at the silly notion of such a thing. I'll grant you that it wasn't as pervasive as this theory, but yeah, there've been lots of things considered "generally accepted" that didn't turn out to be so.
I notice the lack of any sources. Are you aware of the fact that more than 2000 years ago Eratosthenes not only knew that the Earth was roughly sperical, but also computed its circumfence within a margin of error of roughly 1 percent? A flat Earth has not been accepted by scientific (or any informed) consensus ever since. --Stephan Schulz 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. It was accepted, then it was disproven, and now scientists and laypersons laugh at it. What goes around comes around. But GW may have a bit longer life cycle; there's a lot of political hay (and money) to be made. (Not that there aren't a LOT of people also deeply invested in seeing GW disproven - don't start calling me a Big Oil empty suit.) My only reason for remaining skeptical of Global Warming is that I believe in calling Bulls*it when I see it.
We just don't automatically assume your vision in these matters is 20-20, or even 2-50. Skyemoor 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt it's getting incrementally warmer. I just doubt that it won't cool again,
And the damage wrought in the thousands of years in between? We choose not to ignore unpleasant consequences of inaction.Skyemoor 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
and I really doubt that somehow evil Americans are responsible for it (AND can reverse it if we just throw enough money at it).
If you doubt AGW, then you need to provide evidence to sway the opinions of the scientific community. Until then, your name is telling. Skyemoor 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
WMC, Bikeable, and Stephan... Wow - I'm getting the Global Warming All Star Team treatment. Yeah! -- LoudMouth 20:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There has never been scientific concensus that the earth was round. Thats like saying that there was scientific concensus that hell and heaven exist... There was general belief in the flatness of the earth but it has nothing to do with science. It was general. Also, be careful when you talk about the "scientific" because science back in the day was hardly distinguishable from philosophy, mathematics, and even "religion" (yep, bad spirits are the cause of disease.) It is only in more recent times when specialization has led clear boundaries across fields. Talk about politics. Any one know what happened to the first guy that proved that the square root of two could not be rational...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Ermmm....2000 years ago, there was not scientific community or scientific consensus. The fact that the Earth is roughly spherical has been known since before the scientific method has been developed. So there never was a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat, and hence it never was overturned. --Stephan Schulz 07:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of people heavily invested in making sure global warming is real. (Well, as long as it's caused by Americans.) So, believe what you will. Maybe someday we'll all figure out who was right and who was wrong. But I imagine we'll all be long dead before then. From old age, of course. -- LoudMouth 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Who is "heavily invested in making sure global warming is real"? And who claims it is caused (only) by Americans? Assuming the claim that doing something about CO2 emissions is bad for the economy (I have seen no hard evidence for this, but that is a different question), who has an interest in an economic depression? --Stephan Schulz 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The DNC, for one. -- LoudMouth 12:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I rest may case...--Stephan Schulz 12:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
See, he agrees that I'm right. Glad that's cleared up. -- LoudMouth 13:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You know this is a funny topic to bring up, because there's an amatuer-looking YouTube video making fun of Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth, but the Wall Street Journal was able to track the origin of the video back to ExxonMobil. If ExxonMobil is making YouTube videos to undermine Al Gore, you think they're not editing Wikipedia too? //// Pacific PanDeist * 19:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It's funny, because that's an unsourced rumor, much like global warming, guess that's why the scare mongers bring it here--—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That's how it works around here. It's not important that the facts support the argument. The severity of the accusation is all that counts. -- LoudMouth 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
So you can just rationalize away the DCI/Exxon relationship and pretend it doesn't exist? At least you use a consistent approach to matters. Skyemoor 12:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so the environmentalist "INDUSTRY" or the OIL "community leaders!"  ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

If you don't think there's serious (political) power and money to be had by exploiting the global warming gloom-and-doom campaign, you're just not paying attention. (As an aside, I also wouldn't be surprised to see Big Oil try to figure out a way to cash in on it, were it to ever be a major issue for the general public. Think Phillip Morris running anti-smoking ads). LoudMouth 18:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this discussion might just go to show us that perhaps what scientists say is influenced many times not by (just) why they think, but what is safe and/or beneficial to say? And if we want to talk about measurements, when were the pyramids built? Does anyone know that? And how did they build them to such precise dimensions, in a place that doesn't change, on exact compass lines? Some things we'll never know, yes. And indeed! That has nothing to do with Global Warming. Nor with Al Gore.

Gruß Gott!! --- πΔΩΦ 04:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephan - (1)Eratosthenes did not prove that the earth was round, he merely used mathematics to estimate its shape and circumference; in other words, he created a model. Models are not proof. The roundness of the earth wasn't proven (by hard, empirical evidence) until September 6, 1522 when the surviving members of Ferdinand Magellan's expedition finally completed a circumnavigation of the globe. Similarly, GW models must be considered theoretical until future events prove or disprove them. (2) Wide-spread belief that the world was flat persisted well beyond Eratosthenes' time. On his first voyage, Christopher Columbus's crew nearly mutinied over fears that they would sail off the edge of the earth, nearly 1500 years after Eratosthenes. And a question for anyone with an answer - How did Al Gore wind up as the point-man for the crusade against GW? The guy has claimed that he invented the internet and that the movie "Love Story" was about him & Tipper (not to mention the fact that he married Tipper in the first place). Not exactly the paragon of credibility a movement usually looks for in a poster-boy. 16:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Magellan's voyage wasn't "proof", either -- it could be explained by a toroidal Earth, among others. Eratosthenes refined a model that we still use today. I confess that as an epidemiologist I find "proof" rather a slippery concept. As for the Gore/internet story, puh-lease -- that old chestnut is simply BS; see [1]. bikeable (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case, Yuri Gagarin proved that roundness of the earth when he became the first to orbit it. And drawing distinctions between "inventing the internet" and "creating the internet" is just playing games with semantics - either way he tried to claim more credit than he deserved. (For the record, I voted for Gore when he ran against Bush, so don't bother trying to chalk this up to me being some kind of right-wing fanatic.) 17:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, Gagarin never proved it either. That was all Russian propaganda! It's a good thing, then, that science does not deal with "proof", only with models, theories, and evidence. Note that I never claimed Erathosthenes proved the Earth was round, but that he knew. Nobody will ever prove "global warming models", either, although we might disprove some of them (and then probably refine them into better models). Nobody has "proved" gravity either, and still I brace myself for a fall when I stumble...
And Columbus crew was, of course, not afraid about falling off the edge of the Earth, but of sailing onto an ocean of unknown size, following the prevailing winds, without adequate supplies. Contrary to a common misconception, Columbus also was not laughed out of every expert meeting for suggesting the Earth was round, but for suggesting that it's circumfence was only 25000 km and that Japan was about 3500 km off the European coasts. --Stephan Schulz 18:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose John Glenn, Project Apollo and the Space Shuttle program are all just propaganda too? And the Hubble Space Telescope, International Space Station and the multitude of communications satellites allegedly orbiting the earth and making things like wikipedia possible don't really exist? By that reasoning how do we know that all the "evidence" supporting GW isn't just propaganda? The point here is that dragging out the old, tired flat-earth argument for excluding opposition viewpoints is just plain weaselly. The two subjects have nothing in common, since the roundness of the earth can be immediately proven by taking pictures of it from orbit. The effects of human activity on global climate over the next 10/50/100+ years, on the other hand, can only be proven by waiting 10/50/100+ years to see if actuality follows the models. 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Stephan didn't say the Earth wasn't round, just that you can't prove it -- as you can't prove any scientific theory. In fact, the programs you cite provide excellent evidence to support the theory that the Earth is (more or less) round. Personally, I believe it. I don't know where this little discussion we are having comes from or where it's going, but I suspect it is from that old misapprehension about the word "theory". Just because global warming is a "theory" does not mean we do not understand it relatively well. If you have specific criticisms related to the article, please make suggestions. bikeable (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

pro-skeptics bias

From reading the article, and especially from reading the discussion page, I have to come to the conclusion that this page needs an unbiased expert to review it. The page appears to have a subtle bias towards those who claim global warming is either A. not caused by humans, B. a good thing, or C. yet to be proven. Anyone with a high school level of experience in the Bio lab can show that bruning fuels increases carbon dioxide levels, so why are even the basics such as this still the subject of debate in the discussion page? It's time the free time wiki-warriors got out of this fight and let some pro's revise it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Wow. I am not sure which article you were reading, but, if anything, this article is, and this is being charitable, WILDLY biased in favor of those on the left who believe that global warming is a fact. The statements, arguments, citations, sources, etc. are all VERY selective and TOTALLY biased in favor of one viewpoint -- the alleged anthropegenic nature of global warming. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth should the scientific opinion be a matter of "left" or "right"? Policy reactions to it, sure, but why the facts?--Stephan Schulz 20:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
An unbiased expert is hard to find these days, and you certainly won't find one lurking in this discussion. But you sure read this thing different than I do; I see your ABC as the complete opposite as far as the main article goes. 07:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's just that most of the unbiased experts, looking at the evidence, arrive at roughly the same conclusion. That is not bias, it is science. To the original remark: You should not judge the article by the least informed comments on the talk page. Fortunately, most of the article itself has been written by some of the most informed participants. --Stephan Schulz 07:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Your definition of "Informed" seems to mean arriving at the same conclusions as those who wield the power in this article. Others, who after reading the same papers come to a different conclusion, are treated like witches in 1690's Salem; their additions reverted and their talk bullied into resignation. 10:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This kind of stuff will do you no good, its just whinging. If you can find a specific example that you want to discuss we might get somewhere. Remember to check that it hasn't been done to death already though William M. Connolley 10:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree it will do no good, which is why I didn't start the topic. I just answered it truthfully (which is why it will do no good.) Specific examples??? Oh my goodness that's a deer-in-the-headlights response to a problem that's been ongoing since this article's inception. It's well written and deserves its accolades based on that fact but as far as its usefulness to educators and their students (at least in K-12) it's a little too one sided to be used in any meaningful way. 20:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I should think that finding an unbiased expert is very near to an impossibility. In the process of becoming an "expert" it is human nature to form certain opinions on a given subject, making it very difficult to remain unbiased. Understand that in the strict sense, an unbiased expert should be possible but I believe it to be very, very unlikely. Patris Magnus 18:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I must ask what course you teach, if any. I would never teach this controversy in a science course. Otherwise, I would have to teach that HIV does not cause AIDS, that the earth is not necessarily round, and the evolution may not explain species variety (rather, some designer...) There are opposing "scientists" to the scientific concensus in each example I just mentioned, but that does not mean that you have to teach their views becuase they are all economically motivated. (its funny that the ID movement originator is also one of the first to claim that HIV does not cause AIDS. I think he wants label the disease as a punishment for "Bad behavior."

What do you want? A balance between a well-supported sicentific theory acknowledged by all professional scientific organizations that ever spoke out on it, that has unanimous support in the literature and overwhelming support in the scientific community on the one hand, and a public relations stunt pushed by a few weirdos on the other? --Stephan Schulz 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Au contrare...there is FAR FAR from unanimous agreement. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what to admire more, your French or your reading comprehension... --Stephan Schulz 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, his French ain't much - it's "contraire" DMorpheus 21:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Please dial it back and comment on content, not contributors. Dragons flight 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
And that single sentence speaks volumes on why there is a problem with this article and why many have thrown up their hands in surrender when trying to add things of value. Remember, this is not a research paper and this is not a science journal or even a scientific encyclopedia; this is a free general encyclopedia for the masses. The heavy-handedness of the few in true power smacks of bias. Even in editing out postings in this talk section I see things written that are truly inappropriate from both sides of the aisle but far and away the ones that get expurgated or reprimanded are the ones written against global warming. When I see the bias and rudness in the handling of this simple talk page how is an educator to believe that the same thing isn't being done in the main body? Believe it or not there is a Global Warming controversy out in the everyday world; away from climate scientist polytechnic. When reading something one is on the tip of understanding in the first place and "knowing" there is a controversy one wants to know why others believe in the exact opposite. True, some of the science may be fringe or bit dicey or for every good point brought up on "no" global warming there are two saying why that won't work, but without the balance this reads as a political mailing, and I get enough of those every November. 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This article focuses primarily on the scientific case surrounding global warming, however we do have global warming controversy which is intended to cover the social/political/scientific controversy surrounding the subject. How well this, or any other article, does at covering its subject matter is always going to be in the eye of the beholder. Every reader (and editor) comes to this article with their own preconceptions that necessarily influence how it is percieved and written. The best we can do is try to write fairly and use discussion to rectify disparate points of view. Often we do okay, sometimes we fail, but as this is a wiki there are always opportunities to make it better in the future. Dragons flight 05:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The members of the Left have taken every opportunity to denigrate, minimize, disparage, impugn, attack, and relegate to the "back seat," the opinions of erudite, notable, and well-qualified academics, members of the scientific community, and other members of the cognoscenti who disagree with the official Socialist line on global warming. I am just surprised that they haven't yet used the article to break into an attack on conservatives.--The Outhouse Mouse 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This is true but the article is entitled "Global Warming" not "The Scientific Case Surrounding Global Warming." Most people will type in just "Global Warming" so like it or not this "IS" the frontpiece of the encyclopedia. I expect more from a desk encyclopedia and I certainly expect better here. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this article is here and that the group is diligent in erasing graffiti; I'm glad it gets people talking about the subject and in seeing scientists actually taking a working part in building such a site. The students like that. At the same time we show the great disappontments we have with the article and the fact that the power hierarchy here, just as in world politics, corrupts. 08:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"I expect more from a desk encyclopedia"...well, in the great Wikipedia vs. Britannica shootout, global warming was excluded because the EB did not have adequate coverage of the topic. We do mention the (minimal) dissent in the introduction (and I've just put in a link to the global warming controversy article that was missing). If you're students are "disappointed with the article", they are welcome to improve it. They should be aware, of course, that a large amount of work by rather knowledgable people has gone into the article and "things I heard on CBS last night" are unlikely to be accepted as well-sourced and authorative. But since we actually have no corrupt power hierarchy, everybody who contributes in a constructive manner is welcome.--Stephan Schulz 09:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(carriage return) The article accurately reflects the current state of the science. Why mislead K-12 students by giving excessive weight to hypotheses that are not widely accepted by scientists in relevant fields? There's already too much of that going on in the U.S. with respect to evolution and some other topics. Raymond Arritt 02:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Freeman Dyson is skeptical of global warming. 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Your point? --Stephan Schulz 07:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, this article is accurate in its overall description, although unfortunately I don't have time to verify all the details. LotR 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

AS for "anyone with a high school experience" — it isn't so clear cut as you probably know, rarely is there a linear correlation with anything. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I come off at times as argumentive (I am) and annoying (I am) and so on and so forth. This article is very good, very well written, very filled with citations supporting the claims. From my viewpoint (Which is: There's a lot of evidence of something but no proof of anything) is that the article is not biased. Nope.

What it is, however, is that it's very focused on some aspects of the debate and not upon others. In that respect, it becomes biased, in a way, by the focus of others who are writing it. That's to be expected. If the subject was one of "absolute" proof or fact, that's a different thing then an article on what causes time, what's the best economic or political system, how much cheese there is in Norway....

To my way of thinking, the reason there's so much contention on this entire subject is that there is no proof as one would normally expect it; what we'd expect from burning methane into a beaker filled with dynamite, vs how burning methane reacts in the atmosphere to cloud cover when the ocean is warmer during the day and the volcanos are errupting under intense blizzards in Spain while holding a giraffe, blah blah blah) Of couse, we all know no professional scientific organization would never be biased or go along with things other than science, things like politics or funding or a degree program or peer pressure or media coverage.

But as to here, "Water turns into steam at 212 F," turns into a discussion of if it's better to cite it as C rather than F, or adding in things like oh, what atmosphere is it, is it not pure or it is pure, is this calories, are we talking about joules, what's the ambiant temperature, what humdity level is it, what's the gravity.... So, let's turn a discussion on physics into one of chemistry into one of experiments in a lab versus in the real world, mix them all together, toss in 8 other subjects, and then not talk about the same thing. Ya think?

"1 calorie is needed per degree Kelvin of temperature change for 1 gram of liquid water." "Blue is better than indigo. Because 460 is a bigger positive number than 430 is."

Sln3412 05:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 299792458, dude.

After reading the section on computer models, I believe the "experts" need to consult a mathematician. Not the "experts" here, I mean the "experts" who made up these models. The data input into these models seems tenuous at best - the ability to predict next month's weather is daunting, these guys are positive about 100 years into the future - fat chance. Publish there data and methods - I understand some data is being held close to the chest ( this is the opposite of peer review I believe - tree ring data is what I am most familiar with ) )PS My father - in the early 1900s - remembers when kids flew kites in March. From his childhood to mine, we were still building snow forts in March. Today most Marchs are mud season. Which model predicts this? Do these models work backward in time - why was Greenland green in the 1400s? Global warming - as a trend for us to hyperventilate about - seems more and more like a hoax - in 1974 Time magazine was pushing global cooling ( same "experts" I suspect.) PSPS No mathematical model can possible be good enough - no computer is that fast. If I saw a model that was able to return a result in less than years of running I would check the programmers code. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you do read and digest not just one section, but our whole set of articles. The science is fairly solid. The fact that you confuse weather and climate, that you rely on anecdotal evidence, and that you blindly repeat a incorrect version of the global cooling story (even assuming that the pool of climate experts has not changed in 32 years...) strongly suggests that your understanding of the topic is not.--Stephan Schulz 15:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not completely neutral

This page doesn't have a truly neutral point of view. It should use several different pieces of data from independent sources, not just from the same, bogus "hockey stick". --ChevyFanatic 16:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean it might be nice to have a picture showing different reconstructions, not just the hockey stick... oh... wait... William M. Connolley 16:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Like THIS ONE? Please... --The Outhouse Mouse 19:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No, like the one in the article actually based on observations. As for the one you reference... you've been lied to, see MWP and LIA in IPCC reports for the details William M. Connolley 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. So you're saying that the Wall Street Journal and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are lying to me? --The Outhouse Mouse 15:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The "hockey stick" is based on observations. I do not know of any datasets that suggest global (surface) cooling, or time series without positive interannual trends over the past 30 years. I would be interested to see such a dataset if it exists. LotR 18:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The only question we need to discuss is:

  1. Do we want this page to reflect a multiplicity of views? Or,
  2. Do we want this page to lean toward the view that Mann's hockey stick is right and that the recent global warming is mostly human-caused?

Contributors in good faith can disagree on how to implement NPOV, but I'd like to see some agreement from long-timers on the fact that the article should be neutral on all controversial matters. --Uncle Ed 20:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What specifically do you propose? --TeaDrinker 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ed appears to be proposing that we confuse attribution of climate change with the HS [2]. Since this is wrong, his entire premise collapses William M. Connolley 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You are imputing Ed's intentions where none exist. Perhaps if you were to ask him for clarification instead of making conclusions for him then we might have meaningful discourse on the subject. --The Outhouse Mouse 15:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The hockey stick says nothing about cause and is as consistent with natural causes as with anthropogenic causes. The anthropogenic attribution is largely model based, and they are given credibility far beyond the current state of their science.-- 11:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's true that the (mean surface temperature) "hockey stick" alone does not provide indication of cause. However, do keep in mind that there are "other hockey sticks." The observed concurrent positive trends in CO2 (1.5 ppm / year) (and CH4) are, in all likelihood, attributable to anthropogenic causes. In any event, this section asks for independent, "non-hockey-stick" datasets for NPOV, but the point is that practically all datasets (that I'm aware of, anyway) show the "hockey sticks." LotR 14:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
True. But the point oyu are missing is that the palaeo record - last 1000 y - has little to do with attribution of recent change, as the link I provided attempts to tell you. The idea that the HS, or others like it, underpins GW is a myth spread by the septics William M. Connolley 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The hockey stick did contribute to global warming alarm, since the rate of warming appeared to increase, but the rate may be an artifact of the better representation of high frequencies in recent data. 20th century solar activity is unusually high, and the interrupting episode of aerosol cooling contributes to the high frequency appearance of what may well be a longer term response to that solar activity. Models are not yet accurate enough to tease out attribution of the recent warming.-- 09:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Time-scales are problematic. Comparing the last 2 or 20 or 200 years with the last 200 thousand or 200 million is a very long and wide mine field. Sln3412 04:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, higher frequencies are damped due to the lower resolution of older paleo data, a period of warming as short as the recent one, may well be missed in the paleo data.-- 09:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The entire HS debate is just like so many others; it becomes a point of discussion in and of itself. That takes attention away from the subject and into the abyss of discussion. Sln3412 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion is where we have the space and liberty to clarify what we mean. That seems more like a pinnicle than an abyss. Do you have any remaining questions?-- 09:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow...I see 'ol Willy and a couple others are still trying to manage this little page, lol. I see that everyone who has tried to make any changes that would (heaven forbid) not strengthen the "ANTHRO" side of GW is STILL being shut out, reverted etc. All I can say is...this page doesn't mean anything really...and is why I stopped trying to fight you & "them"...It doesn't sway anyone's or the general public's opinion, change government policy or any of that. It's just a personal hobby for some extremists. Hope your still enjoying it and how's the weather in antartica :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .


cut subsection

Global Warming Effects on the Future

The potential effects of CO2 on climate become more significant as we look into the future. Estimated present day reserves of fossil fuels (mainly coal) should last for another few hundred years and will add far more CO2 to the atmosphere than has accumulated so far. Unless human technology or extreme conservation efforts reduces this, atmospher CO2 levels will increase within two centuries to levels at least two and possibly four or five times higher than those that existed before humans. Levels this high are comparable to those last seen tens of millions of years ago in warmer greenhouse worlds. This warming will cause environmental changes. As regional patterns of temperature and precipitation change, impacts on human populations will vary by season. Atmospher CO2 levels will remain high for 1000 of years or more, until the ocean absorbs the excess CO2.

I cut the preceding subsection, as it lacks sources and reads more like an argument for reducing CO2 emissions. Does it even belong here, or should it go to Kyoto Protocol or Emissions trading?

Anyway, we need more info about the relationship of air temperature and CO2 levels in the historical temperature record. Last month, I saw a graph illustrating the point the CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases. At least temp went up first, then CO2 went up; same for down. --Uncle Ed 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Try What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? crandles 17:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for once I agree with Ed. Sorry about that :-). The article *should* have something in it about future CO2 levels, but I think it does already, higher up William M. Connolley 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
crandles - At the end of the article you cited, it reads "CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms." However, it has been stated more than once on this page that the oceans are currently absorbing large amounts of CO2. Wouldn't this be indicative of an approaching ice age, rather than GW? 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The oceans currently absorb CO2 because of a simple chemical imbalance. We add a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, and part of this is absorbed into the ocean. Note that atmosperic CO2 levels still increase. This has nothing to do with an ice age. --Stephan Schulz 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The same contributor restored the above section and followed it with this:

The future within the next 500 years is that when crude oil runs out. After that there will be alternative fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, and many more types that come from the earths crust and return to the earth crust for a completely renewable cycle. When this comes then global warming will still be here but will start to decline slowly.

I agree that with the above statements that to the extent this information is correct and useful, it needs to be better referenced and presented. Dragons flight 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone made a change that just made a particular sentence redundant. The changer changed "predict" to estimate, which I thought was fine, but then said that the models estimates assume that we are not going to curb emissions. The next sentence says that estimates are difficult because we do not know future emissions and climate variability. Thus, I too away the part that says "assumes that we will not curb emissions" since this is stated better in the next sentence... Sorry if I am redundant, I am new at this... Brusegadi 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I made that change because the IPCC scenarios are explciity based on 'what if' storylines that assume that nothing will be done about emissions because of climate change. Obviously, even with that caveat the emissions are difficult to predict so I did not see it as contradictory with the following sentence. I still think it is useful to state this assumption up front though. 12:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I feel it is somehow redundant. Perhaps with better phrasing the assumption of the panel can be explecitly stated. I'll see if I come up with something. Brusegadi 21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Common misconceptions

Half the Norwegian Wikipedia article on global warming is a list of misconceptions about global warming, with discussion/refutations. The choice of misconceptions seems biased, but mentioning in the article that there are numerous common misconceptions, and listing and discussing them, seems like a good idea. As it is now, several issues that preoccupy many people are represented only on this discussion page instead of in an article. I suggest someone makes a separate article called "Common misconceptions about global warming" that lists and discusses claims that are unscientific, very improbable or poorly founded in science. It is rather obvious that misconceptions are abundant amongst laymen - and I guess laymen are the main target group for the Global warming article. Notice that pro-science advocates seem to forget that a huge number of people seem to hold an unrealistic and often scientifically unfounded sense of impending apocalypse, mainly due to sensationalist tabloid newspapers. This should be addressed, as should a lot of the refuted claims on this discussion page. On the other hand, a list of misconceptions - this is a too strong concept, perhaps? - may end up too black-and-white, showing a disregard for the subtleties that the article in its present form has. I'd welcome viewpoints on this. Narssarssuaq 12:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This could be useful but probably best as a separate article. The main entry is already bordering on too long. As a start maybe you could translate the Norwegian version. Raymond Arritt 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, 'misconceptions' refer to what some British have been calling "climate porn." This 'misconceptions' were not brought about by scientists but by media and politicians. Thus, it might make sense to deal with them in the page where we deal with the media and politics of global warming and not in the page where we deal with the science of global warming. Making a separate page may be good, but I feel that it would also be ok to treat them in a more politically leaning article. I feel that as long as we dont put it here, in the science part, it should be fine. Brusegadi 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds interesting, all of it. I don't know myself if any of this is anywhere near apolitical on its basic level. It's very difficult to take any large organization or group or subject and see exactly what is social, what is political, what is economic, what is professional, and what is something else (or a mix). So perhaps trying to make this subject anything else than what it is, is impossible. It looks fairly difficult already just in the current format. Sln3412 03:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


"The Wegman Report on Statistical Errors of Global Warming Studies"

Should this be under "other" and not under scientific? Its energy commerce and it seems to be purely statistical... Just wondering. Brusegadi 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"purely statistical" - sounds scientific to me. --Spiffy sperry 20:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok Brusegadi 20:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not 'purely statistical' - "In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility." This is clearly a political document that belongs in 'other'.Skyemoor 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
While I agree it's not "purely statistical" (I wasn't condoning the use of that phrase by repeating it), it is primarily a statistical (i.e., scientific) report with some discussion on the political nature of the subject. It most certainly does not belong in 'other'. Even Mann doesn't dispute the report's findings on his statistical methods, but complains that it's not peer-reviewed, as if that somehow discredits it. (FWIW, a month ago I was fine with this reference instead being listed elsewhere. But if it's here it should be correctly categorized.) --Spiffy sperry 21:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It's clearly and unequivocally a political document. At times, they expound on some abstract nuances of the sciences, but then jump lightyears to conclusions that are not at all supported in the report, such as;
"MBH98/99 has been politicized by the IPCC and other public forums and has generated an unfortunate level of consensus in the public and political sectors and has been accepted to a large extent as truth. Within the scholarly community and in certain conservative sectors of the popular press, there is at least some level of skepticism."
"Coupled models that have been claimed to show an atmospheric response to oceanic flux shifts are so simplified and lack adequate resolution that they cannot be skillfully integrated over the time periods required to describe true climatic time scales. Again, these models are only indicators of processes that can be operating but with no evidence that they dominate."
"Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers."
"While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change… What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change."
"Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the MM05 papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the MBH98/99 position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99."
"This study finds no evidence for any earlier periods in the past two millennia with warmer conditions than the post-1990 period. However, natural multi-centennial climate variability, especially as a response to solar irradiance, may be larger than previously thought."
"The (McIntyre and McKitrick) calculations indicate that these values for the 15th century section of the temperature reconstruction are not significant, thereby refuting the conclusions made by MBH98." (even though the M&M approach has been debunked thoroughly!)
And these people are statisticians!? Again, this is clearly a political document with a thin veil of 'science' in the form of statistical mumbling. It is not science, it is a sellout. Skyemoor 00:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Dr. Edward J. Wegman is a statistician. 03:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Then it would have been nice for him to have used statistics to prove his point, rather than making political and conspiracy accusations. The few references to statistics in the above quotes are unsupported and leaps of faith. Skyemoor 14:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics is a mathematics tool used by scientists, politicians and others. In this case it seems quite political - the use of statistics does not qualify it as science. Vsmith 01:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics is a mathematical science. Claiming otherwise is silly. Kyaa the Catlord 01:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, sorry for saying "purely statistical." Since stats have so many faces... I feel that the bottom line is that, becuase the source is highly political in nature, it should be placed under other. My experience with stats tell me that if you are not very familiar with the data you are working with, you may just mess something up. Perhaps one of the assumptions that is "obviously" met by the data turns out not to be met. My view may be discredited, since Mann has admitted some of the errors that were criticized. Yet, when reading it, I feel that I am getting only one side of the story. Skyemoor points to many examples of text that would never be in a real science source. So, I, again, suggest to try to keep it out. Brusegadi 02:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

blind from the source of the data is a good thing, it prevents you from making unnecessary assumptions. 00:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree here, there are assumptions that are VITAL to selecting one statistical procedure against another. And knowledge of the data is essential to knowing if such assumptions are met. What should be avoided is a political interest in a certain result. What can be damaging to a statistician is having a preconceived agenda. Knowledge of the data is rarely detrimental. And that is why the report is not scientific, it belongs under 'other' only because we do not have a 'political' section for external links. Bottomline is that the report was writeen by a statistician and not by a climate scientist. Brusegadi 02:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with others here on the science vs. politics issue, I see no point in continuing that battle. However, I am interested in seeing a source for "Mann has admitted some of the errors that were criticized", since I've only seen this comment. --Spiffy sperry 03:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How is an external link decided? If there is a site that is updated many times a day with global warming news is that a good external link to have? It provides something extra on top of what Wikipedia offers. Some of today's news, after it has been verified and quantified, will make it here as substantiated information. So a good external link site would offer news that has not yet been covered here? Yes or no? Webchat 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The link in question has Google ads. It's been my WP:SPAM experience that the more someone objects to a link's removal, the more likely it is that the intention of adding the link is to generate traffic and revenue to that site. Wikipedia's external link policy discourages non-notable, ad-heavy sites. Also see Wikipedia's policy on external links and Webchat's contribution history. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright. As I have done here - I will place any sites (mine or others I think should be linked to) up for discussion. My only remaining question is what is wrong with Google ads? Does every site have to be without advertising before it has merit? Webchat 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ceteris paribus, I tend to prefer sites with no ads, although will link to be-aded sites when there is nothing better. A subject like global warming will likely have hundreds of potentially relevant links, so there is a good reason to be picky about the sites linked to. The look of the site, with the look of the appearently parent site, leads me to think this is a single person's website project, and is a relatively new one at that. I think I would hold off on linking to it until it is better established as a source. By no means is it a bad site, just a bit too limited and new for linking. --TeaDrinker 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the {{spam1}} states, Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You've already admitted that this is your site (and I'm guessing the other sites you linked to are owned or managed by you). If your site becomes notable enough, other (non-affiliated) people will add your site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you've made your point here. But there *is* a dilemma when you yourself are certain you have a good resource that other people will find useful but you aren't supposed to create a link. Whatever. It will stand the test of time. It would be nice to have it linked to in Wikipedia - maybe one day someone will :) I've decided to take ohnoitsjamie up and revise a few articles that need a little work instead - so I won't be bothering you here for a while :) Webchat 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I'm going to do instead. I found an article that didn't exist mashup (video) something else I know something about. I'm going to try and make a good article here, but it'll be the first I ever started from scratch. So if any of you would care to offer any advice it will be more than welcome. I'm sure it'll start off messy but will get into shape quite soon. Thanks! Webchat 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Publicity section

This material would have a good home in the Global warming controversy article but not here. The main article already is long and is in danger of becoming unwieldy. The main article needs to stick to the science. Raymond Arritt 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting a suitable place. Wavelength 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Just to be sure, if I want to edit the Spanish version of this article, is it ok for the references to be in English or do they have to be in Spanish? In general, can an article written in X language have references in Y language? I am trying to avoid getting in trouble :) I have seen that being done but I am not sure if it is right. Thanks a lot guys and sorry for the diversion. Brusegadi 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Most original research is published in English nowadays, so I think you will have a hard time to come up with Spanish references for the current state of the art. In this situation, it's certainly ok to use English references. --Stephan Schulz 23:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics and arguments

I think the Wegman Report should have an article of its own. --Uncle Ed 17:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


ridiculous, a published scientific paper is un-scientific, yet a group blog is scientific? 00:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to interfere here, but a blog doesnt belong on Wikipedia: WP:EL. Yes? HawkerTyphoon 00:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There are exceptions to every rule and RealClimate is notable. Dragons flight 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, I removed it. Throw it back in, but the external links section needs a clean up! HawkerTyphoon 01:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
But the blog is ran by scientists. I mean, at least one of them has been called to testify in congress. On the other hand, if adding a blog to the science part is going to make the article lose credibility then lets just leave it as it is.
The RealClimate blog is the conduit for the paleoclimate community, and is a colloborative 'engine' for continuing climate research direction and information. To leave it out would be missing a big piece of the puzzle. Skyemoor 11:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
But should it be included in the 'other' or 'scientific'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brusegadi (talkcontribs) .
Since it is employed by the scientists in the field collaboratively, and criticisms are an openly welcomed part of the process, this site belongs in the Scientific section. Skyemoor 15:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree Brusegadi 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


The following was posted in the article:

  • The warming is the result of an imbalance between ambient levels of sulfurous or nitrogenous aerosols and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. [1]

If you look at the reference provided it says that smog clearing has 'accelerated' global warming but it says nothing about it being a cause of global warming. Thus, with the source provided, I dont think it makes sense to place this under alternate theories. Brusegadi 04:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

References Broken

I've been starting to cite using < ref > because it says that is in the todo section but the problem is something glitched, when I preview the cites start at 1 but when I actually save it they cites start at double however there are. So if you check the references section it doubles up does anyone have any idea how I can fix this. Reverting doens't seem to help. SirGrant 00:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'm not sure if it is a local problem (like with my account) but I see this but the thing is if I log out everything shows up fine. I tried logging in on my roommates PC and I still have the problems so I know it isn't computer specific. I don't know why it would work when I'm not logged in but not when I am. If anyone could let me know how it shows up for them that would be a big help thanks SirGrant 01:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Side note: Before hitting SAVE PAGE, use SHOW PREVIEW, it will save you much aggravation and many versions.

Please review the discussion on references styles for this article, now preserved in Archive 9 [3]. This has been a problem issue in the past. Vsmith 02:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok so was there a general consensus cause after reading that it seems pretty split if there was and I'm citing it wrong I'll go back and set everything back to the way it was. SirGrant 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about a consensus (guess I need to reread it), but if no consensus is reached, I think policy is that the current style remains. There was an Arbcom case over this last Nov/Dec - got kinda messy. I know that ref systems have evolved and improved since then. But, discuss before unilaterally changing please. My preference is for a Harvard style alphabetized reference section - which I think is now an option for the note style you are using. Maybe with improvements a concensus can be reached now ??? Vsmith 03:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok makes sense, and if again anyone wants me to undo the edits I was doing I will. Hopefully we can possibly get a third voice in here on what to do. SirGrant 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh also I wasn't trying to be unilateral in my editing style it just at the top it says Pending Tasks: * Set up HARVARD inline citation system. * Note first scientists to study Global Warming. so that is what I thought I was doing. SirGrant 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Ignore the above the problem got fixed I think it was just some sort of browser error. Regardless I was wondering what we should do about the citations, I would be happy to go about changing all the links to this format:

Houghton, John T. (2001). "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved 2006-09-28.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

However I do abide my wikipedias rules and if the current ruling was to leave it as was I'll go back and undo my edits. Sorry about not going through the archives there is just so much stuff it's like a book to read of just talk pages. So if anyone has any oppinions on what I should do I would appriciate it. I would also like to note that I do think the < ref > system is better than having the links in brackets like [ ] because I think by doing that firstly it is not asthetically pleasing and doesn't contain information about the source you are citing. However I will say it again I will follow the rules and if people decided that it should stay the way it was I'll revert it. Thanks SirGrant 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was only acting to caution you, before you did a lot of work - as some would disagree. User:William M. Connolley, one of the major contributors to the page is currently on vacation. I am aware of his feelings regarding references and inline links as they are quite similar to mine. I like inline links that take you directly to the referenced page (I typically open the link in a background tab for reference as I continue reading). The note system that you started to implement is quite cumbersome as it requires a complicated three clicks to do what I want. It also produces an essentilly useless numbered list at the bottom of the article. I prefer a reference section arranged alphbetically with Harvard style ref links in the text. Standard for science works. I would like a system using a Harvard style link which links to the ref section for text works and gives a dual choice for online links: a direct link to the website with a secondary link to the reference in an alphbetized reference section. I haven't kept up with the newer Harvard styl ref linking system - need to investigate it more, but am quite opposed to the simple note system you started working on. Cheers, Vsmith 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I read about William M. Connolley and about the arbitration that is why I haven't been citing any more sources till I can maybe get some instruction on what to do because honestly the only person who has even responded to me is you Vsmith and you kinda seem unsure and I don't want to continue until I get some sort of official word Thanks. SirGrant 23:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, here is my opinion: I don't mind too much either way. A good reference system is certainly worth having, and your work seems to be on the way towards it. On the other hand, the status quo works ok, too. Given that William seems to have the strongest opinion, we should probably wait till he's back. --Stephan Schulz 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Stephan that sounds reasonable. I'm gonna leave a message on William's talk page hopefully he will respond fairly soon. If not I'll go back and revert my edits but hopefully he can give us some sort of judgement in a reasonable amount of time SirGrant 23:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm back :-) I'm still of the opinion that two-clicks-to-link is really really annoying... I'm with Vsmith on this William M. Connolley 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

ok, I'll change it back tonight SirGrant 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the same problem again. I just got my edition removed after adding a {{cite web}} reference; it was really annoying. Nevertheless, I must say I didn't read the discussion page before, the same error SirGrant made some months before. However, I really think links like "[1]" don't say very much... adding the quotation inside the article is even better than going to the reference webpage and looking for it. Doesn't a quotation like:

"Summary for policymakers". Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Retrieved October 2006. The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

say a lot more and help maintain the references in order? --_N_e_g_r_u_l_i_o 04:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just tried experimenting with using inline Harvard references just with Amstrup. Let me know if I should go on with this. (It is on the to do list). I personally have come to the conclusion I prefere footnotes but I won't reopen that old argument....--NHSavage 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC). I kust reverted this. Either I am being stupid or the Harvard templates are not yet sophisticated enough. I can't get it to do (Amstrup et al, 2006) and link to the harvard citation. If this doesn't work there is no point in using it in IMHO.--NHSavage 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

On Wegman and Ritson

I was doing my weekly reading of realclimate, and I saw the Ritson links. Mainly:

I feel that if we include the Wegman we should at least be entitled to: 1) Place the links above in the 'Other' external links part of the article, since they bring into question the credibility of the W report in a scientific manner. 2) We could simply remove the W report altogether for the reasons in 1. 3) we could make an article about the wegeman report as someone suggested above. The article would mention the controversy surrounding the report.

If my view is accepted, then I vote for either of the first two options. Also, if most prefer option three, we would have to mention the report in the main article (in order to provide a link) and remove it form the 'other' external links. Thanks and have a lovely day, Brusegadi 03:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote we give it it's own article, so that it can be exposed for what it is. Skyemoor 11:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There is now an article on Wegman, the guy, and most of the stuff about the report is there. Perhaps we should place this there??Brusegadi 22:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

the whole story

I know the point of an article on "global warming" is largely to talk about the recent climate warming and how it might have large affects on human civilization, but isnt the article becoming political and non-sientific by totally omitting just what this warming means in terms of the history of the planet over geological time? Temperature and CO variation over millions of years is an order of magnitute greater then what is measureable since the industrial revolution.

Also the biomass section is not up to date it was just in the mainsteam news recently that there were studies showing biomass increasing with increased CO2 INDEPENDENT of other factors like soil and water.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

This link seems to be about reproductive responses not about biomass balance. Hmmm. an order of magnatude over a period 5000 times longer; do you reckon the current change is at a normal rate of change? crandles 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
A few clarifications: (1) is an advocacy site, not "mainstream news"; (2) the cited article does not say what you claim it does; (3) the cited article does not say what claims it does. The article concludes that "development rate is inversely correlated with life span across tree species (Govindaraju, 1984; Enquist et al., 1999; Loehle, 2000, 1988; in conifers). If the responses obtained in this study result in allocation tradeoffs, and these trees reproduce early and die young, then CO2 enrichment may increase population turnover rates rather than stand biomass." In other words individual trees will grow and die faster, but the net biomass accumulation will not necesasrily change. Raymond Arritt 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


I seem to remember hearing a while back that the theory of global warming was disproven. Several times I think. PowderedToastMan 08:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, in fact it is generally considered to be accurate, according to the best science we have. --TeaDrinker 08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
And therefore you call it "consensus"? Three men make a tiger. --NimNick 08:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The world's scientific academies calls it consensus. Other references with more endorsements as well, including the American Meterological Society, and so forth. Skyemoor 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the connotation of "consensus" which you are using? You are not aware of it. Quote of Scientific consensus: "Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method". Of course, the using of this term is very new and political correct; and it is similar to [Argumentum ad populum]: "(Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it;". Maybe there is a relevant men made effect in global warming. Maybe not. But science can't know it. How can there be a consensus on things you don't know? That makes a religious believe and politics will establish an Eco-dictaturship to overcome state failures, war costs and state debt. --NimNick 11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method." The full quote answers your question, doesn't it? If not, visit the links above. If you want to change the minds of the world's scientific bodies, go right ahead. And come back here once you do, so we can update WP. Skyemoor 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it answers no question. The "consensus" may itself be based on both scientific arguments but this doesn't mean that it is. And then, you tell me that I shall fight against a reglious believe. You act the fool. The world's scientific bodies must not be changed. They must only be fairly adopted but there are powerful interests to control peoples behavior and their economical ressources. --NimNick 12:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Mr. Skyemoor, you'd be surprised to find out, how many sicentists share NimNick's sane point of view but keep silent, because they are afraid to lose their jobs. "Global warming" alarmism is a religion, not science, and this Wikipedia article is outrageously biased against facts, one of the worst I've ever seen. Alas, prejudice always prevails in scientific circles -- until the next superstitious fad replaces it. Arvin Sloane 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, we would be surprised - if they've kept silent, how do you know? Intuition? William M. Connolley 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Connolley, what if I am one of them, and know many more? Do you seriously believe that I would continue to hold my tenure if I would have made a statement against the global warming hysteria, and sign such a statement with my real name? What is happening now over the alleged climate change is feeding frenzy, not science, and this Wikipedia article is a clear reflection of this craze, a typical argument from dishonest intelligent design. A stampede of cattle can be defined as a consensus of cows but the existence of such consensus proves neither that cows are running in the right direction nor that they have any reason to run in the first place. Arvin Sloane 08:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know Mr Connolley, but hopefully he won't mind if I answer for him :-). The asnwer is, of course you would keep your tenure (if you were one of them, which you aren't), just like Lindzen or Spencer. Now... we can try to sort out some of your confusions. A consensus proves nothing of itself other than that a lot of people agree. Which is why the article doesn't say: "There is a consensus, therefore...". Instead, it describes the state of the science and says there is a consensus over it. Notice that you, like many septics, can't quite decide if there is a consensus over GW (but that it proves nothing); or that there isn't even a consensus (in which case your previous para makes no sense) William M. Connolley 09:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
So you want to say that "scientific consensus" is a weasel term, and the doctrine of "scientific consensus" is not vulnerable since nobody can know the real meaning of "scientific consensus". --NimNick 09:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope, scientific consensus makes perfect sense. You just need to remember to get things the right way round: there-is-a-consensus, *therefore* the science says... is wrong. The-science-says-and-people-agree, *therefore* there is a consensus is right. Fairly simple, but many people seem to find it hard to understand William M. Connolley 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, and therfore scientists like Lindzen are writing, there is no consensus, and therefore you must misuse a real name for your user-acount. Troll. --NimNick 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

NimNick writes: "You act the fool", "Global warming alarmism is a religion, not science", "Troll" &tc. By your condescending tone, you have lost any modicum of respect here and will be ignored. Skyemoor 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the same state as it already has had. So what do I have lost? --NimNick 21:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (whoever you are), I admire your chutzpah. What makes you think that "I am not one of them"? Intuition, perhaps? There has been an article in WSJ recently by Sharon Begley (Has String Theory Tied Up Better Ideas In Field of Physics? June 23, 2006; Page B1) that explains how scientists sceptical about prevailing fads are left out of their jobs. Lindzen and some others made their names long before the global warming scare followed the equally meaningless global freezing scare. For young scientists, however, sceptical attitude toward this subject is strictly taboo. As for non-existing "consensus," any article on "global warming" that doesn't mention works by Ross McKitrick, Robert Balling Jr., Randall Cerveny, Oliver Frauenfeld, or Robert E. Davis, to name a few, is no more than ideological propaganda (aka "brainwash"). Arvin Sloane 18:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I am who I say I am. Unlike you, who are a nameless anon. You're not one of us (not them) because your ignorance is too obvious. Just to prove it, you make the obligatory septic reference to global cooling. Incidentally, you have the wrong Mc: McI has the better reputation. I'm not aware of Randall Cerveny, Oliver Frauenfeld, or Robert E. Davis as skeptics, but who knows? One might equally well assert that an article that doesn't mention Mann is odd... before remembering that this is the overview page and looks at temperature record of the past 1000 years William M. Connolley 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, do three misspellings of the apparently intended word "skeptic" as "septic" all in the same talk page constitute a string of personal attacks, or are we to believe that all cases were in fact independent of each other and quite innocently made? Afterall, the difference in meanings between the words 'skeptic' and 'septic' leave a strong suggestion almost too ironic to overlook. -- 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
William M. Connolley does this on purpose, and for the reason you suggest. --Spiffy sperry 22:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Mr. Connolley, if you are who you say you are, why did you say (see above) that you "don't know Mr. Connolley"? Or is it that your academic eminence should be obsequiously addressed as "Dr." only? Or is it that you are just wasting my time? Reasons for my unwillingness to disclose my real name here have been explained to you in painful clarity. Articles by Randall Cerveny, Oliver Frauenfeld, and Robert E. Davis constitute part of Shattered Consensus, a widely known collection of essays disproving the "consensus" argument as abused in "climate change" mock-science. Your not being aware of it doesn't bode well for your reputation (if any). Mann has been proven to have tampered with the evidence and to have geared his methods to the intended effect, he is definitely not the one to be mentioned here. IMO, all references to "consensus" should be removed from this article immediately, and its grade to be lowered from "FA" to "B." Arvin Sloane 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The same Randall Cerveny from Arizona State University, where Robert Ball runs the Office of Climate, a well known climate change skeptic who has accepted funding from Exxon? That's who you hang your hat on? Sorry, out of 120 climate researchers working on the IPCC report, only two disagreed with the summary statements. Provide the 'proof' of Mann's tampering, and I don't mean the disreputed M&M damage control rewrites. We'll let the climate scientists determine the consensus, not Faux News adherents. Skyemoor 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

see here. Count Iblis 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we seem to be enjoying the absurd task of exchanging credentials in wikipedia, allow me to say that I am Emeritus Professor at -University of your choice.- I will not say my name, since they may stop funding my research. Besides, I promised my wife I was going to stop having pointless arguments in Wikipedia... On a more serious note, the funding argument is bogus. I wonder how much Exxon would be willing to pay a scientist, if the latter found strong, REAL, evidence against global warming. So far, the only thing EXXON has been able to fund are mere distractions, aimed at the general public, that would be read with abundant humor by the academic circles if it were not for the fact that what we have at stake is the well being of our planet! Yet, since I enjoy morbid humor, they make me laugh all the same. Brusegadi 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As soon as "Exxon funding" is mentioned in a climate change discussion, everyone following it knows that there is no point to continue: we are dealing with the environmentalist religion here, not environmental science. Very sad that such zealots seem to have taken over "climate change" section and many other sections of Wikipedia. In itself, Wikipedia has been a great idea. However, like most great ideas, it is being actively perverted by fanatics and ax-grinders of all sorts. Nothing is new under the Moon, as Copernicus would say. Arvin Sloane 21:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have noticed that the 'Exxon funding' tends to end many of these pointless discussions. Curious fact! It took me a long time to join the 'religion' of global warming. I really did not want to believe in it, because like most religions, joining it would mean that I would have to make great sacrifices. Catholicism could not convert me, the church of the WMDs could not convert me, but Global Warming! They were the first religion ever to offer belief based on fact, throwing the concept of faith and the 1% doctrine out the window! Horray for the MODERN RELIGIONS!Brusegadi 22:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Before we get distracted onto the tedious funding arguements, perhaps we could return to a subtle point which I fear you all missed... what do you notice about Randall Cerveny, Oliver Frauenfeld, or Robert E. Davis? Yes, thats right, they are all red links. It doesn't bode well for their importance. So instead of tedious talk, how about someone who considers them of any importance (hello, septics!) writing a decent article about them, *including* what they think about GW, nicely sourced to published papers. Now *that* would be useful. BTW, thanks for mentioning SC - nice to know where you're getting all your ideas from William M. Connolley 22:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have recently added the {{TrollWarning}} tag to the top of the page. I recommend that everyone take note of its advice. —AySz88\^-^ 22:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

New Ice Core Data

There is new ice core data from the British Antarctic Survey, showing carbon dioxide levels as higher than at any point in 800,000 years. Does this constitute reliable enough information to replace the existing figures in this article? I'll leave that up to the experts on this page, but it seems to deserve consideration. 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that... the 650 kyr CO2 is published. The 800 kyr was presented at EGU (last April) but is not yet published. If it exists on the web in "pre-pub" form I don't know where William M. Connolley 19:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The release from the BAS is here [4] and its been widely republished in the popular media in the last few days, eg [5], which is why I stumbled accross it. Best wait for publication then... 23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, having given the details of the original post here a thorough beating, can we now aknowledge its point? If there are in fact reliable ice core samples for the past 650,000 years, and CO2 levels are higher today than at any point since then, we have to ask at least two questions: 1. Have C02 levels been steadily increasing (on average) over the past 650,000 years? or 2. Is there a significant deviation in the trend at some point near the start of the industrial revolution? A third question, possibly, cuold be: Is there a correlation between human population increase and CO2 increase? These are relatively simple questions, and I would be surprised if the global scientific community had not already begun to investigate them, yet data of this nature seems to be very pervasive (or nobody agress). Or am I just not reading enough, or carefully enough? The proof is in the pudding. -Nick

As you say, you are not reading enough, or carefully enough. Your first two questions are directly answered in the Global warming article itself. Your third question is a bit vague, but there is indeed a correlation between human population increase and CO2 increase in that both have been increasing at an increasing rate since about 1750. A basic discussion is given at Raymond Arritt 05:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

RFD Prevailing political position on climate change underway

See here. Count Iblis 19:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I short-ciruited the process ;-) William M. Connolley 19:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think that smug, trollish remarks have any place here, Mr. Connolley? The only thing you have short-circuited is your brain, and that was, probably, long ago. As soon as I will have some time, I will undertake a major re-writing of this article to make it much shorter, balanced, substatiated with hard experimental data, and removing any and all irresponsible conjectures, including any references to the non-existent "consensus." Arvin Sloane 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Arvin, this is the real universe, not the Rightwingoverse :) Count Iblis 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks WMC. About time some common sense was shown towards people vandalising the encyclopedia by inserting rubbish. Tell me to get back to work! 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Iblis, neither it is an Eco-nut-verse. BTW, I haven't made any changes yet in this article. But I will, starting with "consensus" POVs. Arvin Sloane 02:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If you are doing major rewriting, I would suggest doing so in user space, e.g. under User:Arvin Sloane/Global warming, and getting consensus on that version. This was recently a featured article, and major rewrites will require some consensus among editors. Also, please log in if you are using the name of a registered editor. thanks. bikeable (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
And the best place for Arvin to start seems to be Global Warming Controversy. Skyemoor 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, I would like to remove (if I achieve any modicum of agreement here, of course) the paragraph starting with "However" in Alternative theories section. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of history, not climatology. Her infamous count of articles neither disproves nor challenges any of the alternative theories in question. It has been a political action, not a scientific critique. It is deplorable that Science magazine has become politicized enough to allow such a manifestly unscientific publication. Wikipedia should not repeat this mistake. This paragraph doesn't belong in serious article about global warming. Arvin Sloane 04:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No. The fact that these views are held by only a small minority of scientists in the field is relevant, according to the standards of Wikipedia. See WP:NPOV, under "Undue weight." However, I'd consider it appropriate to leave out references to the Oreskes piece and simply state that these views have little support among climate researchers. Raymond Arritt 04:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Einstein developed General Relativity and was ridiculed for his theories. Was he, then, in a so-called "small minority?" What about Galileo when he stated that the Earth revolved around the Sun? Did that also put him in a small minority?
In this case, alternative theories are views held by a significant minority. In the history of science, significant minorities (Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel, Darwin, Wegener... should I continue?) proved to be right more often than not. Therefore, in a section dedicated to alternative theories, emphasizing the majority POV is giving it undue weight. After all, the rest of the article is relentlessly biased toward anthropogenic interpretation of global warming. It is so full of "may bees" and "ifs," it's really difficult to find any incontestable information in it. So, please, give it a break, and leave this ideological passage out of Alternative theories section altogether. Arvin Sloane 05:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
First, Einstein came up with a hypothesis to describe physical relationships, to put it succinctly, between mass, light, and gravity. He struggled to gain acceptance of this idea, though some skeptics held out for decades. This is exactly what is happening in global warming; the few remaining skeptics will gradually lose all significance.
Second, Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, etc were struggling against religious leaders rather than the scientific community. Again, the same can be said for global warming, though climatologists are struggling against fossil fuel corporate propaganda that some have taken on as religious beliefs. Skyemoor 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Demonizing one's opponents is always an excellent method of distracting attention from the paucity of one's own argument. Seems to work in the political arena, so why not here? --The Outhouse Mouse 11:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
No need to 'demonize' certain fossil fuel corporations, the evidence is clear against them. Visit Skyemoor 11:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm...I notice that site has a lot of "theories" about how Exxon spends its money, but it gives you absolutely no information about who is behind or funds that website itself. --The Outhouse Mouse 11:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No. First of all, the number is very small at this point not even what could be reasonably called a "significant minority". Second of all in fact very often views which are held by a significant minority turn out to eb wrong. The only reason you think that they "proved to be right more often than not" is because you remember the cases where they did and don't remember the cases where they didn't (in addition to the matter that all views by definition start out at the ultimate minority of 1 person and go up from there). Third, this is not at all like the examples you gave since the number of supporters has gone down not up. Fourth and finally this is all irrelevant. What the general trends in science are do not in any way shape or form alter how to apply WP:NPOV. JoshuaZ 05:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No. Because "significant minorities" have been correct in some cases does not mean that being in a "significant minority" makes you likely to be correct. Oreskes' contribution to the discussion is an extremely valuable one and deserves to be highlighted here. I even disagree with RA about not referencing her -- if we make a statement like that one without a reference, it'll be removed immediately. It should stay as is. The "alternative" theories must be clearly qualified by the fact that very few people take them seriously. bikeable (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, so far we've got two votes against one in favor of removing the reference to the "valuable contribution" of counting other people's articles in a pre-sorted catalog, and assessing them subjectively from an extremely biased POV. That's a progress. I'll wait a day or two for other opinions. though. Arvin Sloane 05:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course I agree with you. The Oreskes study is at least disputed. Not only by Peiser. This is no extreme minority. --NimNick 10:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If counting votes is what you are doing, then, I am against removing that reference. Brusegadi 05:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Here are some arguments against the contentious "consensus," which several of my colleagues, me included, find compelling. Being pressed for time, I am quoting from Steven Milloy:
  1. "Global warming" is a fact - it's definitely warmer now than when it was colder (profound, no?)
  2. The rate of current warming and the identity of the most significant climate forcings are contentious items in the debate.
  3. Land use change and other activities guarantee some human influence on climate - the degree is contentious.
  4. Near-surface temperature reading amalgams indicate rapid warming ongoing.
  5. Near-surface temperature reading amalgams are composites gathered from less than 1% of the Earth's surface.
  6. Near-surface temperature reading amalgams are subject to local influences.
  7. Near-surface temperature reading amalgams have suffered significant urbanization with the closure of rural recording stations.
  8. Near-surface temperature reading amalgams are adjusted for UHIE corruption - the degree and the methodology are contentious.
  9. Near-surface temperature reading amalgams vary widely by region, with better financed and maintained regions showing 
     little warming.
 10. Radiosonde balloon measures test the well-mixed atmosphere.
 11. Radiosonde balloon measures are significantly less subject to local influences and UHIE than near-surface temperature readings.
 12. Radiosonde balloon measures do not indicate atmospheric warming in the 1,000mtr-10,000mtr height where enhanced greenhouse 
     warming should theoretically be readily apparent by now.
 13. Satellite-mounted Microwave Sounding Units test the well-mixed atmosphere.
 14. Satellite-mounted Microwave Sounding Units provide near-global coverage.
 15. Satellite-mounted Microwave Sounding Units are not subject to local influences or UHIE.
 16. Satellite-mounted Microwave Sounding Units suggest a small tropospheric warming trend (about three-fourths of one degree (C) 
     per century).
 17. General Circulation Climate Models are programmed to show warming proportionate to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
 18. General Circulation Climate Models do exactly as they are programmed to do.
 19. General Circulation Climate Models cannot yet be programmed with the complexity of the atmosphere.
 20. General Circulation Climate Models have yet to demonstrate greater predictive power than a table of random numbers.

Template:Arvin Sloane

All a bit dull, and badly formatted to boot. If you're interested in eductating yourself, you want urban heat island and satellite temperature record William M. Connolley 08:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm...when speaking about satellite temperature records, you propose to use data accumulated over the last 27 years to make statements about weather patterns on a 4.2-billion-year-old planet? Perhaps you should expand your horizons, as it were, a bit. --The Outhouse Mouse 23:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If you don't understand how satellite temperature records are used in the understanding of our climate, it wouldn't hurt you to learn something about the subject. Skyemoor 01:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This would be akin to compressing the lifespan of the Earth down to a year and then looking at the temperature over the last three seconds on December 31 and using that to make conclusions about the previous whole year. --The Outhouse Mouse 11:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This is false. If you 'compress' in a manner that you speak, you will lose information. The information contained in three seconds is not the same as the information contained in many years. Also, if you were to use the information in the last 3 seconds to predict the next second, it will probably work! That is what scientists are doing. They are not saying "based on the last billions of years, the temperature a billion years from now will be..." They are saying, "based on the drastic changes of temperature in the past X years, the next y (y much smaller than X) will probably follow a similar pattern." Also, by looking at one year I can predict certain things about the earth. For example, I would be able to tell you about day and night in certain areas. Some patterns are highly predictable, others are not.
Connolley, stop trolling. Arvin Sloane 08:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Specious I'd say. Jefffire 08:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Milloy as a source of scientific input?? "Sloane", you show all the signs of a political hack. You've shown that you are clearly not a scientist, and are attempting to further a political agenda (with typical extremist name-calling). We know a troll when we see one and it is not William Connelley who is the troll in this thread. Skyemoor 11:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Skyemoor, I would be very much obliged, if you would demonstrate any facts supporting your accusations. As far as I can see, so far you have been the one mostly engaged in name-calling, not me. Also, calling yourself in plural to beef up your point of view gives it away as an unsubstantiated attack. I will simply ignore your further attacks. Arvin Sloane 07:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
#1 Anyone quoting Milloy is clearly not a scientist. #2 You show no signs of understanding the science. #3 You were the one to start making accusations of trolling. #4 Show me where I called you a name. Skyemoor 03:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Several of Milloy's contentions are simply wrong (e.g., "General Circulation Climate Models are programmed to show warming proportionate to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels"), several are red herrings (e.g., "General Circulation Climate Models do exactly as they are programmed to do" -- ALL computer programs do exactly as they are programmed to do!), and some of the rest are outdated. If you are going to write a new article or make significant changes then you should be more diligent in verifying your sources. Raymond Arritt 12:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, some of Milloy's statements are simplified, since he popularizes scientific opinions as a journalist, though I don't see why it would be polite or appropriate to call any of them "red herrings." Please be assured that I am very diligent in everything I do. Thank you for your advice, however. Arvin Sloane 07:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The statement I quoted is not "simplified"; it is wrong (as are several others in the list). There's a big difference. Only Milloy can tell us whether he makes these mistakes from dishonesty or from incompetence. Raymond Arritt 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So far, the vote to remove reference to Oreskes is 3 in favor, 2 against. I ask all parties concerned to note that I do not rush to make a change. I also ask you to be honest: that is, not to bring in some friend who doesn't regualry participate in this discussion. (I could have brought 7 or 8 votes immediately this way.) Arvin Sloane 07:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I oppose the removal of the ref. Note, however, that Wikipedia almost never counts votes as a means of settling an issue. What is important is the discussion. Other than your personal dislike of the research, what grounds do you have for removing it (the former being impermissible grounds per WP:OR)? The essay was published in Science, and for whatever criticisms I have of it, lack of prominence in the scientific community is not one of them. And Arvin, please sign in. --TeaDrinker 07:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I oppose ther removal of the ref. Skyemoor 03:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
A historian is well qualified to add up papers and draw a conclusion, she is not making judgements on the science itself. The statement needs a source, and it would be stupid to remove it. If there is a similar reference that gives a contrary implication, that can be added as well. --Michael Johnson 07:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
What, where did that "vote" start to remove Oreskes? You can't be serious! Of course she needs to remain in the article. Hardern 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • TeaDrinker, I cannot sign in. I am using satellite service with roaming IP address; it is the only service available at the station I am working at. I don't understand, what "research" you are talking about. Counting some articles? Don't be ridiculous. And, please, don't be so obvious, and don't sign in as three users from 3 machines. I wasn't born yesterday, you know. Arvin Sloane 10:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Troll alert... This guy is a drongo... --Michael Johnson 10:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The ability to sign in has absolutely nothing to do with whether your IP is static or dynamic. Raymond Arritt 15:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I use the Hugh's satellite for access also (same as our anon aka Arvin Sloane chap) and have no trouble signing in. So that claim was false. What else is false here? Vsmith 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as accusations of sockpuppetry, you may note that myself, Michael Johnson, and Hardern each have hundreds if not thousands of edits, with diverse editing interests. It is a moot point, of course, since we don't decide things by counting votes anyway. --TeaDrinker 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do you count 2 vs. 3? Besides, it will not be removed. Its too important. On another note, is there a wiki policy against being under the influence when editing? Brusegadi 15:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Geez, I hope not! bikeable (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I am not able to sign in. First page that opens when I come to Wikipedia has me signed in, the next — when I click "edit," for example — already has me logged out, and I can't do anything about it. It has been happening ever since I've been on this station. But this is beside the point: who cares, except you guys, who would like to find something — anything — false about everybody who has guts to stand up against your preconceptions? When it comes to GW "consensus," majority is all you're talking about, and Oreskes' article count is an "important research." When there is a danger that your preferences would be denied by a majority, vote count is suddenly no-no, and the very concept of consensus goes down the drain. Be it your way. I am patient. Solar activity peak has passed, from now on it will be colder and colder, and few years from now you yourself will be scrambling to re-write this article, to save what's remained of your reputations. My guess would be by 2011-2014 you all will be crying wolf again about global freezing. We'll live and see. Arvin Sloane 23:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How much money have you placed in global warming bets? You could be a rich man... Also, your problem probably has not to do with cookies, since you state that you are signed in when you first enter wiki, and it is only when you edit that you are logged out... Defently contact them Brusegadi 03:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets hope you're right. Your problems logging in may be addressed with a question to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Thanks, --TeaDrinker 23:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Arvin, are you sure you have the "Remember me" box checked on the login screen? Also, your browser needs to accept cookies (and keep them at least for the session) for the system to be able to recognize you.--Stephan Schulz 23:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Global Warming"?

Michael Crichton doesn't think so, and from what i understand, he's actually a scientist, not just some left winger on the internet. Why does this article ignore his conclusions about "man made" warming?--—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 12:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Chrichton was a medical doctor before he became an author, and gave up his practice years ago. And this and this hardly qualify as "some left winger on the internet." · j e r s y k o talk · 13:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Michael Crichton is absolutely right, and he has one huge advantage: he is financially independent, and, unlike government- and UN-subsidized scientists, can say what he really thinks. Arvin Sloane 07:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So can I. Does that give my views equal credibility with Chrichton's? And if not why not? He writes novels. Big deal. Has he done any orginal peer-reviewed research on this subject? I haven't, and neither has he, so frankly neither of our opinions deserve to be included, unsupported, in a wikipedia article.—Exile 11:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is advisable to restrict our discussions to editing the article, not what celebrities think about the topic. --TeaDrinker 07:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think credentials are always a plus, but a lack is not a negative. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
So...what qualifications does Al Gore have? Being a life-long politician should carry even less weight than being a doctor/author. Gore's proven that this is all a political stunt to gear up for his '08 Presidential Run. I say he puts the "mental" in "environmentalism."
-- LoudMouth 13:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, support by someone who is not qualified says nothing at all...neither is it positive nor negative. In the linked article, Gore does not discuss the science, but the political reaction to it. For this, arguably, he is qualified. --Stephan Schulz 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Besides, Gore is not claiming anything new, he is just explaining what the scientists are saying and the scientists said that he did a great job. Thus, his views are supported by the vast majority of scientists. Brusegadi 15:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The linked article was just to show a ridiculous political statement by Gore. Gore's relying on his alleged credibility to make GW a political issue. Gore is not a scientist. Neither is Crichton. Neither, to my knowledge, are publishing original research; they are just stating their support for opposing viewpoints. So why is one vilified while the other is revered? Oh wait, one's in lockstep; the other's not. Bingo. -- LoudMouth 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
So why is one vilified while the other is revered? Oh wait, one's in lockstep; the other's not.
I thought it was because one is accurately stating the consensus opinion of the scientific community and the other is free-lancing on behalf of his usual conservative beliefs.
Atlant 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. If by "being in lockstep" you mean "being in good agreement with the considered opinion of the vast majority of competent scientists", and by "being vilified" you mean "being ridiculed for spewing nonsense", you have a point. --Stephan Schulz 17:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Usual "conservative" beliefs? What the hell? Crichton disagrees, so he's in it for the politics? I guess that's in sharp contrast to Gore, who's clearly just a science buff who moonlighted as Vice President and Senator, and who hopes to be President someday. So here we go again, bringing politics into it. I never said that Gore is "revered" by you people because of his politics - he's revered because he agrees with the groupthink of those who desperately need human-caused GW to be fact as opposed to theory (or myth). -- LoudMouth 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Schulz blathered ..."vast majority of competent scientists", and by "being vilified" you mean "being ridiculed for spewing nonsense"...

Who defines "competent"? And which scientists get to weigh in and be counted as part of the "consensus"? Do physicists and astronomers get to have their say? If there's a list of individual scientists and thier qualifications, I'd love to see it. I'm just curious and would like to verify who this consensus really is. But I'm not going to to take something at face value just because someone says it really loud and pounds his fist. -- LoudMouth 17:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming - an alteritive hypothesis

Global Warming – An alternative Theory


There can be little doubt that global warming is occurring. The current wisdom is that this is due to the Greenhouse effect of global emissions, hence the Kyoto agreement. However there is a simpler and potentially more worrying possibility.

Energy usage

Mankind has become a huge consumer of Energy. Well, physically speaking, this is not possible, because, except by nuclear power, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It is simply converted from one form to another – usually heat.

So when you are burning fossil fuels in your car, you are releasing energy stored in the fossil fuels as heat (and kinetic energy – movement, which also ultimately gets converted to heat). Where does this heat go? It would be tempting to think that it is radiated or released into space, but lets think about that. The temperature of space is close to absolute zero, and the rate of heat loss is proportion to the difference in temperature. Historically we have been in approximate equilibrium, which is to say that the heat coming in (from the sun) equals the heat going out (due to difference in temperature). We are not changing the size of the Earth, nor its mass, so any heat we add to the equation must result in a temperature rise until a new equilibrium is reached. So if we are generating say 1% of the sun’s heat, the global temperature must also rise by 1% (nearly 3 degrees Celsius) in order for us to successfully get rid of it into space as fast as we are generating it. That is regardless of any Greenhouse Gas effect (which only makes matters worse).

More bad news

This means that controlling Green House gases will not save us. What is more, it doesn’t matter what the energy source is, unless it is the sun itself (and not historical sun, such as in fossil fuels). Nuclear energy is just as bad as fossil fuels. Wind and Wave energy are just as bad too. The only safe energy in this regard is plant energy, so bio-diesel, plant oils, solar panels and wood burning are all OK, but that is about it. All of this energy has been provided by the sun in its recent history, BUT, of course, we must not reduce the total plant mass, so it must not just be a renewable, but a source that has been renewed. There is no way to cheat.

The good news

The good news is that this is not runaway global warming. If we mend our ways and use the right sources of energy (and that means more forests, albeit farmed and managed), the earth will eventually return to the old equilibrium, except for the effects of greenhouse gasses.

OOO - Own Opinions Only

Dave Mear.

(A) Wikipedia is not the place for original theories, and (B) the amount of energy beamed to earth by the sun is many orders of magnitude greater than all the energy usage of mankind; man's use of energy is nowhere near what is necessary to affect change on a global scale. Raul654 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, this page is not for discussing global warming itself, but for discussing our article on global warming. Please feel free to discuss your theory further, but this isn't the place to do so; I'm sure someone will come and suggest a place where people would be happy to help, though. In the meantime, you've also got a few inaccuracies; for example, the amount of heat radiated away from an object is not proportional to its temperature (see black body for some equations). You may want to work on your theory a bit more. —AySz88\^-^ 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The sci.environment newsgroup would be a great place to propose your theory. Raymond Arritt 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well it would be except its been done before :-) See-also (and the earlier post) William M. Connolley 17:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought. Is this REALLY original?

I have seen this in a (factual) book by Isaac Asimov - that is, the idea that all forms of energy used by humans end up as heat, which must be radiated into space - so the more energy we generate, the hotter we'll get. Think of one possible energy source - solar energy stations in space, beaming the energy to receivers on earth. Now surely if the total energy we receive from the sun increases - shouldn't we get hotter, as the energy is converted to different forms and eventually becomes heat? And wouldn't this also apply to increases in energy conversion on earth - eg from nuclear sources, or fossil fuels? If it's true that "the amount of heat radiated away from an object is not proportional to its temperature " (I don't know, I'm not a physicist) then Asimov seems to be wrong in this case. Just thinking out loud! -- Exile 11:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The amount of heat radiated is proportional to T^4 (see Stefan-Boltzmann law), not to T (and I'm certain Asimov knew that ;-). Yes, any form of latent or external energy we use (space mirrors, nuclear, anti-matter, fossil fuels...) contributes to the Earth's heat budget. But all these sources are so miniscule compared to solar irradiation that they can be essentially ignored for now. --Stephan Schulz 12:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The connection to Asimov reminded me of the Dyson sphere. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Recent Vandalism (SEPT 12)

There seems to be unusually high vandalism. Perhaps it has to do with the debut of An Inconvenient truth in Australia? Anyhow, should we place an anti vandal tag?? Brusegadi 15:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the vandalism level is that much higher than what it is normally but if you think it is getting that bad I can semi-protect the article. JoshuaZ 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming's Prolonged Effects

Global warming will effect everyone in the world.

More objective information needed

I think there needs to be more recogninition that more than a "small minority" of scientist disagree on global warming. I think it is important from a credibility POV to not appear so biased in presenting a wiki and its important to remain objective and not emotional. Objectivity and a lack of emotion are hallmarks to great science. I should know, I am an engineer who graduated top of his class and have recently graduated from Oxford law school, not only that but my fiance is a PhD in astro physics at the university of Hawaii. We get pretty steamed when there is bad science out there and to spin science is wrong. I think it is wrong to discount the disenting voices in the global warming debate. I think it is always better to debate and disagree than to not debate at all. And when the wiki is saying only a "small minority of scientists disagree", that is really shutting down that important area of debate. Lets keep the wikis unbiased and factual. Its best for all parties involved.

The article isn't biased. Please see WP:NPOV especially the section about undue weight. Furthermore, please note that Wikipedia is not attempting to foster debate or stifle debate simply report things in an accurate as possible fashion subject to WP:V and other policies. As such the statement that a "small minority of scientists disagree" is an accurate depiction of the current situation. (And incidentally, good for you and your fiance but none of those degrees have anything to do with the global warming (if you want to make this about personal degree related issues (which are irrelevant anyways) we have a number of climate scientists who have helped write this article and neither an engineering degree nor a law degree are generally considered to be in science.) Now, if you have specific points in the article which you think are inaccurate, you are more than welcome to point them. Please also remember to sign your comments with four tildes like this ~~~~ . JoshuaZ 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
No original research is allowed in Wikipedia. If you dispute the content of the article, please provide sources that confirm your disagreements. As you can see, this is a featured article with recognized quality. Sources confirming its content abound. You must follow all the proper procedures in order to make changes that will not be promptly reverted. Do not start a revert war, you may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule. Last but not least, I recommend signing all your comments on the talk page by simply typing ~~~~ in the end of your comment. Thank you.--Húsönd 01:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is obviously biased. It doesn't "simply report things as accurate as possible." It is full of unnecessary conjectures and one-sided references; in the eyes of an impartial observer (and I am no conservative) it reads like Al Gore poster. Don't hide behind the alphabetical soup of Wikipedia "policies," everybody is annoyed to death by these smokescreens of arbitrary nothingness. Arvin Sloane 07:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
According to Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". Science is not a matter of liberal or conservative. We report on the science as it is, not on how some (or the other) side wants it to be. If it currently coincides more with Al Gore's view than with Exxon's or Dick Cheney's, that's just how it is, but it's no reason to change the article. --Stephan Schulz 08:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know (and don't want to know), who is Stephen Colbert. But I would like to know who are "we" — are you representing yourself in plural? If not, what group of people appointed itself judges and custodians of this article, and on what basis? Arvin Sloane 09:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's the royal "We" as in "Me and my minions, who do my bidding and nothing but my bidding".--Stephan Schulz 09:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
And 'we' are basing our material on the breadth of the analysis and findings of the world's science academies and organizations, who have embraced these positions after careful deliberation and examination of the evidence. So yes, the scientific critics are a small minority. We do not intend to represent industry or political interests. If you want to contribute in such a way, see Global warming controversy. Skyemoor 13:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a pity for you, but you might have to get used to the idea that Al Gore is correct in a lot of points concerning climatology (though not in all). Btw: If it were Bush who'd say that the US must do a lot more against global warming, he'd been correct likewise. He probably should listen more to his Californian party-friend Schwarzenegger... Hardern 10:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Although, Al Gore is also incorrect on a lot of his points concerning climatology... — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
Does repeating that claim give it a greater sense of Wikiality for you? Or is it more an attempt to create the Big Lie? Because, seriously, there are very few claims by Gore that are even contentious, let alone "incorrect", except among people who are politically-motivated to deny GW claims.
Atlant 14:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Al Gore is not a scientist -- he's a shrewd politician. Whether or not his political platform stands to benefit from findings presented in this article is immaterial (BTW, let it be known that climate funding has not suffered under Bush). There has been an observed warming trend in global surface temperatures, colloqially known as "global warming." There is also an observed increase in greenhouse gases over the same time period. And there is a known absorption band in the IR caused by CO2. Just my 2-cents for common sense. LotR 19:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

space before °C ?

I read here that there shouldn't be a space :) Count Iblis 17:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The ° of course refers directly to the numeral, so should always be attached to it. The C is short for Celsius, so could be seperate, as if it were written in full, but I think would look a little lonely by itself. --Michael Johnson 11:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody seems interested in this sort of thing. I'm always annoyed by being forced to add this lousy secured empty space between the X and °C. I was told once there was a Wikipedia policy that says to keep the empty space, but I can't quite see the reason why. Hardern 07:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Article is Biased

The vitriol with which the "true believers" in global warming defend their hypothesis is merely evidence that they are engaging in confirmation bias. --The Outhouse Mouse 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just reviewed your contributions to this talk page. I see a lot of comments like the above; but precious little discussion of any scientific substance William M. Connolley 19:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That's sadly correct as most of my revisions have been deleted by others, such as yourself, who find their own personal views in unfortunate conflict with the scientific data. --The Outhouse Mouse 12:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I said "contributions to this ***talk*** page" from which I don't think your comments have been deleted William M. Connolley 13:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk about confirmation bias! The irony almost belongs to a work of fiction. Brusegadi 21:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century. -- Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), page 26.

We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming... -- Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L05708, doi:10.1029/2005GL025539.

Even the IPCC estimates that there has been a warming influence from the Sun in their radiative forcing summary figure of about 0.25 Watts per meter squared. Adding this 0.25 Watts per meter squared value reduces the percent contribution of CO2 to about 26.5%.

-- What Fraction of Global Warming is Due to the Radiative Forcing of Increased Atmospheric Concentrations of CO2? Professor Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science

Thus 0.6 °C x 26.5% = 0.16 °C warming from CO2 since the late 19th century.

The temperature effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic -- that is, the per unit effect constantly declines.

Doubling the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause somewhat less than 0.1 °C additional warming.

The average seasonal rise in global mean temperature for the period 1880-2004 has been 3.8 °C between January (12.0 °C) and July (15.8 °C) only to decline again. -- Global Surface Temperature Anomalies National Climatic Data Center

This annual warming is almost 20 times the total temperature increase possible from doubling the pre-Industrial Revolution level of atmospheric carbon dioxide and yet there is no sign of "runaway" water vapor-driven warming.

Of all the things humans should worry about, atmospheric CO2 isn't one of them. We are being told to look in the wrong direction. Why? — (Quoted from

Arvin Sloane, 04:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you answering for TOHM? You aren't his sock, are you? But anyway: CO2 log - of course; well known. So what? Why the runaway strawman? Its not in the article. Quoting junkscience is a bit of a giveaway. Pielke Sr is in a minority - you can tell that from his blog. Solar stuff... well, its been argued before; S+W is just one more contribution. See-also William M. Connolley 11:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to insert a link to an author who discovered serious flaws in Oreskes essay on the so called "consensus".

Assuming you are referring to Benny Peiser, his work is self-published, without any formal quality control. And any attempt at verifying his claims has failed. Check out the abstracts he claims disagree with the consensus (as defined by the refined IPCC position). His work is insignificant. If we include it we have to add an equally irrelevant discussion of his errors...this probably goes on to infinity, certainly ad nauseam.--Stephan Schulz 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Those in the game know that there no such thing but the interesting thing about Oreskes essay is that it is used by the Alarmist side in order to try to kill the debate. I also therefore question the very silly headline describing the researchers opposing the mainstream IPCC view: "List of scientists opposing global warming consensus" Well, since there are credible scientists opposing IPCC then THERE IS NO CONSENSUS how can they then oppose something that does not exist? It is like writing a "nice murderer" or something.

Consensus does not require unanimity. The number of (serious, qualified) dissenters is extremely small.--Stephan Schulz 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
So who decides who is "serious" or "qualified"? How do you define "extremely small"? How does that differ from just "small"? Who decides that such a number is "extremely small" or just merely "small"? --The Outhouse Mouse 20:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Qualifications are based on academic background. We do not want dentists, medical doctors, or econometricians having the last word on the subject. Finally, smalll and extremelly small are both subjective. Interpret them as you like. I bet that a large fraction of the population would think that small opposition is enough for consensus. A small minority, about as equal to the skeptic minority, will think otherwise. Brusegadi 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but who decides what "academic background" makes the cut? What factors go into determining that?--The Outhouse Mouse 13:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have a science degree and my main subject is aerosols.

What degrees do you have? What focus is your aerosol work? Skyemoor 22:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

IPCC and the biased text is political.

What was your level of involvement in the process, so that we understand your insight? Skyemoor 22:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am worried that the other parts of science are beginning to shake their heads at climate science. It seems that "evidence" are very easy to come by. The same reasoning is simply not possible in other research fields.

How familiar are you with each of the various models? How familiar are you with the physics behind IR absorbtion in different molecules?

On the other hand they are not politically saturated in the same way. It is beacuse of this, totally impossible to end an article waithout stating that "it is very likely that the observed/measured/calculated/modelled changes are due to anthropogenic influences". To say with the same degree of uncertainty " It is very likely that the observed/measured/cluclated/modeled changes are within the range of normal variations" is simply suicide.

Not in the US, or Australia. Quite the opposite, actually, because they drag you in front of Senate Inquisition panels to ask why your climate findings are not in line with right-wing political organizations or science fiction writers.

The Alarmist church will then crucify you and you can kiss your fundings good-bye. Oh, well science will survive. But humanity will be sent along the wrong track for a long time before it awakens. And next time "sience" cries "the wolf is coming" surely with a higher degree of certainty, nobody will be listening.

Your unsupported opinion, but what does that have to do with the verifiable content in this article? Skyemoor 22:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 19:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Jan Lindström

I agree with "the mouse" that the article is biased. It has been so for at least the past 3 years.

The article clearly favors the alarmist POV of supporters of the anthrogpenic (human-caused) global warming theory (AGW). The viewpoint of AGW supporters is that all the science is on their side, but several prominont statisticians and scientists disagree. The article should not place undue weight on the pro-AGW side. --Uncle Ed 20:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Good thing that it does not, then. In fact, it goes out of its way to include extreme minority positions. And what prominent statisticians and scientists do disagree? I grant you Lindzen and maybe Wegman (as far as I know, Wegman criticised the Hockey Stick paper, but not the AGW consensus). Of hand, I cannot think of others who are independently prominent (i.e. who have not gained their prominence by playin nay-sayers). And, as you probably know, the Wegman report has been shown to contains several questionable statements, while the NAS report has essentially reaffirmed the core results of Mann et al. But I'd like to reaffirm what WMC said to the Mouse: Give us something specific and we can talk. Generic "but the world does not conform to my political view" is not helpful. --Stephan Schulz 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ice Coverage Section

Maybe include stuff from the new NASA survey that is talked about at the BBC website recently -- 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Global Warming inevitable?

Rambling essay? moved to User talk:Beroccaboy

Vsmith 13:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Cooling World

I reverted the link added because besides not belonging here, it is misleading. We should try to improve the article and stop misleading the reader. WMC has shown much evidence that scientific concensus on global cooling during the 70s was non-existent. Scientists made it clear that they were not sure and that they did not have the tools to be sure, etc. Thus, comparing global warming with global cooling is unfair to the reader. Brusegadi 16:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Cutting an argument for citations to published sources

--- Begin cut container

By far the biggest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect is atmospheric water vapour, which accounts for 98% of the effect seen.[citation needed] Again here there is clear evidence of a feedback mechanism at work, with greater evapo-transpiration rates and greater atmospheric water holding capacity.[citation needed] Some models of climate change miss out the water vapour effect, but although this helps simplify the maths,[citation needed] it leaves the validity of the model in question.[citation needed] The nay-sayers quote this repeatedly, attempting the discredit the climate models [7], and disprove the anthropogenic origin of the current trends, but it can clearly be demonstrated that human activities are contributing both directly and indirectly to the increased loading of this overwhelmingly important contributor to climate change.[8]

--- End cut continer --Rednblu 21:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"It is wrong from beginning to end," said the Caterpillar decidedly. (Lewis Carroll, Alice In Wonderland) Don't bother trying to find references to support this stuff. Raymond Arritt 21:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
A simple google search for "greenhouse effect" "atmospheric water vapour" yeilds this which states "Though water vapour is not anthropogenic in origin, it is the most important greenhouse gas" in the first paragraph. —Memotype::T 13:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Further, this states that about 60% of the obvserved greenhouse effect is contributed by water vapor. —Memotype::T 13:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as already is summarized in the Greenhouse gases article. Guess I'm not following what point you're trying to make, so it would be helpful if you could clarify. Raymond Arritt 13:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess I figured the OP was looking for sources which showed that water vapour was a major contributor to GW... —Memotype::T 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, reasonable enough. A simple link to the Greenhouse gases article would do for that point. If they want the primary sources, there are a couple of oldish papers by Graeme Stephens that I'd be willing to look up (don't recall the journals off the top of my head). A lot of the other stuff -- "98%...", "some models of climate change miss out the water vapour effect..", etc. -- is either flat wrong or so poorly worded as to be meaningless. Raymond Arritt 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What natural causes are there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Is this addressed in the article?

This seems interesting. Is it addressed in the article? How long will it take someone here to vilify him & "discredit" him? --LoudMouth 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"In particular, the relationship between global warming and hurricanes is still being debated. [9] A draft statement by the World Meteorological Organization acknowledges the differing viewpoints on this issue [29]." Have you ever actually read the whole article or do you fear ritual defilement?--Stephan Schulz 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Political Controversy

I am not sure if this is the right place to present this, but perhaps it would be a good idea to present the facts surrounding the "controversy" over Global Warming. I myself am quite convinced of Global warming, but to present the anti-warming arguments together with the pro-warming arguments might serve to enlighten those who are uncertain. I realize this is a political debate more than it is a scientific debate, but perhaps that will be evidenced by the realities at hand. Just my 2 cents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

See Global warming controversySkyemoor 10:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a separate article on government responses to global warming, which could cover some of the political pheonomena around global warming.--NYCJosh 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Theories and Scientific Methodologies of Global Warming Studies

I'm new to Wiki editing and have little idea of what I am doing. I'm sure that if I have erred further editing will correct it. Anyone who is able to provide assistance or suggestions is welcome to contact me Rks1.

I have been researching global warming studies and was very surprised to find fundamental data problems and problems with scientific methodologies, often rendering the studies of no scientific value imho. Since the research is not published, I guess that any reference to it will be removed from Wiki. I do point out however that my research is very easily verified.

Simply because a subject is important and of benefit or potential harm to humanity, does not mean that evidence for it should be adjusted, especially where evidence to a contrary position will occur without the adjustment. Scientific methodologies adopted should be such that the research should be repeatable by the researcher and verifiable by others.

I added some extra alternatives to the section on alternative theories. I have citations for much of it but don't know the best way to add all that in.

Since the issue of scientific methodologies is critical to the advancement of any science, and since I have discovered the flaws and found others who have also done so, I thought it might be appropriate to have a new page titled something like "Scientific Methodologies in Global Warming Studies". Is this reasonable? Is it reasonable to provide a citation to the study and then references to the data or other resource that suggests that the data or methodology is flawed, in the absence of a published article that does the same thing? What about the problem of criticising individuals by implication because of referring to their research in respect to a specific type of flaw in scientific method? And what of those that edit these pages that have published articles. Please do not take this as a statement that your article or paper is biased or flawed. Obviously it just applies to the papers I have thus far reviewed and yours could not possibly be amongst them.

So do I wait until my research is complete, attempt to get it published and then attempt to create the new page. This could be eighteen months or so and I am not confident of getting published because I have already come in for substantial criticism for finding the flaws. I must sound like an idiot but I have never worked in academia, only had a couple of minor things published and then all that was arranged by the co-authors who did work in Universities. I have almost no contact with others and was greatly surprised when approached to carry out some research in global warming. Even now I have no idea about the right way to do much of anything in relation to the research. I am directed to studies and asked to review the data, the adjustments made to the raw data and the validity of such adjustments etc. I'm just trying to muddle through. That is not to say I am not good at research or more specifically analysis of data and its uses.

As to the research I would have prefered I did not find more than what I thought I would be researching: "unintentional bias" due to the fervour that Global Warming generates. I did not think I would not find a single paper that does not rely on suspect data, or methods that sometimes even seem to amount to scientific fraud.

I'm not even sure this is how I ask these questions.

Later Addition - including some background Since I wrote this I have been reading other entries rather than skimming, which I did before. It seems that some qualification of qualifications :-) is required. I have a degree in Climatology from studying in the late 70s. My main interest has been and remains the causes of flips between glaciations and interglacial periods and the time such switches take, not global warming (it may not sound scientific but I like the imagery of the climate flipping - strange things amuse me). Whether it was true or not, never greatly interested me. What caused global warming held some interest but not a great deal because there have been warmer interglacial periods and probably warmer parts of this one. Now if there was evidence of global cooling and even a remote chance of the process being the start of a new glaciation that would have been another matter. Pity the cooling period in the 70s was just a little fluctuation (well, actually that is not right - if it did herald a return to Little Ice Age conditions that would have been very bad for humanity - so it might have been academically interesting but not something I would wish on the world just because I would like to study it).

I am perhaps much better qualified to review data and other research because that is what I basically did for more than 20 years although not in the field of climatology, undertaking field research, employing experts in various scientific fields as required, wading through often reems of competing expert opinion, distilling it all into plain English, and determining just what really happened in the events I was asked to consult on. Mostly they were engineering matters but I also undertook studies into incidents in diverse fields. I was well respected in my field and specialised in only the most complex of matters. I was challenged occasionally in my conclusions but this generally turned out to be a very expensive excersise in futility for the challenger. I liked to be extremely thorough and as unbiased as any human can be when they are paid by the representative of one or a limited number of parties involved in a matter.

I am researching studies on global warming and have been attempting to find a university that will allow me to continue this as research for a PhD in Climatology (so far without any luck at all basically because I am not rich, I am severely disabled, so need to do the dissertation in my own country where I have been offered funding, and there does not seem to be any post graduate programs that fit what I wish to do. I've been offered PhD studies in other fields but what is the point of another doctorate in a field in which I do not have a passion). Rks1 03:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rks1. The fact that you are asking these questions is good in itself. Regarding your research, you need to be aware that one of the three most important principles of Wikipedia is No original research. In other words Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids publishing your own findings here. For this reason, I am reverting your material; it can be re-inserted later if you can find an authoritative source to back it up. You should also be aware that the issues you raised already have been addressed in the scientific literature, but this is not the appropriate venue for discussing such matters. I suggest you pose your points in the sci.environment newsgroup or other suitable forum. Raymond Arritt 04:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
G'day Raymond. So my changes were deleted even though I said I had citations but needed help in just how I presented them. Wouldn't it have been fairer to have answered that question first? "No Original Research" seems a good thing but is analysis of existing research and suggesting flaws in the methodology adopted "Original Research" or is the original research the research that has been published and is the topic of the article? As I said I'm new to this entirely and rather like Wiki as a reference tool. If what I am suggesting breaches the rules then so be it, I will withdraw the suggestion. But as to the Alternative Theories, this has citations that are not mine and I would have thought that if any section should have a degree of flexibility it is the section that counters the main section. If you cannot even post what some of the objections to the topic are, how does anyone know there is any but a very few alternatives that are actually presented in a very negative way, leading the reader to believe that the alternatives have no validity when isn't that for the reader to at least ponder? I am not saying the alternatives are right by the way, only that presenting opposing views even where they do not support a great deal of support provides balance as long as the alternatives are not dressed up.

I can but wonder what the Wiki entry would be in 1961 for the make up of the earth's crust, and the alternative theory section mentioning continental drift either disparagingly or not at all.

If I can get an answer to the question of how best to put in all the citations I'll resubmit and see if it is left in.

Richard Rks1

Well, since this article is a highly contested one, and since there are every day half a dozen people vandalising it, I strongly suggest that any larger changes like the one you propose should be discussed first, even if it is just to avoid being deleted again. So why don't you add your information including your sources here on the talk page and see how good it will stand? Hardern 08:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid Krs1's additions read like "the same old stuff" to me. In particular The data relied upon to demonstrate global warming is not supported by ... weather balloon data; by satellite data etc. is std sketpic nonsense: see satellite temperature record. Rks1 claims to be adding material based on his own research: I find that very unlikely that he has re-analysed the balloon and sateliite records himself William M. Connolley 08:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Pre-industrial global warming?

I've expanded Rudimann's explanation of neolithic global warming, and separated out the effects of methane and carbon dioxide, as outlined in his Scientific American article. His argument is based on what he sees as anomalous behaviour in the current interglacial. As such the previous criticism (which was original research) didn't seem relevant (since Rudimann does not claim that we would be in an ice age without this effect) so I've commented it out for the moment. If no one objects I'll remove it at a later date. --Michael C. Price talk 09:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've re-instated the bit you left commented out. I'm not sure how a link to Nature counts as OR. I think this section does need something to point out that most people don't actually believe Ruddiman & found the Schmidt paper William M. Connolley 10:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I just knew someone would say that the link isn't OR. It's not the link that's OR but the stated implication. Rudimann does not say that we would otherwise be in an ice age (as I previously stated), which was the point of the Nature link being inserted. --Michael C. Price talk 10:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Not really. R says we'd be in an incipient ice age. But the point is about GHG's - R says we need something to explain them (preindustrial). If we were to be in a long interglacial anyway, no explanation is needed William M. Connolley 11:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Rudimann says his hypothesis accounts for ~2C rise in temperature whereas an ice age requires 3-4 C drop -- we might well be on the way to an ice age but we wouldn't be in one, as you acknowledge with your use of "incipient". The Schmidt paper is fine, although it only addressed the methane issue and not the carbon dioxide. Also I note it does not dispute the correlation between methane and solar radiation levels but only questions the mechanism, which is a much weaker counter argument since the correlation still requires explanation. The length of the interglacial is not really the issue: it is the anomalous behaviour within the interglacial that needs addressing. --Michael C. Price talk 10:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is about GHG levels. If this would "naturally" be an extended interglacial (as most people seem to think) then there is no need to "explain" non-rising preindustial GHGs William M. Connolley 11:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You need to read the entire Scientific American article. The preindustrial GHGs were rising, according to Rudimann, based on ice core data -- that's the issue that needs addressing. --Michael C. Price talk 11:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire SCiAm thing, but I've read him elsewhere. But CO2 wasn't rising over the last 1ky - [10] - though it may have risen from earlier. However, let me re-iterate the point I made earlier - there needs to be balance here, to make i clear that this is a minority view William M. Connolley 12:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the link format for the graph, which Rudimann reproduces in more detail in the SciAm article, so there's no problem there. Rudimann explains some of the last 2ky ups and downs in terms of plague outbreaks reducing human population and hence lowering argicultural activity/ increasing forestation. For a balanced article we need references for a counter view: the Schimdt ref is a good start but the Nature ref one isn't, since it doesn't address Rudimann's hypothesis. I'm quite happy to say that Rudimann's view is a minority view. --Michael C. Price talk 13:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added (again) that a reference that is being presented as a general rebuttal of Rudimann is only referring to his interpretation of the methane data and does not address his interpretation of the CO2 data. Please do not revert this without discussion. If there exists a more general critique then find the cite please. --Michael C. Price talk 08:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

General Scepticism

Yeah, anyone remember the global bird flu epidemic killing millions. Or the biblical aids epidemic killing nearly all americans... this global warming has the same smell about it(largely insignificant as a result of technological innovation and market forces, causality not well understood, with any true short term effects turned into a self facilitating, self promoting end-of-world belief system). I actually feel sorry for the scientists doing research showing little or no changes to the environment. They don't get funding, publicity, awards, invites etc.

I guess it's every person to blame. People just like believing the extreme version of what they don't understand and creating hysteria. People also seem to like to punish themselves to absolve ourselves from guilt about having a reasonable standard of living in a world where most people are poor or some other reasons. Environmental evangalists often request that its not enough to quietly reduce your environmental impact. You must make a performance of any acts and clearly display and label any paraphanalia and join in the promotional nature typical of a belief system.

Even prof. suzuki says that the causes are unknown. Lets cast doubt on how to avoid global warming on wikipedia until the cause(s) are widely agreed.

I'm not sure if the latest unsigned comments are a general comment on global warming or on Rudimann's neolithic hypothesis in particular, but I note that Rudimann's hypothesis is neutral with respect to future trends. --Michael C. Price talk 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming can be good for low heating bills though.

And bad for air conditioning bills. --Michael C. Price talk 20:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And great for Democrats! (they hope) LoudMouth 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Republicans are getting on it too- just today Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the strictest anti-global warming bill of any state into law and declared "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late... The science is clear. The global warming debate is over." George Pataki, Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani and Pat Robertson have all come out in support of cutting emissions to fight global warming too, but hey, that's all politics right? fight global warming too, but hey, that's all politics right? Yes, obviously. LoudMouth 19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Earth may soon hit hottest point in last million years

Just an interesting find that's been hitting the news lately. [11] A writer better than myself may wish to work this development into the current article. --AWF

Spread of Disease?

I do not think that it is appropriate to discuss what global warming MAY do (NB: "Spread of Disease" section in the article). Rather, it would be more appropriate to discuss the scientific observations made along those lines -- to the extent such observations exist. --The Outhouse Mouse 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say its appropriate to mention it, briefly, together with the counterarguments William M. Connolley 19:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate Links

I wonder if it would be possible to have Messrs Connolley & Schulz develop a rule for what they believe appropriate links are so there will be no confusion over this issue. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There can be no fixed rules. But as a general principle, these links need to be pruned fairly regularly as people add them rather at random. So the links have to be those few that are really important to (the science of) global warming. Individual states committees would rarely be appropriate, particularly if they haven't done very much William M. Connolley 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Who makes those determinations? --The Outhouse Mouse 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Its the same as any other wiki-thing - consensus does. But you'll find that talking about any particular link you want in is better than reverting it back in William M. Connolley 19:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorial Bias

Raul654 made the following comment when deleting one of my edits (NB: it was a link to the homepage of the US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee): "...the EPA is interested in the real facts and isn't funded by the gas indutstry, unlike half the enviromental committeee." I cite this as a prime example of his bias. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he's done a good job by deleting your POV. Hardern 07:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you can explain to me how a link to a Senate committe -- not a Senator's own -- homepage is POV; especially when that committee has oversight of agencies such as the EPA. --The Outhouse Mouse 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to imply that Senate committees are nonpartisan. Such a notion would surprise a lot of people, not least the senators themselves. Raymond Arritt 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

model validity

I'm not active with this article, but I just noticed the recent edit by Raul654, who removed the "citation needed" for the sentence "For a climate model to be accepted by the scientific community as being valid it must first be shown that it does a good job of simulating known climate variations, such as the difference between summer and winter, the North Atlantic Oscillation, or El Niño." with the edit summary "rm idiotic citation required - of course a simulation has to agree with real life data to be valid."

I disagree with this edit for two reasons. First, we shouldn't be making deductions that aren't obvious to everyone. If someone challenges a statement by adding the "fact" tag, it should be sourced. Second, and maybe more importantly, a model does not have to be able to capture variation on one time scale (like yearly) to be valid on another time scale (like decadal). For example, many of the most well-respected ecological models have one year time steps, even though they can be used to predict changes in quantities (like leaf area index) that change even more from season to season than they do from year to year. So the statement may be held true within the field of climate science, but if so a citation should be available. The statement isn't obviously true just from knowing about models and validity. --Allen 06:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A citation would not necessarily provide readers with the information about annual/decadal coherence between the model and the real data. Reading (or better go directly to here), it's rather obvious that climate models are validated against say 20th century climate, before they start projecting future developments. Thus, I think you rather ask for looking up Global climate model to find that information over there.
I read the statement from which Raul deleted the "citation"-tag rather like a kind of common behaviour towards climate models, not a specific feature that needs to be proven. Hardern 07:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both of you ;-). Actually, I think the statement itself is problematic. We certainly had reasonably good climate simulations (for some purposes) before we had models that simulated such fine-grain, short-term features. Id' suggest to change it to "Before a climate model is accepted by the scientific community, it has to be validated against observed climate variations. As of 2006, sufficiently high-resolution models sucessfully simulate summer/winter differences, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and El Niño. All validated current models predict that the net effect of adding greenhouse gases will be a warmer climate in the future." (with appropriate links). Then we can source the individual parts if necessary. --Stephan Schulz 07:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Stephan. The IPCC TAR model chapter [12] may be a good place to look William M. Connolley 08:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Me too. That's much better wording. Thanks. --Allen 08:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the wording to what Stephan suggested. --Allen 08:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


This sentence doesn't seem to make sense. "The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose by 6000 degrees yesterday 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century." (second Paragraph, lead section)Harryboyles 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That was just vandalism by User: All Wiki articles are under constant attack from folks like this, many of them escapees from study halls who think they're being oh-so-witty.
Atlant 14:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I know, it's annoying, isn't it?. Harryboyles 01:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


"...Both land and open water are less reflective than ice, ... cycle."

It can't be a cycle if it will eventually end, because the ice is all going to melt, eventually.

So it's not a cycle :|

Basis for including alternate views

It doesn't matter whether someone is independently well-known. The AGW theory and everything else related to global warming is controversial. (In the US, the general public is split 50-50 on whether the AGW is true or not, for example.)

This isn't about public perceptions, but the science William M. Connolley 16:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We include alternate views, not because they are TRUE but because they are "verifiable". Wikipedia must not take a position on whether AGW is good science or not. It should merely identify the advocates and critics of the POV.

Your usual arguments for turning the article into a battleground. The article should be a balanced review of the science. It should *not* restrict itself to identifying advocates and critics. But we've done all this before, I wonder that you can be bothered to type it all in again. I wonder that I can... William M. Connolley 16:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Having identified WHO is for or against AGW and other GW aspects, we should also explain WHY these parties assert the POVs they assert. But we should not do the original research of trying to figure out what is true or false. If there is a dispute on an aspect or point, we should be NEUTRAL on that aspect or point.

I propose a thorough rewrite of the article,

Oh no, not again... at this point I give upWilliam M. Connolley 16:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, most all the stuff Ed describes below has already been hashed out, e.g., the "layers" business. It's like that game of whack-a-mole: they try one angle, it gets refuted; they try a second angle, it gets refuted; they try a third angle, it gets refuted; and then they try the first angle again. Raymond Arritt 16:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see how many different users try to contribute to this article and to expand the alternate views only to be bullied away by those who believe in GW religiously. Rather than making snarky comments about those who try to contribute to this article, why don't you consider that perhaps they have a point and that William, Stephen and the rest of you drive editors away from this article with your heavy-handed, admin-privileged POV push? Kyaa the Catlord 16:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
A couple of corrections. (1) I'm not an admin. (2) I don't "believe in GW religiously." To the contrary, if I could conclusively refute GW then I could write a book, go on the lecture circuit, etc. and not have to worry about how to pay college tuition for the kids. The simple fact is that Ed is bringing out the same tired arguments that he and others have proposed over and over and over and over again -- if pointing that out is "snarky", so be it. At least try to come up with something new. Raymond Arritt 16:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Its condenscending as hell at the very least. There is a cabal on this talk page that seems to take great pleasure in pointing out "oh, we refuted that ages ago!" every time someone comes in and tries to make any sort of argument to expand, neutralize the point of view, or make an edit which they have previously encountered and vetoed. This article and its subsequent talk page should be featured just for that simple fact, as a lesson in how wikipedia fails to live up to its promises. It goes far beyond BITE; certain editors enjoy rubbing salt into the wounds after one of their fellow supporters of GW bites. (Addition: If I knew where to take it and had the time to do so, I'd figure out what usergroup to report these talk pages to for some sort of action on the part of Wikipedia against said group.) Kyaa the Catlord 16:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin either (or a Stephen). I don't believe in global warming religiously, but as the result of an informed reading of the science. In fact, contributing to this article has made me dive in much deeper as I would ever have expected, reading everything from the eponymous Junk Science to the IPCC and NAS reports and even a couple of primary papers. When I see carefully reasoned science on the one hand, and thrice-warmed up thrice refuted bullshit on the other(s), I form my opinion. And that holds for the more radical water-world global warming is killing the ozon-layer freaks on the one side as well as for Exxon and its clique of shills. This article has a history of very good and deep discussion, and, to a large degree, has been written by people with a good understanding of the issue. Adding out-of-context soundbites from Crichton or the CEI (or even Robin Wood) is not the way to improve it, and will justly get reverted. --Stephan Schulz 17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Which completely ignores and underlines my point, Stephan. You may know more about GW than the average wikipedian, but that is no excuse for elitism. Kyaa the Catlord 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What's your suggestion? That we accomodate wrong and ill-informed views to avoid hurting anybody's feelings? I can understand WP:BITE, but Ed is neither a newbie to Wikipedia nor to this particular discussion. Refuting the same points over and over again is a waste of time. --Stephan Schulz 17:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You may be right to feel that way, but it doesn't excuse the repeated activity of those who regularly jump all over anyone who takes a position counter to the status quo on this talk page. Dissenter makes statement, someone refutes it, then the usual suspects begin the cycle of condencending responses to the further arguments of the original poster and then their friends jump in to join the fun and slap each other's backs. I stopped even trying to argue with you all about the subject of this article when I recognized what was going on. This isn't a joint project, its a pet one of a group of "old-timers". Of course, this is simply my opinion and I know how much that is worth here. I have a simple solution, obey the policies of Wikipedia, don't gang up on people, when someone refutes a point and the poster hasn't responded there is no need to post a "wow! You're the bestest!" response. Kyaa the Catlord 18:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Gosh what a lot of colons... I *am* an admin, but AFAIK I've never used my super-powers to push my POV on this page. But... this is yet another discussion that *fails to focus on specific cases* and so will inevitably go nowhere. My suggestion is, that if Ed wants to do a complete re-write, he is welcome to start one as a sub-page; or in his user space; and Kyaa can help him, and when we all agree its better than whats here it can get subst in. Just don't try to re-write it in place William M. Connolley 17:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You will never agree William. This is your ivory tower and come hell or high water, you defend it. I understand that, its basic human nature. Kyaa the Catlord 18:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

to sort out which are the points universally agreed upon, and which are the disputed points. To begin with, all sides agree that surface-recorded temperatures rose from 1850 approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit, dropped half a degree from 1940 to 1970, and rose again. What is disputed is how accurate those reading are, as well as what proportion of this warming/cooling/warming is natural or man-made.

There are also models. I've heard various viewpoints on whether these represent falsifiable hypotheses. This needs fleshing out.

Then there are the various atmosphere layers. What does AGW theory say about surface, near-surface, 5 miles up, 10 miles up, etc.? Has AGW made any testable predictions (see Falsifiablity) about the temperature record at various heights in the atmosphere? If not, which groups or individuals maintain that AGW is still a valid hypothesis? If so, which groups or individuals have compared temps at various heights with theoretical predictions, and what are their conclusions?

North and South poles: What does AGW say about the polar ice cap at the North pole, glaciers in Greenland, and ice in Antarctica?

What is the role of land use? And what are the various ideas about the Urban Heat Island effect's influence on surface and near-surface temperature readings? Which groups or individuals say that the influence is negligible; easily correctible with a small number like 0.1 C degrees; or "contaminating" the surface record?

What about the hockey stick? (There used to be an article just about this graph and the controversy over this, but this has been suppressed.) M&M's claim that Mann's software makes even random inputs look hockeystick-shaped is missing (or hard to find). It should be included as an alternate view. It's not "undue weight" to do so.

And what is the relationship of the hockeystick to AGW? Which groups or individuals say that it is important evidence of AGW theory? Who dismisses its importance? Is there anyone who says that, if Mann's reconstruction is vindicated, this means AGW is confirmed but if not then AGW is not confirmed?

Wikipedia should not take sides on any aspect of the dispute over global warming. It should merely report what various groups and individuals claim, and (where possible) also summarize the reasons they give for their claims. Anything else violates Wikipedia:NPOV. --Uncle Ed 14:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I will freely admit that I have not looked through the arguments so far, but, upon reading the opening statements, it does seem to be a touch biased. It begins with the statement that most scientists think people are at fault for the warming trend (true-NPOV), but provides no outlet for the disagreement that many have, including the doubts that pro-warming scientists think a possibility (Too POV). It may mention that later on in the article, but at the top, it only goes on to say: The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. This makes it sound like a foregone conclusion. There should be some earlier mention of the history of sudden planetary changes in temperature.
Note that it mentioned "human-induced" which does not refer to natural variation.
If I could propose a few changes:
  • The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"[1], though there is a sizable minority who disagree with this assessment. [and a brief explanation of the controversy here: why there is a diversity of opinion]

What do you consider to be a 'sizable' minority? Skyemoor 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are proportedly the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming.

Why question the consensus without substantive findings? What other components would be the primary cause of human-induced warming? Your sources? Skyemoor 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Any good article on Wikipedia should mention the controversy of a subject. Some very controversial subjects on this encyclopedia fail to even do that - mention the problem - in a reasonable manner (they shall go unnamed). Let's strive to make this article better. -Patstuart 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is already oversize, so a companion article covers this ground, Global warming controversy. Skyemoor 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for a large edition. Adding a few words in (the least of my proposal), would hardly make it any larger than it is now. -Patstuart 19:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You would need to make the case for those changes by answering the above questions to start with. Skyemoor 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of POV template

Guys, I don't even take a stance on this issue, but removing the {{POV}} template is absolutely ridiculous. Someone (and in fact, several someones) happen to think that the article has a bias, and that needs to show at the top. This issue shouldn't even be up for discussion. Is your opinion of the article show fragile that it will be hurt because someone's claims that it's not a neutral point of view? I don't even care if you add all sides in, but the {{POV}} needs to stay. -Patstuart 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If a significant number of significant contributors wanted it, it would stay. As it is, adding it is just trouble making. Adding the POV tag doesn't help anyone. There is no policy that says that a POV tag, once added, needs to stay until everyone is happy for it to be removed: for the obvious reason: it lets people hold the article to ransom William M. Connolley 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Who decides who is "significant"? --The Outhouse Mouse 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
More relevantly, if there was any substantial discussion on talk (as promissed by the template), I'd be happy to leave it in until the issue is resolved. --Stephan Schulz 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Who decides what discussion is substantial? --The Outhouse Mouse 18:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If the article represents the best research available and a wide consensus of scientists in relevant domains, then a POV label would be pointless. Persons can always contribute to Global warming controversy. Skyemoor 18:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I've talked to many scientists on the issue, and while they think the link is probable, very few maintain it is certain. And, at the risk of maligning and annoying some, I'm not even talking about evolution, which is a set science. But this debate is certainly not over. Could a POV tag really hurt that much? Thanks. -Patstuart 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Evolution??? What does that have to do with anything??? Ohh, I are from the US. Brusegadi 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you talk to these scientists by chance? Skyemoor 19:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Being a scientist myself, I can tell you that that there is no certainty outside mathematics. Scientists use tentative language because they are aware of the tentative nature of science. Newton's law of gravity is wrong, we know that either General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics (or both) are wrong, but we still use these laws every day, e.g. for ballistics, GPS, and computer chips, and often to "prove" things "beyond reasonable doubt". In the same way, we have a high degree of certainty about the core findings of global warming theory, but we have not, and likely will never have, absolute certainty. --Stephan Schulz 20:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote from Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

  • An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand. This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in which very often there is an abundance of differing views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts. [13]
  • Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral. Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. [14]

Placing the {pov} tag means that the contents of the article are disputed and volatile. And if there's an edit war over whether the tag should be applied or not, the standard is that it remain. You should not revert the insertion of {{pov}} more than once. That's the guideline, so please follow it. --Uncle Ed 16:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But the contents is not volatile. Indeed, this article has been rather stable for the last few months. It also not seriously disputed. Your comments are, seriously, nothing serious. "We should rewrite this whole featured article confusing the established science with stuff not even Crichton claims anymore" (or words to that effect) is neither useful nor compelling. If you are unhappy with the state of the article, do the research to improve it. Of course, if you do it honestly (which I assume) and well (which I rather doubt), you will come to the conclusion that the current state is just fine...--Stephan Schulz 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How s... is that? Look at this text: Outlaw ‘Climate Change denial’? The chilling effect on free speech. There's really people proposing to outlaw ‘climate change denial’. Man. -- 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the original sources seems to be here. At least this one links to the original sources - two things that look like more or less ordinary blog entries by ordinary weenies. What does that have to do with the science or the debate? --Stephan Schulz 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


The amount of vandalism on this page seems to be a bit much... anyone for semi-protecting it? William M. Connolley 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So, if you're in favor of squelching those with whom you disagree? I am not in favor of protecting the article -- "semi" or otherwise. --The Outhouse Mouse 18:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you even know what semi-protection is? It merely prevents edits from accounts less than 4 days old, or from anonymous accounts. It doesn't make judgments on content. -Amatulic 23:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You can ask but it probably won't be granted. This page is not vandalized nearly as much as others. Also, since it doesn't concern a living person, there is a general reluctance to protect them. Even the content dispute hasn't reached the level of an edit war so they won't protect it for that reason either. Unless of course you're an admin, and can just do that on your own. Ramsquire 18:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be a group of us who are watching for vandalism but it's getting harder to keep up. I've requested VandalProof permission but haven't heard anything yet. Raymond Arritt 18:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I *have* semi-protected it; this is getting too tedious. I've done this somewhat tentatively, so if anyone objects, either reverse it (if you can) or argue it here... William M. Connolley 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't object; I think most Wikipedia articles should be semi-protected. Almost all the vandalism I revert is from anonymous accounts. -Amatulic 17:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No objection from me. It was about time, I think. Hardern 12:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In case you need more voices, I also think that vandalism has been too much. Brusegadi 21:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If adding truth, facts, and real quotes from real scientific institutions (IPCC not included due to their horrid misinterpretation of the 1990 report on global warming, when "no discernable human influence" became "discernable human influence", and estimates that considerably exaggerate the facts) is considered "vandalism", your view on reality is considerably twisted. The changes add alternate opinions that are widely held. Wikipedia is not a propaganda site for environmentalists. For more info, check out "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton (granted, his writing is a bit biased, but even taken with a grain of salt, it's convincing literature). -------Nufacion
What are your "real scientific institutions"? "State of Fear" may be "convincing", but it's a novel, i.e. a work of fiction, and has no value as a scientific reference. Finally, if you check the recent history of this page, you will see a lot of plain vandalism, including random characters, and partial blanking. --Stephan Schulz 12:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we should thank Nuf for making such a convincing case for semi-pro :-) William M. Connolley 12:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Shulz, if you read the book, you would know that I'm referring to the many, many arguments and references that he says in the form of character dialogues, that quite convincingly prove that global warming skepticism is at the least, an acceptable point of view that deserves fair mention and discussion in this topic. Now, if anyone can honestly debate any of the proofs or views that I mentioned in my revisions, then I can consider them qualified to edit them. ------Nufacion
Actually, it's Schulz, and common courtesy would add Dr. to it. Or call me Stephan, I'm not anal about it. And whatever Crichton writes: It's still a novel. Ayn Rand and Robert A. Heinlein have amply demonstrated that you can make the most absurd positions sound plausible or even right in a novel. Yes, "global warming scepticism" deserves fair mentioning and discussion, and receives just that in the article. And I'm looking forward to any "proofs" or "views" you might offer. --Stephan Schulz 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
As Stephan says its a novel. It should be somewhat obvious that novels don't meet WP:RS. Now, while congressional committees may think that novelists are worth listening to on scientific matters, thankfully Wikipedia does not. JoshuaZ 16:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And looking over Nufacion's two edits (actually, one repeated twice), it just introduces unsourced and irrelevant nonsense. Nobody still maintains that Earth is not heating up. The urban heat island effect has been analysed and found irrelevant, and the satellite data now is in good agreement with both predictions and ground-based observations. "Particles per million" is not a reasonable unit, certainly not one applied to CO2. And an increase of "only 60 parts per million" (using the correct unit) is an increase of more than 20%. And so on... --Stephan Schulz 16:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC) +
No, my dear Dr. Stephan, if you read it you will see Crichton quotes nearly all his arguments from published scientific journals and essays, and the only reason I don't enumerate them here is due to their lengthiness. (Also see the writings of Bjorn Lomborg.)
I especially love the "if all the methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) ever produced from all the animals, and all the CO2 that there was before it rose 20%, wasn't heating up the Earth, why should this slight addition to the Earth's atmosphere make any difference whatsoever?" argument that I gave.
That shows about the depth of your understanding. "All the methane ever produced" is irrelevant, as methane has a rather short atmospheric lifetime (it decomposes into water and CO2), so it does not accumulate in the same way as CO2. The recent incerease in methane concentration tracks the increase in current production, not the increase in total production. And all the CO2 and methane (and other greenhouse gases) did heat up the Earth, by about 30 degrees centigrade. See the causes section in the very article we are discussing. We are adding more greenhouse gases, and the planet heats up more. --Stephan Schulz 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And actually, putting in perspective that 60 ppm was the total increase deserves to be in the article, doesn't it? Why shouldn't it be there? And many still maintain that this rise in temperature is part of a natural flux, and Antarctica isn't in a dire meltdown, because the ice on most of it (besides the Peninsula, which only makes up 2% of its mass) is actually thickening, and the whole idea was cooked up to earn money for the environmentalists. And even if it's not true, it's believed by a significant enough amount of people to earn mention here.
...and all this is a mixture of truth and nonsense, unattributed and without references, and at best confusing the issue. The CO2 concentration, for example already is in the article, only sourced and more precisely ("The longest continuous instrumental measurement of carbon dioxide mixing ratios began in 1958 at Mauna Loa. Since then, the annually averaged value has increased monotonically by approximately 21% from the initial reading of 315 ppmv, as shown by the Keeling curve, to over 380 ppmv in 2006."). As you can see, it's a bit over 60ppm, and that's only for the time since 1958 (there was a non-trivial additional increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution). Have you actually ever read our article? --Stephan Schulz 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And I didn't say the urban heat island effect was causing global warming (which is not true), I said it was disrupting and corrupting the data and measurements taken near large cities (which are primary sites for weather stations and the like- which is true- or at least deserving mention in such a sophisticated scientific article as this)--------Nufacion
...and I was making the argument that the UHI is doing nothing like that, as shown by a number of studies comparing urban and rural stations, areas where urbanization has increased with areas where it hasn't, and other independent temperature records. --Stephan Schulz 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Schulz seems to be making the argument that if a novel includes references to scientific papers, then those references must be phony. This seems like a fallacious argument to me.
Indeed. That's why I did not make this argument. But a novel is not a scientific paper. There is no peer review, the author is free to pick and distort sources, to quote out of context, ans so on. All this possibly even with a good conscience, as he typically is not even qualified to judge the overal literature. --Stephan Schulz 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
To use an example from politics, do reports of the Cambodian genocide become phony simply because someone dramatizes them in "The Killing Fields"? --Uncle Ed 16:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You have cunningly missed the point. You cannot cite TKF as a source on Cambodia; you can use the reports in it. You cannot use SoF; you can use the papers it cites. But to do that, you have to actually read them, not just accept Crichtons misrepresentations William M. Connolley 16:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I sincerely apologize. I did not wish to debate semantics; the point is, the scientific sources he quotes are convincing. And I already starting to check out his quotes and references, because I assumed some of you would challenge his quotes, which happen to be DIRECT QUOTES, thus not "misrepresentations". Harrumph! Now, can anyone debate the fact that a sizable amount (about 50%) of climatologists, with considerable scientific backing, deny human-induced global warming? I don't mean to enter a revert war, but I really want truth to be told here! And alternate opinions deserve mention!--------Nufacion
Where did you get the "50%" figure? As someone who is familiar with the literature and regulary attends professional conferences on the topic, this statistic comes as quite a surprise. Raymond Arritt 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"The natives are restless". 'Nuff said. I tire of debating, and bid you all adieu.---------Nufacion 17:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Now back to the issue of semi-protect. Yesterday there was a rise in vandalism by anon users, so the semi-protect was justifiable. However one comment in this discussion does disturb me: ::: "I think we should thank Nuf for making such a convincing case for semi-pro :-) William M. Connolley 12:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)". Semi-protection should not be used as a response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others. Ramsquire 18:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The characters :-) at the end of William's post indicate that the comment was made in jest; perhaps you are unfamiliar with such web shorthand. You are of course correct that (semi-)protection is not to be used in the case of content disputes per Wikipedia policy. Raymond Arritt 18:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand he was joking. If I felt he was serious I would have reported him to the Incident notice board or warned him. It's just that considering he's an administrator it can easily be taken the wrong way, as it was by Nufacion. Ramsquire 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Since when does WP policy rule this article? Kyaa the Catlord 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
December 8th, 2001, 4:08 a.m. --Stephan Schulz 21:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope to say this only once: there is clearly no scientific nor general public consensus, as seen in these articles, and, as to the reality of human-induced global warming, whether it is true or not. It is not a "small minority" of scientists, nor a group of industrial lackeys seeking to grow fat on the profits of ruining the planet for the next generation; as such, global warming is a legitimate scientific debate in which both sides deserve equal mention. Now, I do not care if you think the dissenting scientists are misguided and acting on false information, but bear in mind that as strongly as you believe in something, it can only make it YOUR unshakable belief, and you will never, ever be able to make those who disagree with you just disappear, merely because you know you are right. Now, regardless of what you think are proofs of global warming, human-induced or otherwise, there is a clear voice of dissent in this debate. There, I've said my part; the rest is up to the wikipedians to decide. Nufacion 12:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Peiser. You can also cite Prof. Dr. William A. Dembski, cite books like Of Pandas and People cite articles written by Ann Coulter to show that there is no concesus among scientists about evolution. Count Iblis 12:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Non-sequitur. This article isn't about evolution, it's about global warming. Furthermore, Of Pandas and People is a creationist book — hardly a source for reliable information about legitimate scientific disagreements. And Ann Coulter has no qualifications whatsoever to write about science.
Back to the subject of global warming: The first article Nufacion references above does say that scientists disagree on whether global warming is induced by humans, not whether global warming needs to be "proven" — on that point scientists have total consensus. I agree that this Wikipedia article should be modified to remove the "only a small minority of scientists disagree" POV. The second article is irrelevant, as it only describes public and political opinion, which has no relevance to conclusions from science. -Amatulic 18:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Complaints of a few scientists who couldn't get their article published is not evidence that the "only a small minority..." sentence is wrong. Ann Coulter is as qualified to write about science as the Heartland Institute is where Nufacion quoted from. She can inteview Prof. Dembski saying that there is no consensus about evolution. If you are willing to use propaganda, then you can prove almost everything. Count Iblis 19:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to talk about Dembski's qualifications to speak about his perceieved "lack of consensus" go over to the Intelligent Design page or the William Dembski page; he's no scientist (his field is mathematics and theology), and besides, Dembski is irrelevant to this article. Coulter interviewing a creationist about science says nothing; she's not qualified to write about a subject that she only learns about from the creationist propaganda wing. Furthermore, if, as you say "only a few scientists" couldn't get their article published, that certainly is evidence that the "only a small minority" statement is correct. A better statement would be that, among the articles that were plublished, no consensus is evident regarding human activity being the cause of global warming. -Amatulic 20:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
But actually, among the articles that are published, a very strong consensus is evident. Go check Peiser's alleged refutation of Oreskes yourself - his classification of articles as opposed to the consensus is laughable. BTW, the full Bray and Von Storch Survey is here. Apart from the one question that sceptics like to extract from it (which, for example, does not distinguish between current climate change and paleo climate change), there are a couple of other interesting ones. E.g. "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway." has 82% to 12% support. "There is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions." is 15% to 80%. Looking at the famous "Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes", it is 55% to 30% despite the unclear question, and "The IPCC reports accurately reflect the consensus of thought within the scientific community." is 72% to 20%. Of course, this survey is statistically very problematic anyways, as it is a self-selected group, and very open to ballot stuffing.--Stephan Schulz 21:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you just shot yourself in the foot on that one Stephan. When only slightly more than half agree that GW is anthropogenic and nearly a third disagree, you certainly don't have a "very strong consensus". Also, the 12% disagreement that GW is even happening and 20% disagreement on the IPCC are good arguments for the position that skeptics are more than "only a small minority". Here are some other responses that showcase the lack of consensus among the scientific community:
Climate models accurately verify the climatic conditions for which they are calibrated:
Evenly split (mean score = 3.94)
Climate models can accurately predict climatic conditions of the future:
Slight disagreement (4.53)
The current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of:
· Inter-annual variability:
Even (4.01)
· Climatic variability of time scales of 10 years:
Slight disagreement (4.51)
· 100 years:
Slight disagreement (4.78)
· >100 years:
Slight disagreement (5.11)
The level of disagreement gets stronger the farther out you go.
To what degree can we explicitly state the detrimental effects that climate change will have on society?:
Ambivalent (4.22)
Natural scientists have established enough physical evidence to turn the issue of global climate change over to social scientists for matters of policy discussion:
Split (4.11)
Does the media provide too much coverage, about the right amount of coverage (middle of the scale) or too little coverage for the following:
· Conflicting findings or conclusions reached by climate scientists:
Slightly too little (3.62)
· Worst case scenarios:
Slightly too much (4.78) 18:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Extra Information and Sources

--Jayson Virissimo 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Need to restructure and separate science from politics

This article needs to be re-structured in order to:

  • Put the whole issue in perspective.
  • Separate the science from the politics as far as possible - and admit that it's extremely difficult to separate the science and the politics completely.

To put global warmimg in perspective we have to look at natural temperature variation:

  • Geologists and paleontologists agree that the earth is currently about 3°C below its long-term average over the last 500M years. For example: (a) the fossil record shows that since the appearance of large land plants vegetation we now regard as sub-tropical has usually been present in atreas which were around the Arctic circle at the time; (b) plankton groups which require warm temperatures have flourished at much higher latitudes than they do now; (c) 15M year old fossils of hippos and crocs have been found in East Anglia (England), which was at the same latitude as it is now; (d) oxygen isotope ratios in sedimentary rocks (
  • In particular "in the high Arctic, sea surface temperatures rose to a sub-tropical ~23°C/73°F" during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
  • Geologists agree that we are living in an interglacial within an ice age, and that the ice will return - although estimates of when range from 2,000 to 50,000 years. Barring human intervention, the Earth's short-term future is a series of alternations between glaciations lasting for 50,000-200,000 years and interglacials lasting 10,000-50,000 years. These cycles will end only when the continents move to positions which allow tropical ocean currents to warm both of the poles. The glaciations (especially the next one) will impact most severely the temperate zones of N America and Eurasia, which are currently home to the world's greatest economic, technological and military powers - i.e. the next glaciation may well cause World War 3, especially if the transition is sudden (decades rather than centuries).
  • In the early 1970s scientists were concerned that the cooling from 1945 to the early 1970s signalled the onset of the next glaciation.

In other words life on earth has survived significantly higher temperatures, the ice will be back and its consequences could be a threat to life on earth (WW 3), and climatology is so complex that scientific opinion has about-faced in the last 30 or so years.

From a scientific or at least relatively non-political view the important questions are:

  • Is there a significant climate change at present? And over what timescales? Historical evidence shows that the climate changes on several different timescales, and short-term changes may sometimes oppose long-term trends.
  • How much of any current climate change is due to human activity?
  • Is the temperature changing faster than it has changed at any earlier time without being associated with a mass extinction? (In treating this as an important question I'm expressing a value judgement, that mass extinctions are to be avoided if feasible. That shows how hard it is to separate the political and scientific aspects).

The subject gets very political as soon as we ask the obvious next question: If the temperature is currently changing and we think the rate or expected size of change is undesirable, how much can we do about it?

Reasons why it gets political:

  • "Who wins and who loses?" runs through the debate at all levels, from regions / countries (e.g. Florida and Bangladesh are very vulnerable to rises in sea level; and issues of intellectual property rights versus technology transfer) through the effects within national economies (products and servies which use a lot of fossil fuels versus alternatives which use less) to individuals (why should I suffer increased costs or inconvenience for the sake of people in other countries where I don't even get a vote?).
  • People whose general political beliefs are left-of-centre will prefer the interventionist implications of research that says there is a serious problem; people with right-of-centre political beliefs will be more willing to believe research that suggests there is no significant problem.
  • Officials will have a bias towards the idea that there is a serious problem, because the taxes and / regualtions required to deal with such a problem will mean larger and possibly new bureaucratic empires.
  • Politicians always want to be seen to be doing something, which gives them a bias towards interventionism.
  • Modern science is too complex and large-scale for the well-heeled amateurs of the 19th century. The need for research grants makes scientists vulnerable to political pressures. Then scientific empires are built on the grants and those who criticise the "orthodox" view risk being frozen out or publicly reviled (for an account of how this happened in a scientific controversy with no political implications, see As Max Planck pointed out, "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents ..., but rather because its opponents eventually die" - in other words once scientific positions become entrenched no amount of contray evidence will change them quickly.
  • The complexity of modern science baffles the general public, who respond by taking sides too early and with insufficient information (

You will notice that politicians and officials (who dispense research grants) have a systematic bias towards research which supports interventionist policies.

Literature surveys like that by Oreskes only reflect the current distribution of research grants and should not be quoted here - or ever: a literature survey in 1500 AD would have supported the view that the Earth is flat.

Despite being a "feature article", the Global warming article falls into the following traps:

  • By ignoring the history of the Earth's climate in the Phanerozoic, it presents the issues in the context favoured by the alarmists and interventionists and therefore biases the article towards their point of view.
  • It fails to warn readers of the highly political nature of the debate, and particularly about the systematic bias of politicians and officials and the bias this injects into scientific research.

These failings make it urgent to revise the article.

At the same time it is necessary first to make sure that the result fits into the structure of Wikipedia, particularly in relation to the climate change article:

  • Excessive duplication of content is wasteful and, more importantly, creates a risk of inconsistencies that increases as further research is incorporated.
  • Too many bare cross-references make it difficult to follow a subject.
  • So the editors need to decide which article should contain the main content on each aspect of global warming or climate change, and whether other articles should summarise (very briefly; with links to the main content) or simply link using very understandable link text, or even amplify the content of the main article (e.g. I think Global warming should point out more explicitly than Climate change that to-day's Earth is cooler than at most times in the last 500M years and that the ice will return).

Philcha 22:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you've had a good meal. Anyways, I doubt you will achieve consensus for a complete rewrite. This article intentionally concentrates on the science of global warming. Adding more politics will almost certainly not lead to an improvement. You are also bringing in an unlucky mix of the irrelevant (development of climate over geological periods of time), the wrong (scientists were not seriously concerned about glaciation in the 1970s), and the misleading (we are currently in the middle of a mass extinction, so why should climate change without a mass extinction be particularly interesting for evaluating the current situation?). You might have more luck with concrete suggestions for improvement. Or be bold and just improve the article - of course, keeping in mind that it is a featured article already, and that many parts are the result of long debates and represent fairly stable compromises.--Stephan Schulz 22:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Stephan, thanks for the prompt response, and for your "bon appetit" (I had to interrupt my comments to have dinner - or a divorce; Stephan responded before I'd quite finished).
I've added to my initial comments the items I had in mind before the dinner break - no offence meant to you, Stephan; I thought it would be clearer if I finished my initial comments before responding to your response.
The controversy about global warming is probably the most politicised since the controversy about Darwinism, where the public debate between Thomas Henry "Darwin's bulldog" Huxley and "Soapy" Sam Wilberforce may have set at least a 19th century low in standards of scientific discussion ( Right now I can think of only 1 other scientific controversy which reached a similar level of politicisation - the one about heliocentrism. So I think the Global warming article needs a strong early warning, "here be political dragons", in order to: (a) warn users who are new to the subject but trust Wikipedia that all articles on global warming, wherever they appear and whichever view they support, should be viewed with critical sceptcism; (b) warn users who have read a lot of other articles about global warming that they probably need to clear their minds of a lot of prejudices and muddled thinking.
I think my references to climate change over geological time are justifiable and valuable: (a) to establish the size of the scientific issue using the only reasonable yardstick; (b) to illustrate how the political factors have possibly given the recent evidence of global warming more prominence than its place in the history of life on earth suggests it should have; (c) to point out that we need to keep an eye on at least one other type of climate change which might have worse consequences.
Scientists were concerned about glaciation in the early 1970s, according to the Global cooling article -

In 1972 Emiliani warned of the possibility of "a runaway glaciation", unless human-caused global warming instead causes "a runaway deglaciation". By 1972 a large majority of a group of leading glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that "the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near"; .....

Note there is no cite to support this assertion. Skyemoor 10:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the lack of specific citation is unsatisfactory. I should have quoted the statement by F K Hare at a WMO conference in 1979 instead (
Philcha 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thats what's behind the cn tag. I wondered. There is no doubt that people talked about glaciation. But as the quote makes perfectly clear, there was no certainty about which way it would go. Unlike today William M. Connolley 12:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I admit paleontologists agree that we are in the middle of a mass extinction. I'd forgotten that when I wrote "faster than it has changed at any earlier time without being associated with a mass extinction". But I think the Holocene extinction justifies my choice of criterion - I was aiming to focus attention on the possible consequences of human-induced warming; the Holocene extinction may be largely due to human activities (over-hunting; habitat loss; importation of species into environments in which they were not a normal part of the ecosystem), but these factors are separate from human-induced warming and the remedies (if required and possible) will be different.
The fact that Global warming is a featured article proves nothing - I recently found that the featured article about dinosaurs contains some very serious defects in the definition of a dinosaur (see the discussion page, since the content page has been locked to prevent vandalism).
But the fact that Global warming is a featured article means that (a) a lot of people have invested a lot of effort in it, so it would be pointless to make major changes without first explaining why and trying to get some agreement; (b) it has to fit into the context of related articles; (c) it's important to minimise the risk of inconsistency with related articles.
Philcha 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I am curious Pilcha. You seem to use global cooling as evidence of how little climate scientists know about the predictability of these things. Yet, the article on global cooling states "Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend was not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood..." which does not really corroborate your point... This makes me wonder, have you read the entire article? I may be wrong about the reason for which you included such reference, if I am, why is it that you included any reference to global cooling...? Brusegadi 00:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Brusegadi. Yes, I read the whole of Global cooling. We are both referring to the section "Concern in the Middle of the Twentieth Century", which mostly quotes names and dates, describes the evidence available at the time and indicates that in the early 1970s scientific opinion was divided on the issue. The sentence you quote simply says that scientists did not know enough to make quantitative predictions, e.g. X degrees cooling in Y years. But the final part of "Concern in the Middle of the Twentieth Century" quotes F K Hare, an eminent climatologist, as saying in 1979 (!), "the weight of evidence clearly favours cooling to the present date... The striking point, however, is that interannual variability of world temperatures is much larger than the trend... it is difficult to detect a genuine trend...". So Hare thought in 1979 that the situation was still very unclear but there was at least as much reason to be concerned about cooling as about warming.
I referred to global cooling because (a) There has been a significant change in scientific opinion about climate change; (b) The press' over-reaction in the 1970s to concerns about global cooling is a good example of what I said about the general public taking a position too quickly with too little knowledge: (c) I think the return of glaciation deserves as much attention as warming, because the historical (paleoclimatological) evidence indicates that the ice will return and we still have no idea when or what degree of early warning we may get.

Philcha 11:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hares stuff [15] shows that he thought the situation was uncertain, but by 1979 this was no longer the majority view. You are wrong about the press, though: press articles were few and far between, and on the whole uncertain too. You cannot compare that to the current situation where we have near daily press reports about GW William M. Connolley 12:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In my view there is a parallelism between gw ang its cooling counterpart, just not in the way Philcha would think. I think that in both cases there is a minority of scientists who believe one thing and a majority who believe the opposite. In the case of global cooling, the minority believed that we were returning to an ice age... All the quotes that you can get about going to an ice age, will come from scientists that belonged to what turned out to be a minority. The majority of scientists believed that there was not enough info to make any informed decisions. As the data became more and more abundant, they began to understand that cooling was just temporary. The same thing happens with global warming. There is a small minority that says that there is no climate warming. Yet, the great majority believe there is. The parallelism is not obvious because on the one hand the minority advodcated a change in world temperatures (cooling) and the majority advocated no change or reserved judgement. On the other hand (warming) the majority is the one advodcating for change (warming) and a minority says no change. Brusegadi 18:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I tried to claim there was uncertainty, I was shot down; I claimed there is a debate about whether there is uncertainty, I was yelled at; now I claim there is a dispute about whether there is a debate about the uncertainty, and I hope at least this I shall be granted.Nufacion 09:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Your last "attempt" at this page was 9 days ago - hardly an active contribution. It was [16] and it was absurd. You added "There's an active dispute on whether global warming of other planets should be referred to in this opening. See the talk page" as a comment - no such "active" debate exists. You added "purported" to "observed increase" - this too is absurd, since only the wild fringes dispute that the temperature has actually gone up. In the middle of the *scientifc* intro you added Still, many digress and believe that the "threat" of global warming is merely a tool of environmental agencies to gain funding for their research and frighten the world into yielding them political and economic power. - is it any surprise you get reverted? If you want to try to add seriously to the science, you'd be welcome. If you're just dumping your own POV in and raiding tags, you're not William M. Connolley 10:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Nucacion made questionable assertions that he could not back up, then he simply left the debate. If he wants to achieve acceptance of his points, then he needs to sufficiently support them. Skyemoor 10:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Not "questionable" but flat wrong. For example, charitably allowing that his "60 particles per million" increase was a typo for parts per million, the actual increase of CO2 since the pre-industrial era is nearly double his value (about 110 ppm). Most of his other contributions shared this level of scientific rigor. Raymond Arritt 13:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the circular logic is a bit strange (read, confusing). Debating about a debate about a debate about a debate... The only thing that can be achieved with that is the confusion of those who are new to our talk page. If you are reading this, and got confused by that, I advice you to simply ignore it. Brusegadi 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Include information on Green Party in Germany's Plan to Close Germany's Nuclear Plants and How This Helps Global Warming

This article should include information about the Green Party in Germany's plans to close all of Germany's many nuclear plants and what effect this will have on global warming and Germany's compliance with the Kyoto Accord. For example how many fossil fueled power plants will have to be built to replace the lost power and how much CO2 will they emit.

Or do they plan to replace the power? If they have some novel solution to power plants it would be very interesting to all of us. The number of power plants they will shut down is a significant number. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 13 October 2006.

The position of an opposition party even in a major industrialized nation is not of serious encylopedic interest in an article that concentrates on the science of global warming. However, Germany (not just the green party) has an official phase-out plan for nuclear power, negotiated between stakeholders during the last (social democratic/green) gouvernment, and still in force. Germany plans to meet Kyoto targets by a) energy saving, b) use of renewable energy (with support especially for building wind farms and solar rooftops) and c) switch from coal (and, to a lesser degree, oil) to natural gas, still a fossil fuel, but less carbon-intensive. But still, this should go into Kyoto Treaty or Mitigation of global warming, not the main article.--Stephan Schulz 11:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you added up the mega-watts that need to be replaced? There is not enough area in Germany for all those wind turbines. My guess is that Germany will build coal fired plants in Poland and import the electricity. Poland gets a break in Kyoto formulas, so the Greens will be pleased. Meanwhile megatons of additonal CO2 will go into the atmosphere. If Germany replaces with natural gas, still megatons of additional CO2 go into the atmosphere and Germany becomes a vasal of Russian foreign policy (or else they turn off the gas some cold winter morning).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
Right, the 12% renewable electricity generation in Germany, mostly achieved by wind turbines, has nearly filled the land up with them. I can't even move...a....bit...argh... Hardern 15:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Also note that I have not commented on the plausibility, but stated the official position. Yes, to simply replace nuclear power with fossil fuels will increase the CO2 load. But even if that happens, by reducing emissions elsewhere (e.g. by moving from oil burners to modern low-temperature gas burners for home heating, or by reusing industrial process heat) you can still reduce overall emissions. If this will be achieved is a guess - I'm apparently more optimistic there than you are.--Stephan Schulz 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Germany leads the world in building wind turbines and I applaud them for it. But I cannot understand the logic of replacing nuclear plants instead of their coal fired plants, particularly since most German plants burn lignite coal. Lignite is the diritest coal in terms of combustion by-products and has the least BTUs per pound of any type of coal. While nuclear does not generate CO2, which is why I brought this up.
As to wind power replacing either nuclear or coal power in Germany, I am afraid that is very unlikely. Germany currently has about 17,000 MWs of wind-electric generating capacity and projects that to grow to 48,000 MWs by the year 2020. Germany's nuclear plants generated 21,000 MW in 2002 (source: WorldEnergy Org.).
Germany would appear to be on track except that wind is not constant. A wind turbine's average generating output is only 10-20% of the rated capacity of the generator.
What is your source of information on this? Looking at the Wind power article, you'll see solid references that show an average of 25% load in the EU, with new installations achieving 35% and over. Please focus on references of high veracity. Skyemoor 11:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Using the optimistic figure, Germany would have to build 100,000 MW of wind turbines. Don't believe me? The following are quotes from E.ON Netz GmbH which operates 40% of Germany's wind-electric capacity:
Page 4 of the report (Wind Report 2005) states: "Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times." (source: E.ON Netz GmbH, Wind Report 2005, p.4)
Denmark now uses wind power for over 20% of its electrical demand, relying on hydropower to both store excess power and to dispatch stored power when needed. The E.ON report does not list their assumptions for such pronouncements, and on that basis alone (and there are others as well) cannot be considered a reliable reference. Skyemoor 11:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Page 9 states: "As wind power capacity rises, the lower availability of the wind farms determines the reliability of the system as a whole to an ever increasing extent. Consequently the greater reliability of traditional power stations becomes increasingly eclipsed.
As a result, the relative contribution of wind power to the guaranteed capacity of our supply system up to the year 2020 will fall continuously to around 4% (FIGURE 7).
In concrete terms, this means that in 2020, with a forecast wind power capacity of over 48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of traditional power production can be replaced by these wind farms. "(source: E.ON Netz GmbH, Wind Report 2005, p.9)
The above means that the wind-electric capacity projected for the year 2020 (2,000 MW) will replace fewer than 2 of Germany's 19 nuclear reactors.
You can find and English version of this report at:

If you don't think you need all those non-wind-electric generating capacity reserves, read this: "On Christmas Eve 2004, wind production in Germany fell 4000 MW in 10 hours, representing the capacity of eight 500 MW coal-fired power plants! This created an enormous challenge for the operators of the grid and it could easily have led to a vast blackout in central Europe." (source: E.ON Netz GmbH, Wind Report 2005)
Well if you have read this far then you now know more than you ever wanted to know about wind turbines. Sorry for not being more concise. But the lack of logic in Germany's decisions are infuriating.
There are a number of problems in your reading of the E.On brochure. First, E.On is also Germany's biggest operator of nuclear power stations, with 50% of E.On electricity generated via nuclear power, and that they are currently trying to prolong the life of their power stations for purely economic reasons. This just might influence their view a bit. Secondly, they are talking about online capacity, not operating capacity. Those 90% reserve capacity can be idle as long as the weather is fine. And with offshore windparks, a suitable energy mix, and large-scale grid exchange, the problem is signifcantly reduced. However, all of this is still off-topic for the global warming article. It might be worthy for the mitigation article, but even there it smacks of activism and original research. Keep in mind that we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not to cure all evils of the planet. --Stephan Schulz 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
How can you define the citing of credible sources as original research? I cited E.On's which operates a asignificant number of Germany's wind-turbines. Their point is that, like the weather, wind energy varies. This means that not only do you have to maintain a 90% reserve capacity, but you will have to build many more turbines that the number sugested by the rated capacity of wind turbines. This is because the wind does not blow with a constant speed. The average energy delivered in a day is a fraction of the rated capacity of the turbine.
That is a simple assertion that appears logical on its face, but begs for supporting information. What have been the statistics of wind variability over the last 10 years at the 100+ meter level (where wind turbines now operate)? Just saying they are variable proves nothing, as nuclear power itself is variable depending upon scheduled maintenance and unscheduled repairs. Skyemoor 11:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
My entire purpose was to discuss what I thought was an important issue: Germany has no credible plan for meeting Kyoto. In fact Germany's current plan will add huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. Germany's good intentions do not equate to a credible plan.
I had thought I was taking part in a logical and polite discussion. If that "smacks" of activism, fine. This will be my last post.
Actions to mitigate global warming belong in the article Mitigation of global warming. No need to be upset, simply understand that in an encyclopedia, information needs to be categorized efficiently, otherwise chaos would ensue. Skyemoor 11:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this FAC quality?

I haven't been active on this page for a while now (I occasionally revert vandalism, not much else) and I'm a bit disappointed it seems to have deteriorated. In fact, I'm pretty tempted to take it to WP:FAR. Reasons: the lead needs quite a bit of work to conform to WP:LEAD, using direct external links as refs makes it look extremely unprofessional (meta:cite would be much better), several of the sub-sections under Predicted effects are stubby, as are those under Other related issues. Mikker (...) 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Direct links was thrashed to death during the FAC discussion so is irrelevant. The lead section is largely unchanged since it became a FA so I can't see that as important (or so I thought... actually its been shuffled around a bit [17]; but most of the rest is largely unchanged). The "relation to" sections are deliberately short William M. Connolley 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm fully aware WIAFA doesn't require inline cites to be in any particular format, but suggesting having external links for cites is "irrelevant" is going a bit too far IMO. The article would look much better and be far more usable were the meta:cite template used. Secondly, I'm not much concerned whether the lead has changed or not, I'm concerned that, as it stands, it is not adequate. (maybe this point slipped past people of FAC). Lastly, are section stubs a good idea? Either the info should be included (in which case it should be done properly) or it shouldn't be (in which case it should be deleted)... Mikker (...) 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The FA process was fairly thorough, I don't think that would "slip past". As the diff shows, this article hasn't changed much since FA, si I don't see any grounds for de-listing. I find inline refs more usable than refs; I don't understand your point about section stubs. These are things that often come up; they need brief coverage here but are more fully done elsewhere. What exactly are you referring to? William M. Connolley 22:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I think I didn't make myself clear then. I'm not suggesting the article ought to be FARC-ed, I'm saying it should be fixed. The FAR process (it's fairly new) is designed to "facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to addressing more involved issues" (See WP:FAR). I'm not suggesting GW is bad enough to be delisted, I'm saying it's bad enough to need some improvement. I'm fairly regularly on FAC & I'd most certainly vote (weak) oppose to GW on its lead and I'm referring to sections containing only a couple of sentences... Mikker (...) 00:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Climate change

User: has added a merge tag to suggest merging climate change with global warming without any discussion. The merge suggestion also does not seem to be listed at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I don't think this suggestion has any merrit - one article deals with climate change in general, the other one with the ongoing episode of (mostly) GHG driven global warming. Unless there is significant support, I'm going to remove the tags. --Stephan Schulz 22:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Kill! William M. Connolley 22:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. Mikker (...) 22:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If an anon can add that, why do we have to wait so much time to simply remove it??? To be a good American made capitalist I will say 'Just Do it' Brusegadi 01:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, right. But I normally prefer to hand out some rope for self-hanging. Thanks for getting rid of this.... --Stephan Schulz 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger, as most everyone knows, is one of the original founders of Wikipedia. When asked about Wikipedia, he had this to say: "The latest articles don't represent a consensus view - they tend to become what the most persistent 'posters' say." Daily Mail article

So much for all the skeptics who claim this article over-represents the "consensus" - now we have n less than Larry S to say otherwise ;-) William M. Connolley 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Quite to the contrary, Sanger's quote supports the skeptical contention that this article misrepresents the existence of a consensus view. 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope, Sanger left this project because it gives a person with no knowledge and an agenda the same editing powers as a world renowned expert in their field. Politicised topics tend to become wars of persistence. It is to the great credit of WMC, Stephan, and a few others that this article has survived countless attempts to include misinformation. Mostlyharmless 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well on the articles I monitor, the "winners" in these "wars" tend to be those who follow NPOV, with a high degree of verability and in articles like this, based on the most up to date science. So I think the system by and large works. But then I might be biased. --Michael Johnson 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I won't labour the point, but this serves to express some of my concerns. Mostlyharmless 12:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


This [18] is wrong (its in response to the Svensmark cloud chamber stuff, which doesn't demonstrate it anyway, but...) because the GCRs is just a subset of the solar variation (GCRs themselves don't change; they are modulated by solar variation, which is then supposed to change the clouds William M. Connolley 13:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Can somebody please show the difference between the North atlantic drift and the Thermohaline circulation. It appears in the article as if they are the same thing, but I thought they were different. Also, i think more needs to be added to altrnate theories- it is still not completely proven that it is global warming. i think this should be mentioned --Chickenfeed9 12:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)