Talk:Global warming/Archive 58

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 65

Change to Leade, Wording clarrification

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

Arctic amplification of climate change is very widely accepted -- regardless of whether one considers past changes or future changes, or whether the global change is anthropogenic or natural. It's fundamental to how the climate system works. There's also no "both artic" regions; there's the Arctic, and Antarctica. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have heard people refer to both poles as the Artic Regions, that must just be a misunderstanding on my part. I am not saying that the Artic will not warm, only that the paragraph states definatively that it will be strongest in the Artic, do we know for sure that it would not be stronger in say sub-artic Siberia, or sub-artic Canada, or Greenland or thousands of other places? I would say it is not possible to say what areas would experience the greatest warming in the future. The second change from will to would is a grammatical/stlyistic change. "Would" is showing that retreat in glaciers is a characteristic of global warming in the Artic. Arzel (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you're thinking about the term "polar regions". The term arctic comes from an ancient Greek word referring to the constellation of the Great Bear. --TS 15:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Since I cannot even find a section in the main article that makes this points it doesn't even belong in the lede to begin with. Also, I would ask that you AGF, I read the section, noticed that it made a future statement of fact which doesn't appear to be possible to make and isn't even backed up in the main article. Arzel (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
All this fiddling with the lede is a symptom of Not Enough Real Things To Do. If you have nothing but this to contribute to the climate change articles, then find something else of interest to edit William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If you have nothing better to do than attack other editors perhaps you should not even be editing on WP. Arzel (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I was going to say something like that. I have plenty of real things to do - re-write the "Feedback" section so it tells us which are +ve and which -ve. Re-title and re-write the "Dissent" section. We could divvy some of these things up between us because there's no shortage. Find the part of the IPCC that said Himalayan glaciation would be almost gone by 2035, insert it and then insert a grovelling apology. Write up "Arctic to be free of ice by 2013" and it's denial. Write up the 20 years of cooling that we could be getting and explain how it's been missed ignored for 8 years but doesn't affect the overall picture. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2035: if you're clueless about that (as you do appear to be) go read the crit of Ar4 article, where you'll find it all laid out in detail William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I found that exact article before you prompted me - but I did it with Google, there are no clues of any kind here. Even finding it again via WP was clumsy, I had to enter "AR4" in the search box and search for "2035" in the IPCC AR4 article. Oops, it's not there! Fortunately, having gained some experience I know to search for "criticism", from which I discover the sub-article Criticism of IPCC AR4.
So that's how I discover that WMC's already been there (before the scandal broke in the newspapers) and written it up to say that the WWF meant to predict that, in the next 200 to 300 years, the glaciers will shrink from 500,000 km2 to 100,000km2 and meant to give the date of this as 2350 (mis-printing it as 2035, the wrong figure picked up by the IPCC). So the IPCC is in the clear (other than the lack of common sense). However, the changes you've made so far do not deal with the damaging allegation that the WWF report was not peer-reviewed research, and yet, that's what was used when writing the 2007 report!
If you weren't fielding my objections here, you would be completing "Criticism of IPCC AR4" article with the other needed information .... however, pestilential people are still going to come here and expect to be informed.
WP obviously can't compete with Google (even on information already contained in an article here!) but once I'm here, the article should inform me and answer specific questions that I have. Believe it or not, that's what brought me here in the first place (Dr William Happer, then soot).
I don't have many of the answers to make this article a credit to you, but I can tell you it is uninformative now and that commenting on editors rather than on the article still further highlights concerns about POV. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Moved this IP reply to me to my page. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Try reading it again, in particular It has been suggested that this report should not have been used, as it does not appear to be peer-reviewed [7]. However, IPCC rules [8] permit the use of non-peer-reviewed material, providing it is "internationally available". William M. Connolley (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
IPCC AR4 comes in 4 volumes of print, and it's incredibly difficult to read eg "some paragraphs and graphics were repeated up to five times – in SYR SPM, SYR TS, a WG TS, a WG ES, and a WG chapter, in similar but not identical forms.".
So I did a search for "peer" (at, using the trusty "site:" command in Google) and the first entry I came across was p.10 of IPCC Meetings Session 28: "The credibility of the IPCC reports is based on the fact that they summarize and integrate existing research, which itself has been scrutinized through publication in peer-review journals."
Did nobody tell them?
Actually, the next sentence but one might be even more relevant to our deliberations: "It is critical to communicate better how the statements in the reports are produced, because the thousands of supporting studies (and the work behind this) are not visible when these statements appear in newspapers and television.
I'm a believer. Or I was when I first came here as a visitor. Can it be that the IPCC process is operated in a way that make a travesty of "consensus" and hands the entire work-in-progress over to believers who reject anyone else's input?
To any of the people who once thought the direction I've taken is sound, but now think I'm repeating myself, please tell me to "shut up". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
"WMC's already been there ... and written it up to say ... misprint ...." those are significant allegations. Diff's please. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC) struck per User:MalcolmMcDonald on my talk page - no allegation was made. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
NB: For others ease - The IPCC rules for non-peer-reviewed material are on the last couple of pages at - I see nothing about providing it is "internationally available" with a quick skim. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Good grief, how much spoon-feeding do you need? It would be nice if you'd check with someone competent before doing your drive-by tagging. Don't do a "quick skim", do a text search, which is easy to do, since I've kindly (no, don't bother thank me, the shock would be too great) provided you with the key phrase "internationally available". If you do this, you get "Preparation of the first draft of a Report should be undertaken by Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors. Experts who wish to contribute material for consideration in the first draft should submit it directly to the Lead Authors. Contributions should be supported as far as possible with references from the peer-reviewed and internationally available literature, and with copies of any unpublished material cited. Clear indications of how to access the latter should be included in the contributions. For material available in electronic format only, a hard copy should be archived and the location where such material may be accessed should be cited. Lead Authors will work on the basis of these contributions, the peer-reviewed and internationally-available literature, including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer review literature according to Annex 2 and IPCC Supporting Material (see section 6). Material which is not published but which is available to experts and reviewers may be included provided that its inclusion is fully justified in the context of the IPCC assessment process (see Annex 2)." And so on and so forth. Is that clear enough for you? Can you now abandon your "Furthermore, blatant factual inaccuracies (IPCC criteria for non-peer-reviewed material, contradicts cited material)" nonsense? [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see someone else who uses "search" to find things they're interested in, I was afraid I might be the only one.
Does this mean I can insert a fleeting reference to Amazon, desertification, Antarctic, drought concerns and all the other things I've mentioned in order that people can find them and be sent to the right part of the article complex to be informed and get their questions answered? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
[PA removed - WMC] ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be much discussion regarding the main points of my suggestion I am going to take the silence as ambivalence and make the minor changes I suggested earlier. Arzel (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Please don't read this section selectively. The very first response to your original comment, which was made just 15 minutes after it, explains why your edit would be a bad idea. A comment by another editor later that same day also discussed it and rejected it. --TS 10:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Boris appeared to think I was saying that Arctic warming wouldn't happen, and didn't argue the actual merits of what I was saying. He made a constructive edit to my change which is still strong but doesn't attempt to make a definitive statement of fact. Nigel argued WP:LEDE to which I explained that the claim wasn't being made in the body of the article, and I don't see how you can summarize a non-statement. I didn't see a statement of fact in the literature, and from my experience in research, such a statement would never be made. Nigel then made no further comment. WMC made a non-constructive statement, and there was nothing after that. I let a substantial amount of time go by before I made the edit, but if you can provide references that clearly state this is a fact then by all means change it back. It is now worded as it would be in scientific literature, and I fail to see any problem that anyone would have. Arzel (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Do we all have to keep repeating ourselves every time you add a comment? You were wrong to say that the existing lede doesn't summarise the information in the current article. This is an overview, summary article and Arctic shrinkage is linked no fewer than three times. There is a link to polar amplification right in the lede of Arctic shrinkage. If we all had to spend time walking everyone with an erroneous view through every link in every article to explain the subject matter, we'd get nowhere. It's best to read the articles, have some background in the relevant subject matter, and make suggestions based on reading actual reliable sources that other editors may not have picked up on yet. --Nigelj (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe if you actually read what I said you wouldn't have to repeat yourself. I will say again, the lede made a statement of fact that was not backed up by the body of the article. Please assume good faith. BTW, the article on Polar Amiplification doesn't make that claim either, and the primary source for that article terms everything based on the likelihood that an event will happen. So not only is my edit not controversial, it reflects the science. I thought that is what you all wanted, but maybe you just want to argue. Arzel (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Time for a major rewrite of this article?

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

well, while I agree with the notion that this article has gone a bit stale, I don't think an offline, single user revision is going to make a difference. the 'staleness' is in the editing atmosphere, not the article itself, and unless things loosen up on the talk page any offline document made will either be a carbon copy of this article or will be rejected out-of-hand the same way current changes to the article are rejected. Mediation is probably the best approach, but (based on commentary at the last mediation attempt) I don't suppose people here are ready to go that route. sorry, I don't mean to be a complete naysayer, because I'd like to see this work. I just can't quite imagine how it would be successful. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me suggest that a RFC be conducted on issues for a rewrite, to collect many views, and then a team take up task in a user space. Really, I would like to see this process for many pages in the project. If it goes well here, then there is real hope for improvement. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I wish you luck and support your push for an RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Totally agree it is pointless to rewrite an article which is so obviously biased that no one takes it seriously any longer! (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

That's a question I've been quietly waiting to be answered. Count Iblis says you can tell the article is stale "by looking at the nature of the talk page discussions." What is it about the talk page discussions that suggests staleness in the article content? --TS 10:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Over the course of a few years, the article should be re-written with many people contributing. South Bay (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
well, I was waiting on Count Iblis, but I guess I'll go ahead and throw in my two cents worth. Any article that has developed a core group of editors who do nothing except sit around and block further development of the page is stale. It would be one thing if there was reasoned opposition to poor additions (which implies a certain open-mindedness and civility to people who propose changes, even if the changes won't work), but on this page, 90% of the responses are of the "sounds pointless" or "I don't like it" variety, and the few people who do try the reasonable approach get squelched out by a mass of irrelevant comments. I can point to about 6 major contributors to the page who really ought to take a wikibreak and regroup, because right now they are an impediment, not an asset. happens to the best of us, of course, but you all really ought to have the common sense to recognize when you've stepped over the line from maintaining an encyclopedic article to implicit page ownership. --Ludwigs2 19:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Any article that has developed a core group of editors who do nothing except sit around and block further development of the page - since that doesn't describe the current article, we don't have a problem by your defn. This isn't the only article on the subject. Why don't you display your undoubted talents by actually improving something rather than endless talk here? A quick review of your contribs doesn't show any substantive edits to any Cl Ch page other than this one. squelched out by a mass of irrelevant comments - yes, there I agree with you. There is far too much pointless chit-chat on this page. Alas, any attempt to deal with it is met by tedious cries of Censorship! William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs is right. there are other and better ways to deal with differing opinions on the article's content, than for one side to simply delete all edits or efforts of the other side. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
He is right to say that (though wrong to speak so casually of sides, as are you); he is wrong to assert that it occurs William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Right on Ludwigs, folks who sit around defending a POV can abstain from a pointless waste of time or an RFC, unless they feel like they own the content here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) please note, William, I said nothing about sides - I spoke of a core group of editors (who may or may not be doing it for the same reasons). And (speaking scientifically) it is unsurprising to hear you say that I'm wrong, because when I look over your contributions to this talk page, that seems to be all you ever say. Now, perhaps I've missed some place where you've made a reasoned argument, or discussed a proposed change fairly, or otherwise worked with other editors towards building consensus. If so, please point it out to me, because I'm not seeing it. Otherwise I'll just note this as one more example of typical, automatic naysaying. --Ludwigs2 21:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen you do anything cooperative and constructive here. All you've done so far is assert a will to change things, and ignore arguments and consensus against your proposals. Assertions doesn't buy the day. You will have to convince people, by arguments, not by attempting to outwill or wear people down by repetition. Being stubborn and not hearing what people say is not constructive. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
What would you have me do, Kim? I make proposals, but no one discusses them except to say they don't want to consider them. I could edit the article, but it would be reverted immediately. I could give up on the issue and go somewhere else (which I suppose is what everyone wants) but I'm not inclined to do that yet. I have what I think is a good basis for revisions, I'm happy to edit cooperatively with others, and neither of those makes one damned bit of difference since no one is willing to discuss or edit cooperatively with me.
Seriously, Kim, you tell me how I can work on this page in a productive manner and I will happily oblige (so long as it doesn't involve me acceding to indefensible misinformation without discussion). I'd love to know how, because all I can see here is a page which is just plain constipated. pushing may not help with constipation, but there aren't a whole lot of other options. --Ludwigs2 21:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't try to make it a personal problem, all about you, and those wicked others. The fact is that all your suggestions so far have revolved around turning this article into one that takes a 50/50 (or some other proportion) view, like, "Maybe GW exists, or maybe it doesn't. Now let's take a 'balanced' look at the two options". That is never going to take root in article about settled science in the modern world. This isn't a matter of a few biassed editors keeping an article 'stale', it is an example of sensible rational people keeping Wikipedia sane. There are other articles where the economic problems that GW raises get discussed, where public opinion worldwide is reported, where political debates on, and business interests in the subject are covered. They all need work. But trying to start by getting "maybe there's no such thing" inserted into this basic science article is never going to happen, I'm afraid. You're about 20 - 30 years too late for that, in the rational world. --Nigelj (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
[PA removed - WMC] --Ludwigs2 23:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been a lurker here for years, watching the article and the discussions that go on but never really taking part. I would like to say that serious attempts to improve the article are great but far to often people apply an agenda, dont truely understand the scientific process, or have any real understanding of climate science to begin with, or use blogs as the basis for their entire scientific knowledge (yikes)....That said, I've been reading many of your comments about changing the lead and have to agree with what others have said. I don't beleive you have been convincing that it needs changing. I think editors here are reasonable if your comments and support behind them are compelling. If there is a problem its that people are not able to convince other editors and get frustrated in that they lack enough background in climate science to be convincing.--Snowman frosty (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale in-real-time rewriting of a prominent FA is not practical. It would take forever for it to get hashed out. But I think it would be a very interesting exercise if those who are unsatisfied with the current article were to develop an alternative draft, say in someone's user space. If the result is better than the present article it could be adopted, or (more likely) sections of the current article could be replaced. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Whole-sale changes to this article are urgently needed. It is not fit for purpose, it does not inform and it does not provide answers to the questions that people have when they arrive here. I have one particular section in mind but I'm not prepared to unveil my new version yet. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The rewriting should follow this Wikipedia:Editing policy. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That can't be the policy being operated at this article since it says: "Try to preserve useful content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot". I've been pleading for days to be allowed to put back useful (perhaps vital) information about the Amazon, rain-forests, desertification, positive feedback etc.
I did try to find out all the special policies that are applied only to this suite of articles but my request was removed. I do worry that such behaviour is extremely disruptive and welcome the brave people who revert it, and welcome the appropriate edit summary. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PRESERVE#Try_to_fix_problems:_preserve_information is a very interesting ... I suppose this is fundamental to an inclusionist illusionist editors perspective. The degree of self appointed scientific expertise here (and a few good Wikipedia editors) with space concerns demands that new material have abundant source support. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't get too hung up on "preserve". If there's no consensus that an item belongs in the finished article, retaining it in the article just because somebody added it is not policy.

Anyone trying to expand a featured article by adding something about their pet topic is likely run up against the same problem unless they first obtain consensus through discussion on the talk page that the topic belongs in the finished article. the situation is different for stubs and developing articles, where much of the subject may not yet have been covered and it's relatively easy for editors to agree on what should be added. --TS 14:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we proceed this way. William puts aside his objections and volunteers to work on a revised version, to be finished later this year. The advantage of that is that all the bikkering by sceptics on this talk page will be futile. Even if they could change something in the present text, that change would not be reflected in the new text, expecially not if William is going to write it up. Then when William replaces this version by the new text, we'll have discussions about that new text. These discussions will be of a technical nature and the sceptics won't have much to say in these discussions (or they'll only have irrelevant input which is then easy to ignore if there are some real discussions going on). Count Iblis (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please use this page to discuss the article, not the editors. --TS 12:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to global warming/climate change booklet from National Academies

Possibility of adding a link to the national academies booklet on climate change. Its quite good, as expected. Year old though. Didnt want to add before mentioning it here

--Snowman frosty (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

alternate approach

This follows on from Talk:Global warming/Archive 57#change to intro - restarting from archived version

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

no response to this. should I interpret that as agreement and begin revisions? --Ludwigs2 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Specific suggestions for revision are always welcome. Those suggestions that gain consensus can be enacted. --TS 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig. Why not state the obvious: "global warming is commonly used to refer to the rapid warming of the earth at the end of the 20th century that led to huge public concern and resulted in the IPCC in 2001 issuing a report suggesting that unless action was taken to limit the production of manmade CO2 from burning fossil fuels that it was (likely, highly likely whatever they used) that there would be further warming of between 1.4 to 5.8C over the next century." It's a simple, factual definition which everyone - skeptic or believer ought to be able to agree with. (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Equal timism? How quaint. --TS 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC) that strikes me as factually untrue (at least with respect to temporal ordering), and seems to be trying to pack about 6 different ideas into one sentence. I wouldn't support adding the political and public concern elements into this article (not as this article is currently constructed - they'd work better elsewhere); the scientific points seem to be already included. or am I missing something?
Tony, give me a bit: I need to think about body addition more thoroughly. --Ludwigs2 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
ok, Tony: if you want me to address changes in the body itself, there are a number of small to medium changes that would need to be made. just for a smattering, the last paragraph of the Temperature changes section needs to be expanded to note that both of the claims therein are claims based on the current theoretical models of global warming. this paragraph could be further expanded to the next section and the climate models sections, both of which contain a number of theoretical assertions that have been presented as overt facts. The Attributed and expected effects section is almost entirely and exclusively theoretical in nature, nd could use a broad (if subtle) rewrite to sugeest that more clearly.
however, I'd probably start with a more-or-less conventional 'history' section near the top, which outlines some of the theoretical disputes which gave rise to the current research. Science doesn't occur in a vacuum, and it's important to take note (if only minimally) of the history of the idea. no need to get into the fairly mindless political battles that have sprung up around global warming in any detail, but some of the more solid scholarly questions - e.g. is global warming human-derived or a natural phenomena - should be outlined in order to put the research into proper context. We can wpell this out in more detail if you are interested. --Ludwigs2 07:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What's this article for?

Archiving of this discussion, which is not yet 1 day old and is about the content of the article is completely unacceptable. Please do not archive it until the discussion is complete. It is not up to any one editor to decide when all the points have been made. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is touring Australia making some very non-believer statements, a synopsis of which is presented here "Mr Rudd, your misguided warming policies are killing millions"[2] He's going to come out with this bilge 8 times from Sydney on January 27th through to Perth on February 8th

I won't try to precis his so-called arguments, you can imagine the kind of thing he's claiming. Or look them up yourselves. The important part is that lots of people will see him or his misleading article and will be coming to this Wikipedia article with questions they want answered as a result. Is the article going to answer their questions, or else lead them straight to other articles which will answer their questions? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  • This article isn't here to debunk misleading statements about global warming. It's just an article in an encyclopedia. It's a pretty good description of what global warming is. People who are inclined to believe statements about science by people who have no relevant scientific qualifications will not get much out of Wikipedia and there isn't much we can do about that. We are absolutely not here to promote the scientific point of view or to debunk alternate views or minority science. We just describe the prevailing scientific consensus, and if that ever changes to "global warming was a scam, an ice age is on its way" we'll say that. --TS 23:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec)The aim of this (and any) article is to concisely describe its topic - in this case global warming - in an encyclopedic manner. Its aim is not to react to each individual lie, fantasy, or unsupported claim out in the world. Such an approach would make it completely useless, in that it would bury what we know under mountains of stuff that is mostly irrelevant. If you want to explain 2+2=4, you don't start by refuting the claim that 2+2=5, or 2+2=7, or 2+2=Gonzo, or even 2+3=5. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I might lead you to where the source presented could be better included in Economics_of_global_warming, this article appears to ignore economics for the time being. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because it's about the science. --TS 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Really it does cover economics, however it might take about a dozen sources to successfully included the market failure issues raised in the soource. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The article does have a section economics, but doesn't mean we have to brood over it. Enescot and I talked a while back about improving the section,[3] and if you're looking for the "controversy," this is it. Right now Enescot is working the main article, which makes a good summery section easier to write, you should help him. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
@ - Zulu Papa 5 ☆ - you want me to believe that this article is written about the science.
Please tell me how this article helps me with this scientific claim from Monckton: "Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades - changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration - show that it was this largely natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused."
Or, if you prefer, answer me the question I posed first, "What's this article for?" MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
"Scientific" claim? As for your other question, see my answer above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have taken this problem to User talk:MalcolmMcDonald#.22I_didn.27t_hear_that.22. --TS 11:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This article claims to be about GW, scientific evidence for it and its causes, responses to it, and debate an scepticism. Monkton's letter is mainly about the human response to global warming. It essentially argues that mitigation is pointless and counterproductive. It is therefore of considerable relevance to the claimed content of this article and some mention of it in this article, with any specific response from those who disagree, is warranted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a comment from a person with absolutely no relevant scientific credentials promoting a tiny fringe view. To put it into this article would be undue weight. It might fit into other articles such as Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley or global warming conspiracy theory, where Monckton's ideas are already discussed because they are relevant to those articles. --TS 14:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
First of all Monckton belongs on the rather extreme fringe side of this, once reliable secondary sources begin taking him seriously, then we can discuss where (or if) it belongs on one of the many subarticles to this one. Secondly human responses to global warming belong (as i said) on one of the subarticles, that get summarized here, it doesn't merit inclusion directly. There is an extreme amount of information on this particular subject, and that is why there are so many sub-topical articles to this one. If Monckton's views where significant, then they would have relevance for one (or more) of the following: Mitigation of global warming, Politics of global warming, Economics of global warming, Climate change in Australia. But the only sub-article where this might currently be on-topic and in-weight is Global warming conspiracy theory (the last part of the article, where he basically accuses most climate scientists of fraud) Now could we please get back to something that is on-topic? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see, much of the letter does not question the science, it simply points out that, even with the most pessimistic IPCC predictions and the most optimistic mitigation expectations, the expected benefits of mitigation will be insignificant. Where is this issue addressed in 'mainstream' literature? What could be more on-topic than this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless his argument is picked up and discussed by mainstream scientists, it's fruitless to argue from the position that it's "on-topic". This is an encyclopedia article and the Neutral point of view is in operation on this encyclopedia. --TS 14:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not on-topic. That would possibly be on-topic at the article Mitigation of global warming not here. And could we please drop it. This is an Op-Ed for goodness sake, it is thus relevant only to the opinion of Monckton, and he is not relevant within a scientific or political context (sorry). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
My description of what this article is about was taken essentially from the current article contents, which includes a main section on responses to GW, which includes a sub-section on mitigition.
Monckton makes a point about mitigation being pointless. This is not based on an argument about science but on published results, including information published by the IPCC. If there are no reliable sources giving a contrary view to that expressed by Monkton then reference to his report should be included in the article. What sources are there saying that Monkton is wrong? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but you appear not to be listening: Please read up on what constitutes a reliable source and how wikipedia determines proportional weight of sources. When you are talking about sections, then please notice the little "main article: <subarticle>" on top of those sections, they are there because the sections are summaries of sub-articles. Monckton's Op-Ed is reliable only for his personal opinion, and that opinion is undue weight here (and almost everywhere - since it is a fringe view), it doesn't really matter whether he is right/wrong/whatever. Finally what "report" are you talking about? We are discussing an opinion article in the Australian. Drop it please! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
In order for WP:WEIGHT to be relevant you need to give some sources that specifically disagree with what he says. You have not done so yet. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Erh? You seem to have gotten something wrong. The onus is on the person who wants to add or readd material to demonstrate due weight. Not the other way around. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
If I have a source that says something, and no one else has a source that disagrees with my source, then there is no due weight to be considered, it can be added to the article without further ado. Weight is only a consideration of there is an opposing view. So far you have not mentioned one. Martin Hogbin (talk)
Huh? The whole of this article is about the enormous weight of scientific opinion the disagrees with Monckton. --Nigelj (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Please don't change the topic, I think Kim D. Petersen is wrong and it is not helpful to claim what he is doing. The policy WP:IMPERFECT covers exactly Martin Hogbin is telling us.
As i said on my talk-page, imperfect is not about weight. What you should be looking at, is WP:WEIGHT/WP:BURDEN and WP:REDFLAG in Monckton's case, since he does make some outrageous claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, Monckton claims to have peer-reviewd science on his side on cloud-cover, so an article (particularly one artificially constrained to only address scientific issues) has got to inform people and deal with the scientific issues. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, Monckton can make as many claims as he wants... and while he is a bit more relevant than John Doe, he is still only an individual making claims. He isn't an expert, and he has no scientific relevance, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I can see nothing in this article that disagrees with Monckton's main point, which is that if mitigation proceeds to plan it will have a tiny effect on GW, according to published data. Where is the argument against that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Try Mitigation of global warming (as has been pointed out to you several times), Talk:Global warming (or t:MoGW) is not a WP:FORUM to discuss "main points" in opinion articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is the objection to including reference to Monckton's letter in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Moncktons pointless claim

The Monckton source [4] point that mitigation is pointless possibly a waste of time, could be disruptive (like a troll) seems to ring an ironic Wikipedia symphony to me from my global warming article experience. Where should this point be included? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's speaking tour doesn't need inclusion, since even influencing 100s of 1000s of people doesn't get him into the big league alongside some of the editors here. However, he claims that peer-reviewed reports say that cloud-cover has decreased since the early 80s, and that is the cause of most (?) of the warming we've seen in the 20 or more years since.
So readers of this article need to be able to search and find out whether he's lying or not. If the article doesn't help people find and test for scientific information then I think it's pointless. Nobody has answered my original question - what other point does it have if it's failing to inform it's readers? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought the focus was on scientific sources, not general news (even if the effects section cites ABC News). The mitigation section cites UN papers for what mitigation will do and then cites more general sources for what policy makers are doing. I don't know which way the section should be written ("here's what all sources say about mitigation, scientific or not" or "here's what the scientists say the policymakers' plans will do"). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It's an opinion piece by a fringe, non-expert commentator expressing a fringe opinion. It may merit a mention in the biography of the commentator. --TS 23:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to keep this discussion focused on improving this article with the view that mitigation may not work as intended as guided by Monckton writing. Yes, the point could make it to his bio. This reader of this article might benefit if that view is included here. I guess there might be other sources to find for secondary support. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

An opinion piece by Monckon is not a reliable source on mitigation. The NPOV says we include all significant views, but on this subject Monckton's view is fringe. --TS 23:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
So undue weight doesn't concern you at all, then? --TS 23:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, Monckton's point is that, based on IPCC predictions (so no new or controversial science here) and assuming that proposed international CO2 reduction targets are met, the effect on global warming will be very small. Am I missing something here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to precis Monckton's opinion. I'm asking you why you appear to be arguing that we ignore due weight and discuss his opinion in the article. Should we also include Ken Ham's view of evolution in the article on evolution? --TS 00:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
MH makes a good point about established science and really, Monckton's opinion(s) would require a few other reliable sources for objective inclusion with weight for here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Monckton says, "adaptation to climate change, if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation" while this recent source [5] says, "We find that even for very large reductions in emissions, temperature reduction is likely to occur at a low rate. I suspect another source or two, and there may be a relevance here. (I haven't seen an "adaption" strategy discussed in the wikipedia articles.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to move on to possibly more contentious claims like the one you quote above but, for the moment, I would like to know if there are any reliable sources that give alternative opinions on this subject:
Thus, if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today's emissions will be reduced by about half of that 15 per cent, namely 7.5 per cent, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 parts per million by volume/ year, or 20 ppmv over the decade. Now, 7.5 per cent of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv. One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve.
In other words is there an 'official' statement of how much GW reduction the Copenhagen Accord is expected to achieve? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5 has not fully understood the source, J A Lowe et al 2009, which he cites. The letter talks about how difficult it would be to reverse temperature increases from dangerously high levels. I'm just not seeing above any demonstration of an understanding of the state of the science or capability of understanding the difference between Monckton's beliefs and the state of the science. Absent this, the chance of obtaining consensus to change the article as a result of this discussion seems limited. I don't want to put you off, but the level of scientific literacy in this discussion is wanting. --TS 12:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TS, please don't insult me. If I must disclose, I hold 3 scientific degrees and 12 years past employment in this field. I currently coach doctors on improving medical quality with new diagnostic and prognostic applications. Now, the idea that control inputs to the carbon cycle is governed by a highly damped global capacity is were Monckton's points are going. Additional sources could move this forward productivity. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't often mention the fact on Wikipedia, but I am the queen of France. Since somebody has raised Monckton's beliefs, it just doesn't do to raise random papers and try to make them conform with whatever it is he's saying. --TS 17:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps then someone could answer a simple question, according to what you call the state of the science, what global temperature change would be expected in a the next decade if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complied with its obligations to the full, compared with business as usual? And what after that? We know Monckton's beliefs what other answers are there? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It isn't a simple question. Ask ten climatologists and you'll most likely get ten different answers. --TS 13:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Is that meant to make me feel confident in climate scientists?
The article says, 'The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference met in Copenhagen in December 2009 to agree on a framework for climate change mitigation'. They must have had some idea of what they expected to be achieved if everybody signed up. Is this published anywhere, or is Monckton the only one to even ask the question? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Take your confidence or lack of confidence in climate scientists to a blog or forum. These constant diversions into rhetorical expressions of personal opinion have to stop.
To answer your question, the main focus of mitigation is not to make things better (which seems unachievable) but to stop things getting worse (which obviously is achievable). Limiting and reducing the output of greenhouse gases can achieve that. --TS 14:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Growing mitigation is coming; however, the idea that adaptation has better cost effectiveness is viable for the mix in this article .... much like the growing idea that "wait and see" is a viable option for cancer control. What concerns me is little faith in natural remedies, due to a bias in studding man made causes over natural sources. (Really, the problem may solve itself when we run out of fossils fuels.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. My question was asking how much better the situation would be compared with business-as-usual. This is the question that Monckton addresses. Whether that is actually getting better or just less worse is not relevant. So, is anybody going to give me an answer to my question or is Monckton the only one to do this calculation. What reduction in global temperature, compared to business-as-usual, would be expected if every Annex 1 party complied with its Copenhagen Accord obligations? It is quite important. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is that you are arguing the topic. The important point is that Monckton is person with no relevant scientific qualifications arguing well beyond his depth, so his opinion doesn't belong here. --TS 16:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Monckton's credentials are relevant and what makes them so is how reliable sources attribute them. He seems to be acknowledged by sources for the Global Warming topic. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It would seem from the lack or response to my question that Monckton is the only person to address the question of exactly what benefit would be expected from conformance to the Copenhagen Accord. The Copenhagen conference was the most important meeting of the decade regarding mitigation of AGW. It is mentioned in the article already, but no figure is given for what this very important conference was hoping to achieve. It would clearly benefit the article to quote a figure for the expected benefit in terms of global temperature. I am therefore trying to get a figure that can be added to the article. So far, I only have the figure from Monkton, which is based on IPCC published data. This is the most reliable source so far. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) "Copenhagen conference was the most important meeting of the decade" Seriously? COP15 is just one of over fifteen annual meetings, and they hardy got anything done. Monkton is one person, if you want to cite the IPCC's AR4WG3, here it is.[6] You can view it online, or as a pdf. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have said that it was intended to be the meeting at which new agreement to mitigate GW would be made. It is the only meeting, other than Kyoto, mentioned in the mitigation section of the article. Surely we should state what affect on GW was hoped for as a result of this conference. That is the specific issue that Monckton addresses. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me ask this question. Is there any reliable data for the expected GW benefit from any concrete mitigation programme that has actually been proposed at a conference attended by the worlds major greenhouse gas emitters? Such information should be included in the article in the mitigation section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Monckton isn't the only person to discuss mitigation: IPCC Working Group III is charged with summarising the prospects for mitigation and Monckton himself refers to the Stern review (which he believes to have been discredited). The AR4 article says this:

The IPCC estimates that stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases at between 445-535ppm CO2 equivalent would result in a reduction of average annual GDP growth rates of less than 0.12%. Stabilizing at 535 to 590ppm would reduce average annual GDP growth rates by 0.1%, while stabilization at 590 to 710ppm would reduce rates by 0.06%. There was high agreement and much evidence that a substantial fraction of these mitigation costs may be offset by benefits to health as a result of reduced air pollution, and that there would be further cost savings from other benefits such as increased energy security, increased agricultural production, and reduced pressure on natural ecosystems as well as, in certain countries, balance of trade improvements, provision of modern energy services to rural areas and employment

More on this at IPCC Fourth Assessment Report#Working Group III .28WGIII.29: Mitigation of Climate Change

As for Monckton, his opinion isn't influential and would not be included in any article at this very broad scope, because of weighting concerns. --TS 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I (and Monckton) was talking about the global temperature saving that would result from the specific mitigation action proposed at the Stockholm conference. This is the only international mitigation action that has even come close to agreement for implementation. As for weighting ,Monckton currently seems to have 100% weight on this topic as there are no answers at all from anyone else. The quote you give is from the document that Monckton based his calculation on. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NASA says 2000-9 was warmest decade on record; 7 disappearing glaciers

I was astonished that Kenosis removed these sources today.[7] The first is a brand new news item. And the second, while perhaps flawed, is a useful illustration. "WASHINGTON — A new analysis of NASA temperature data collected from more than 1,000 weather stations around the globe, from satellites monitoring ocean temperatures and from Antarctic research stations shows that 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record...." "Here for 10,000 years ... gone in 10. Seven glaciers that are melting before our eyes. Some photos (and a few charts)...."

What is the rationale for removing them from this talk page? The Edit summary ("Removing irrelevant talk section. Outside the scope of WP:TALK") is clearly untrue because these sources need to be discussed. Malcolm McDonald said they were flawed, but called the first one "IPCC 2007" (it is not) and offered unsubstantiated allegations against the latter. Do these sources deserve to be discussed or not? (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasonably fair enough, and I'll stand corrected on this one for being a bit too quick to the gun. The reason was that this talk page is increasingly and regularly becoming a WP:FORUM with many in violation of the policy WP:NOT and the guideline WP:TALK. Kindly recall this article is under WP:Article probation for reasons that have been well discussed and documented-- central among which are repeated patterns of disruptive and tendentious article and talk-page editing. Anyway the original thread was as follows (Malcolm's comment reproduced here in its original form):... Kenosis (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
"NASA says 2000-9 was warmest decade on record; 7 disappearing glaciers" "WASHINGTON — A new analysis of NASA temperature data collected from more than 1,000 weather stations around the globe, from satellites monitoring ocean temperatures and from Antarctic research stations shows that 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record...." "Here for 10,000 years ... gone in 10. Seven glaciers that are melting before our eyes. Some photos (and a few charts)...." (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
People are getting increasingly sick of falsities passed off as "scientific" results. As two commentators have already noted, the two photos alleged to show the Matterhorn (one covered in ice, one bare) on that blog are completely different mountains. After the scandalous flaws in the IPCC 2007 document (5 more listed today in the Times newspaper) a bit more scientific rigour is in order. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope, the two pictures both show the Matterhorn. If somebody claims differently, they don't know what they are talking about. However, they show the Matterhorn from very different angles - the left one is the famous view from Zermatt (roughly NE), while the right one is the view from the Kleines Matterhorn (roughly SE). Trust me, I've snowboarded there often enough. Now of course different sides of the mountain, possibly photographed at different seasons, make it hard to compare the glaciers...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou, it's still very, very sloppy work from believers, as was in the news again yesterday.
Tell me, how am I supposed to find out the latest position on glacier loss now that the IPCC 2007 report has been found to have at least 5 more significant errors about Himalayan ice-caps? Inserting those links is not politics, it's science, the very kind of thing the reader wants to know about. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I can tell you that the picture from Glacier National Park in 2005 is accurate - I helped take that picture. I was a volunteer on the team that went up to the summit to do the repeat photo. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't listen to believers - listen to scientists (and preferably via peer-reviewed publications or direct dialog - don't rely on newspapers or lobbyists to get it right). No human endeavor is completely error free. There has been one fairly minor problem been found within thousands of pages of the IPCC reports. It's still by far the best summary of the state of climate science we have. You are, of course, free to study the field, read the original publications, and come to your own conclusions. Calculate about 5-10 years if you have a solid primary education. And accept the fact that there may not be answers there at all. That's the normal state in science, unfortunately - climate change is more or less unique in having such a broad, up-to-date summarizing process. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
What is then, you would like to add or detract from the article that will improve this project?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Take out the detail, put in links. I want the article to be informative, if I go in there looking for "Amazon" or "desertification" I want to find links to the science. Same for "Antarctic" and "Himalayan glaciers". Then, since removing detail leaves so much more room, mention "Dr Will Happer" and "Lord Monckton" and provide links to their concerns. The latter suggestion is not "politicising" the debate, it's recognising that these guys bring us readers, and we need to be servicing them. GW may be rocket science, but writing a good article about it is not. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thing is, after Happer and Monckton have had their 15 minutes of fame the article will still be here. I'm not enthused about continually revising the article to accommodate whatever misinformed egomaniac happens to be in the news at the moment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is 101 kilobytes long already and I'm reminded of Stephan's point above, "If you want to explain 2+2=4, you don't start by refuting the claim that 2+2=5, or 2+2=7, or 2+2=Gonzo, or even 2+3=5". I'm also unconvinced by "recognising that these guys bring us readers" - we are not commercially chasing readers here, or their daft ideas. Here we explain the science as concisely as we can. There are other (sub-)articles where this week's celebrity gossip gets enough coverage. --Nigelj (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, and refuting the claim that 2+2=5 may be impossible. Count Iblis (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please use this page to discuss how to improve the article. Do not use it to discuss the topic. --TS 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming individual sceptics

Global_warming#Debate_and_skepticism has acquired a list of named prominent sceptics. I've taken out Dyson, who is prominent, but not prominent as a sceptic, and, while a self-declared sceptic, has not actually said anything that is in conflict with the consensus opinion. I've also taken out Christy. He is an IPCC lead author, and while he is concentrating on other aspects than the IPCC, he is not in serious disagreement with the core IPCC results. All of the entries are currently unsourced, and we should add sources for the remaining ones if we keep them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I took out Balling and McI. I'm not really sure we want a list there, for the obvious reasn that there is a list elsewhere. Balling I would argue is no longer very prominent. McI I suspect would assert that he is not a "skeptic" in the way the term is used in the GW wars world, so labelling him as one there is a potentail BLP hazard (not that I care, but some people do). Also McI isn't obviously prominent, outside the blogosphere William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to make the point elsewhere, and not been able to crystallise it clearly enough yet, that there should be some distinctions and clarification made between 'schools' of scepticism. I think the term is too vague and so it's too easy to paint people with too broad a brush. Sceptics have to be sceptical about something, e.g. not man-made, not rising since 1998, hate IPCC, think all scientists are crooks, think it's a left-wing conspiracy, etc. My analogy is that you can't just be a 'jazz musician', it's hard, but you have to be be-bop, trad or something else in particular. --Nigelj (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree there are distinctions within what are called "skeptics" William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
WMC i reverted your last edit, please explain why you would remove those two names from the sceptic list? --mark nutley (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I find this kind of removal particularly alarming, since it deprives the article of the very kind of key-words that I searched for when I first came across it. The number of skeptics (over the weekend the Times documented scientific and financial scandal) must be rocketing, it seems churlish to deprive people of finding what they'll often be looking for. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Why are any individuals listed? Who decides who is important enough to list? Why 5 people, why not 30...It would seem best to not list individuals at all in my opinion...what makes these people special over say anyone else. They all should go.--Snowman frosty (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I cannot get any of my questions answered, either scientific eg "What's this about changes in cloud-cover in the last 30 years?" or article-concerned eg "How are people supposed to use the article in order to find the peer-reviewed literature on cloud-cover?" I've even been told that that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia, which I find astonishing indeed.
But I believe my purpose here is to be informative, so I'll tell you. The names need to be there because people need key-words to do their search upon. We even know that that is the correct way to find information, because we were told it here: Good grief, how much spoon-feeding do you need? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
If people want to learn about cloud cover or Person X, then they should visit cloud cover or the article on Person X. We don't cover relatively unimportant things because some readers have the misconception that they're important. I fail to see how this is astonishing.— DroEsperanto (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
@MN: try reading before writing. I've already explained why, just up above here William M. Connolley (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I took out Balling and McI You took them out without discussion. Your reasons are spurious at best. McI has been on major news channels and has been questioned by congress over the whole hockey stick debacle, how you can say he is not well know outside of the blogosphere is beyond me. --mark nutley (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Does McI define himself as a sceptic? Is there any evidence that he is a climate change sceptic? (i was trying to find a post from him, that i distinctly remember, where he states that he isn't rather clearly). Being critical of the HS, or thinking that the MWP was warmer, does not translate into AGW is bunk.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two types of climate change skeptics. One type is scientists who have looked at the evidence and have doubts. The number of these is shrinking rapidly, because the evidence is growing stronger and stronger. The other type is people who listen to the news, and believe everything that is against climate change and doubt everything that supports it. That kind of selective skepticism doesn't belong in the article. For example, to use the citation of MalcolmMcDonald above, he seems to reason as follows: Not every scientist is honest, therefore the number of people who distrust scientists must be rocketing. But sane people never thought every individual in any large group of people was honest, and so one fraud does not make them doubt all science. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought there were more types: lobbyist comes to mind. . . dave souza, talk 10:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to take them out. People involved in "major news channels" aren't necessarily relevant to the science. Mark, I think your describing the hockey stick as in any way a "debacle" suggests also that you're carrying considerable baggage on this that you're unaware of. To be honest I'd rather see a brief description of the major grounds for skepticism. As suggested, it would be difficult to pigeonhole McIntyre as a skeptic. He has some methodological critiques of some paleoclimate models that are, to a large extent, orthogonal to the question of whether there exists a warming trend. To include Balling, too, seems inappropriate. He has some reservations but doesn't seem to deny the warming trend and think the rise in greenhouse gases may play a part. Both of these cases highlight the difficulty of inserting bland lists of "skeptics" into this pivotal article. --TS 15:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the notable arguments disputing mainstream views should be included along with the names to those who hold those views. Failing to do so would be to distort this article the way the Climategate article has been so that it doesn't cover the subject and reflect discussion in the reliable sources, instead promoting a particular perspective so as to propagandize on viewpoint. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've re-removed these two names. MN's objection appears rather confused, since he said please explain why you would remove those two names from the sceptic list? and I've already done that. Indeed, I had already done it when he wrote that. There seems to be some dispute as to whether McI is a skeptic or not. His wiki page doesn't say he is. Given that "skeptic" in the GW wars is generally a term of opprobrium I would have expected the BLP folk to be here *demanding* his withdrawl, but oddly they are silent. I know, I'll go ask one William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you to self revert if you have taken them out again as you do not have a consensus to do so. You may have explained why you did it, but i do not agree with that explanation. I believe it is important to have a list of the more prominent sceptic`s against AGW on the global warming page.
Also His wiki page doesn't say he is wikipedia is not a reliable source is it. --mark nutley (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't have a list of prominent proponents of the theory, so why would we have one of detractors? And how do you defend keeping the list in without sources, especially considering WP:BLP? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Your kidding right stephen? I see the word sceptic used in plenty of blp`s. If it`s that much of a worry we can always add some refs. Given the whole article is about global warming (AGW) then of course readers should have a list of those who do not believe in AGW. I see the IPCC mentioned in this article quite a bit, what bigger proponent of AGW is there? --mark nutley (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with William et al. here. I don't see the value in having Lindzen, Singer & Michaels made as examples of here as skeptics. I can't see that it's adding anything, and can't really see why we'd be arguing about it. At any rate, whilst all of those three would at least happily wear the label "skeptic" I think, I am not sure that Steve McIntyre calls himself a skeptic. He's more of a critic of climate science, and I don't think he dogmatically holds to any position on what is actually causing global warming. For instance, I've never actually seen him commit to a position on what climate sensitivity is. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well as the consensus is against then ok, however a link to the list of scientists who do not believe in AGW would be suitable, what say you? mark nutley (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed the link to global warming skeptics is good, remove 1-5 specific names, as per what I stated above--Snowman frosty (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mitigation requirements and progress

The second paragraph in the mitigation sections says, 'Mitigation of global warming is accomplished through reductions in the rate of anthropogenic greenhouse gas release'. It does not give any figure for:

1) How much reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse gas (AGG) release is required to achieve the stabilisation levels referred to in the paragraph above? This figure can probably be obtained from IPCC reports.

2) What level of reduction of AGG release has been proposed at international conferences, such as Copenhagen, and how much GW mitigation this would be expected to achieve? It would seem that the only source to address this is Monckton.

3) What level of AGG release reduction has been achieved to date and how much GW mitigation has been achieved by this. Is there a source that gives this figure?

4) How much has been spent on mitigation to date? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

These would seem to me to be some of the most important questions regarding the subject of GW. We need answers in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is quite ingenious, but it doesn't go far to disguise the fact that you're quite blatantly looking for an excuse to insert the fringe opinion of an unqualified person into this article. --TS 10:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It also would seem that he hasn't checked the primary literature, Mitigation of global warming or noticed that M is "cheating" by only giving figures for the next decade, which are irrelevant since effects of reductions are primarily long-term. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a little more assumption of good faith would be appropriate. Do you not agree that the above information would be of considerable interest to readers? Regarding point 2, I have persistently asked for a more reliable source to answer the question but have got no answer. There is no dispute that mitigation will cost billions of pounds; it is not unreasonable to ask what will be achieved and what has been achieved so far by it. I have added a question on the mitigation spend to date. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you have persistently asked for #2 in the wrong article. Can you please stay on-topic? And start acknowledging that article talk-pages aren't Q&A sessions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Again all of this is something that should be handled in the primary article for that subject: Mitigation of global warming. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, how much mitigation has cost and will cost. and what effect it has had and will have is a fundamental issue to the subject of GW. A more detailed discussion of the subject may be appropriate in Mitigation of global warming but basic figures should be presented here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a myriad of different stuff that is "fundamental to the subject of gw", that is why this article has been split so many times. The primary article for mitigation issues is Mitigation of global warming, and it is there that the weight issues are handled, before relevant material is summarized here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course. All I am proposing is that we show the figures giving answers to the questions that I have asked above, detailed discussion should go in the appropriate sub-article. We already have a section on the subject of mitigation. The expected costs and benefits are fundamental to this issue and should be briefly presented here. Alternatively, drop the section altogether. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No warming in 11 years

I noticed there was no discussion of the fact there has been no warming for the last 11 years. Should this be included? Amir Tashekian (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q3, as well as the second paragraph of Global_warming#Temperature_changes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact should be included, based on reliable sources, with a comment from the same. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q3, as well as the second paragraph of Global_warming#Temperature_changes. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It is one of Wikipedia's core policies for articles to have and remain in a NPOV. If you like to add there was no warming in 11 years make sure it remains neutral. South Bay (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
How do you remain neutral regarding a simple fact, either there has or there has not been any warming in the last 11 years. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
To repeat what has been said many times here, the value for 1998 was anomalously high, the underlying trend is still upwards. Also note that the temperature graph in the article (taken from the NASA datset) shows 2005 as a (slightly) warmer year. Mikenorton (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there is a reasonable case for saying there has been no warming for 100 years ('urban heat island' areas excepted). Who want to get references for that to add in??? rossnixon 01:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
What I don't understand is that a smaller fraction than originally estimated of CO2 remains in the atmosphere ( So why are the temperatures still rising? Amir Tashekian (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is clear that you don't understand. You need to know the distinction between airborne fraction and CO2 concentration. I notice that you've effectively thrown away your assertions from your first comment in this section: well done William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
....and even for the airborne fraction that paper does not say it is lower than expected, only that the authors did not yet detect a statistically significant upward trend (yet). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, not only was the warmest year in the recent period 1998, but the winter of 2008/9 was the coldest for 20 years and this present winter of 2009/10 is the coldest for 30 years. Any more warming and I will need snow shoes. But none of this will shake the warmists here.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Not that it's significant, but do you have any sources for that? And are you aware that "winter" is a localized phenomenon? Australia suffered under a record-breaking heat-wave during that "coldest winter in 20 years" [8], and there is another one going on right now.[9]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this the same australia which got snow for the first time in their recorded historys? WHUT taken fron the AP And why is it cold weather is never climate but a heatwave is always attributed to AGW :) I think as there has been to warming for such an extended period really warrants a mention here mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Your last sentence no grammar. And I'd suggest you get your news from, well, news outlets, not blogs. Here is the full story, which makes it clear that this is just a freak event in an otherwise hot summer. And just to clarify something: Do you think anybody here has attributed the Australian heat waves to AGW? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)A heatwave is never climate either Mark. Can you come up with an instance where anyone claimed or said otherwise here? Single weather events are reflections of climate, but can never be attributed to climate. Just like a single roll of a die cannot tell you if the die is loaded or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Guys, i was joking about the whole weather thing :) But not about the no warming for 11 years going in :) mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This really isn't the place to argue the topic, but you do realise we've just seen the warmest decade since records began, I hope? --TS 15:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this warmest decade on record based on the cru data? or the giss data? cos to be honest that is not what you would call reliable data is it :-) But onto the matter at hand, should an article about global warming mention the fact that the planet has not in fact warmed for eleven years a simple yea or nay should suffice here :) mark nutley (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It is the warmest decade in any dataset. And you really should take notice of what is being linked (quote Stephan): "Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q3, as well as the second paragraph of Global_warming#Temperature_changes". And no matter what you think about GISS or CRU, they are still reliable sources (take it up on RS/N if you want to discuss it - this is not the place). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The more basic problem is people not understanding the difference between weather and climate (or choosing not to understand). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen

Another paper refuting the GCR-cloud linkage. Sudden Cosmic Ray Decreases: No Change of Global Cloud Cover. How many more are needed before we remove that paragraph from this article? (Yes, it's in press.) -Atmoz (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

When it gets published I suppose :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It's already been accepted... but the recent Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation seems an appropriately strong title, among others. -Atmoz (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
We need to give this time to develop. It is not appropriate to include it at this time. Amir Tashekian (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have elsewhere done my best to argue that new research shouldn't be used until it has time to "settle", which certainly means post-publication and ideally some time after. When the issue is the latest skeptic nonsense I usually lose, and we just remove it a little while later when it proves to be twaddle (see Schwartz) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

IPCC exaggerating global warming

Why is there nothing in the article about this? No one is debating that CO2 is a green house gas, because it is a green house gas but every week there are more news articles revealing that the IPCC has greatly exaggerated this phenomenon. Do not say something dumb either like where is my evidence. Watch/read/listen to the news!The Lamb of God (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the significant majority of scientists disagree with it, most climate scientists in fact think the IPCC underestimates it.[10] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Quoting from the article cited, "There was even a significant minority that claimed the IPCC tended to under estimate things". This states minority not majority, so most is not justified by your source.Atandb (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that KDP's synopsis of that article is significantly more accurate than yours. There were more "scientists" concerned that the figures in IPCC AR4 were under-estimated than over-estimated.
However, since we now know that almost none of these people actually checked what was said (at least the section that concerned the water supply for 2 billion people, which should have had some small significance) the survey results look completely worthless. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You may want to learn how to differentiate between the workgroups of the IPCC. The AR4 WGI results are the scientific basis - the WGII report is mainly relevant for policy discussions but not on the science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
In order for an intelligent discussion to happen we do need the evidence. Calling other editors dumb before they say anything is why this discussion has not gone anywhere. Start with which specific IPCC "greatly exaggerated phenomenon" you are talking about, then present the evidence for your claim.Atandb (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The main one of course, "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation". That quote was from the Wikipedia article. The argument is not whether or not global warming exists. Rather, the argument, or question, is how much of an affect has man caused CO2 emissions really had on global temperatures. See the little ice age and the medieval warm period, and let me remind you that that time period is generally considered to be pre-industrialized. Additionally, here is a link to an article that suggest that solar activity may be a more dominant cause of modern global warming phenomenon, [11]. The Lamb of God (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There is of course just the problem that the Usoskin et al. paper says no such thing (they show long-term correlation, but not short term (which here is < century)). But it does strengthen the 1000+ year temperature reconstructions, specifically the MBH and MJ reconstructions. And thus strengthen the argument that the MWP was colder than the present. But then this is not the place to discuss GW in general. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

One last thing; I apologize for the, "do not say something dumb..." comment, I was just being lazy...The Lamb of God (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Times of London drives yet another spike in IPCC today (Jan. 28) Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
And what relevance does this have to the article? Do we reference the "false glacier claims"? Does it matter for any information in the article when (or even if) anyone became aware of this error? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Kim, the relevance is that Atandb asked "which specific IPCC 'greatly exaggerated phenomenon' you are talking about". So, we are seeing that the IPCC findings regarding glacial melting are exaggerated. Mcoers (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Matt C.

John Beddington and retort

Sorry, but I don't really see why this comment needs to be in. First, the current formulation is not really covered by the source. It's unclear what Beddington is referring to in the Times article. Secondly, the uncertainty is routinely reported both in the original publications and in the IPCC reports. So this is really a non-message. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You reverted one of my edits. That's censorship and blatantly NPOV. You are a terrible person and should be forced to eat pretzels with no beer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm deeply sorry and will perform virtual self-flagellation by drinking beer with not pretzels as a penance! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that climate change models/temperature predictions are not 100% unreliable (and this should always be borne in mind) seems to me to be relevant. Can this article not find somewhere to reflect this? If so, I would like to propose the Beddington reference as one way of achieving this. Jprw (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to make sense. What do you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should reference the fact that climate change models/temperature predictions are not 100% unreliable. Jprw (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There aren't any "predictions" in the text (there are projections though, which are slightly different animals), nor does the article claim that models are accurate (not 100% unreliable is a strange wording, could you expand?) Both the lede and the section on models make it very clear that there are uncertainties (and describes some of them), indepth descriptions of models and uncertainties, are in the child article Global climate model. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure however that the issue of uncertainty is given adequate attention -- for example, in the introduction, which you say “makes it very clear that there are uncertainties” we find:

An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, probably including expansion of subtropical deserts. Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects include increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, species extinctions, and changes in agricultural yields. Warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe, though the nature of these regional variations is uncertain. [Here in this last sentence the implied meaning is that the changes will nevertheless be different scales of increased warming].

In light of John Beddington's comments this week might it not be more desirable (from a neutral and objective point of view) to be trying to strike a slightly different tone?

Why? The "will" statements are as certain as science can make them, the other are already properly qualified. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to sign the last post. Will as a modal verb denotes certainty. It seems to be therefore not the best choice. Jprw (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The statements which have an unqualified "will" are certain bar supernatural intervention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
So you say. IPCC has quite a few credibility problems right now. (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
So I do, so do reliable sources, so do the basic laws of physics, quite without computer models or tree rings or whatever else is the sceptic cause celebre de jour. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Point by point:
  • "An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise." This is a direct consequence of the equation of state for sea water (the impress-your-friends term is "thermosteric sea level rise"). Water with salinity above 25 parts per thousand always expands when it warms.
  • "will change the amount and pattern of precipitation" The global distribution of precipitation is essentially a byproduct of the energy balance (see e.g., Hadley cell or extratropical cyclone). Therefore, change the energy balance and the amount and patter of precipitation will change. We don't know the exact nature or magnitude of the change, but we know with certainty that precipitation changes will occur.
The other points are appropriately qualified, as Stephan notes. In fairness to Beddington he is a population biologist and may not be conversant with they physical science underlying these issues. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Beddington is the chief scientific advisor to the UK government and he's fired a warning shot across the bows of the GW industry telling them that GW "has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change". When pay-masters have to come out with warnings this blunt it's time to listen, not try to censor them as well. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is the "GW industry"? And is it represented in the article? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Past participle and uncertainty intervals...

I had edited the article intro somewhat, partly in an attempt to improve its English, and for better accuracy:

1. From "IPCC concludes" to "IPCC has concluded" since the panel is certainly not sitting around as we type concluding what they've already concluded in 2007...
2. From "most of the observed temperature increase" to "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures", as the IPCC discussed averages, not each temperature observed (see IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers report, at p. 10)...
3. From "was caused by" to "was very likely (>90% probability of occurrence) caused by", again, since that's what the IPCC explicitly published (Ibid)

Then ChyranandChloe decided to undo my edits allegedly for the following reasons:

1. "measurements of certainty are in the footnotes, see #Notes" (referring to Note A)
2. "not past participle, conclusions are still around"

No reason was given to deleting my edit regarding observed temperatures and averages.

I disagree with ChyranandChloe for at least the following reasons:

1. Note A is presumably referring to footnote 5 of p. 2 of the IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers report. That footnote was specific to how uncertainty ranges were presented, e.g. 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8] where the numbers in the square brackets represent a range within which values have a 90% likelihood to fall. Whereas the IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers report had another footnote, (FN 6, at p. 3) that discussed the various definitions of terms. And very likely was defined as greater than 90% probability of occurrence. Not within 90%, but greater than 90%. Therefore, it's not enough to rely on Note A of the article, as ChyranandChloe has suggested, since not only does it reference an irrelevant issue, but it also underestimates the anthropogenic effect on global average temperatures in the 20th century.
2. "not past participle, conclusions are still around"... So let me get this straight. Is ChyranandChloe saying that because the conclusions have not changed, they must, therefore, be expressed in the present tense ("IPCC concludes..."), as if the IPCC is still performing the act of concluding, some 3 years after their report publication!? This is sounding a little absurd, and somewhat poor English. The IPCC has concluded, and their conclusions stand today. The obvious attempt at politicizing seems, at best, juvenile.

I will not revert to my edits yet. I wanted to discuss first.Ikerus (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the tense question from someone who just popped in, I think the reason 'concludes' is used rather than 'concluded' is because, as you say, their conclusions have not changed. Since they do continue to function as an entity, the idea may be that to merely say they once concluded something could leave the question open as to whether they have newer conclusions that are different, and thus using 'concludes' removes that possible reading from the realm of reasonable interpretation. (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Do I get good faith? You're leading the discussion, it's up to you, and I'm fine if you want to make this pleasant chat or a court case.
  1. Somehow the hypothesis test got cut leaving only the confidence interval in the note, found it in the oldversion, thanks for catching it! The Summery to Policy Makers is a simplified version of the full work. I'd prefer if you'd use the technical summery for the technical note. If you'd look on page 32, although they use simulations to get the probability distribution function, it's basically statistical power, or 1-β (false negative). Hmmm... You need to realize the difference between a parameter and a statistic. The parameter is set, greenhouse gases did cause or a did not cause an increase in temperatures. The statistic is what's likely/unlikely, although not something "actual". "Certainty" follows a power-law relationship, if you want to half the error bond/whatever, you've got to increase the sample size four times. Third it, nine times. The conclusion is an is or is not question, costs constrains, and to increase it anymore wouldn't make economic sense. You've satisfied your alpha-level or whatever the IPCC is using. Thinking back, it's been discussed before,[12][13] and I think this might have been one of the reasons for the cut. Article isn't an insurance policy statement. What do you think?
  2. There's a difference between simple present and present continuous, the "-ing" you added misrepresents the two. The IPCC isn't concluding now. "had concluded" is simple past perfect more precisely, and the conclusions didn't end sometime in the past. It's still applicable. Simple present works.
I'm sorry if I made you angry, I hope this answers your question. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the tense question why not give the date of the relevant report, ' in ... the IPCC concluded'? And surely we should have the IPCC wording with a footnote giving the numerical interpretation, as in ,"was very likely (in footnote - >90% probability of occurrence) caused by". Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my intention merely was to improve and attempt to repel criticisms of any perceived article subjectivity. I read the relevant discussions here, plenty has already been said and much of this discussion is redundant. And now, I'll have my fair share of pretzels with no beer...
(outdent) Well thanks, Ikerus. Simple past indicates a completed action. Arriving at a conclusion isn't an overnight thing Martin. They can still increase the certainty, above very likely is virtually certain remember. Do I think we should add the footnote about the hypothesis test? I don't know, I'm interested in your reasoning, not your conclusion. If you could explain. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I was just suggesting that we report the facts as stated in the source. Why is that such a bad idea? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking the question whether it's notable by the way. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please update the charts

Whoever is in charge of this page (and has therefore chosen to interpret any skeptical information as "vandalism") needs to update the charts. In case no one has noticed, the current year is 2010. The charts on this page stop at 2005. If the charts were updated to current information then it would become obvious that the warming has subsided and the Earth has moved into a cooling phase.

Let me be perfectly clear. Shutting off debate and silencing the opposition doesn't contribute to the value of Wikipedia or to science in general. The recent scandals involving climate change researchers should offer the editors of this page some motivation to help shed light on what is actually known. -- Matt C. 1/30/2010

Matt - for your own sanity its best to just let their movement implode by itself, which is occurring as we speak. WC and gang will never allow this article to represent anything other than AGW alarmism. Mk (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the chart ends at 2007, and the 5-year running mean ends at 2005 because it is undefined past then. I agree - they should be updated - I'll get in touch with the chart's creator (who is unfortunately very busy at the moment).
But please improve your tone next time you post: it will improve communication here. I almost just ignored your comment because of it. Awickert (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Correction: It ends with 2008 count the number of points after 2000, or alternatively go to the image page, where you can see that the latest update was Feb 4, 2009 with the commentary "update to 2008, change to GISS data". If i'm not mistaken GISS has just finished the 2009 data, which means that it can be updated (correct me if wrong), but so far it has been as up to date as possible. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right: 2006/2008. When I counted, I thought that a point was on the line when it really wasn't. In that case, I don't understand the nature of the complaints. Awickert (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
And you are also right about GISS data now including 2009. See last data point on this graph no obvious cooling to be seen. Snowman frosty (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking more closely I see that the contributors are correct about the years. I see that the period of the Hansen graph is 20 years per vertical line instead of 10. That was a mistake on my part, and it is the reason that I incorrectly read it as ending in 2005 instead of 2010. However, my mistake on the 2005 date does not undermine the implication of my larger point.

As others have mentioned here, the editors of this page are not presenting the entire story regarding the AGW issue. I see that the person who created the second graph is a PhD student who operates a website promoting AGW. He is in school studying physics with the stated goal of entering the field of climate change research. It is fair therefore to say that his income will soon rely on public funding for climate change research. This individual is financially and professionally motivated to influence public opinion regarding AGW.

Likewise, the top chart was generated by Dr. James Hansen who is one of the disgraced scientists at the center of the AGW fraud investigations in the U.K. In my opinion, this chart should be taken down while the investigations are underway so as not to discredit the page with information that is under intense scrutiny and will likely be found to be inaccurate.

The principle of competitive editorial upon which the Wiki project is based is supposed to democratically produce the best content. It is understandable why a subject like this must be more tightly controlled than most others. However, I think that if someone is going to apply that level of control, then some disclosure of the professional background of the gatekeepers is appropriate so that the public can better understand whether the editorial process is unfairly biased as is clearly the case here.

I'm sure that the editors of this page are sincere in their beliefs that AGW is a threat. But, the devotion of the editors to their cause does not justify misleading the public.

The way these graphs are presented is the oldest trick in the statistical manipulation playbook. You simply change the data range until the graph does what you want it to do. In this case you show the change of temperatures from the cool portion of the cycle to the warm portion, and then extrapolate that trend as if it will continue without any intervening inputs.

If one were to apply the same logic to the stock market, then we could build computer models showing how the DOW would hit 95,000 or fall to zero in 5 years. But the model would be descriptive of the theory, not predictive of future stock prices. Same thing with the models that describe how global warming works. They aren't capable of actually predicting what the climate is going to do - only describe the theory.

I would also humbly suggest that the primary way to improve the conversation here is for the editorial staff to open the GW page up to a more pluralistic review process. The reason this page has so many vigorous comments is because the information presented here is biased. The AGW theory needs to be contextualized with a fair representation of how the theory is performing in relation to actual temperature data and whether the predictions that have been made over the last 15 years or so are, in fact, coming to pass (they aren't).

I would happily volunteer to work as an editor on the page in order to represent those who are skeptical of the AGW theory. This arrangement would provide a more balanced presentation of the information we know about the climate while at the same time limit access to prevent real vandalism. Given the revelations of apparent fraud within the scientific community on this issue, it is important for the editors to remove their editorial bias and be more inclusive so that people can make more informed judgements.

If I'm considered to be unqualified to moderate, then I could at least assist in identifying a qualified candidate within the scientific community who would have the credentials to fairly present the opposing view in a scientifically sound manner.

If the editor isn't interested in my help, or feels threatened by editorial opposition, then readers can circumvent the bias on this page and see the data for themselves at any time by going to the following link:

The data produced by the NOAA is generated by infrared satellites and over 1,200 temperature sensors across the U.S. Admittedly, the data on that site doesn't benefit from Mr. Hansen's application of data massage cream; nor is it treated to Mr. Rhodes' creative date range manipulations.

Nonetheless, if the reader compares monthly temperature data for the last 10 years then he or she will notice that the average temperature today is substantially cooler than 10 years ago - even disregarding outliers like 1998. (1998 isn't an anomaly - it's a statistical outlier, btw). This despite the fact that worldwide production of CO2 is far higher today than it was 10 years ago.

The stakes are too high to allow the public to be misled about climate change.

There is precedence on Wikipedia for presenting not only what a theory states, but also the scientific opposition. Take a look at how Wikipedia presents the issue of Intelligent Design. That page presents the arguments for and against Intelligent Design. The Intelligent Design page is intellectually sloppy, but it does present the opposition. Given the number of research papers kids write based largely on the content found in Wikipedia, the editors of this page have a moral obligation to ensure that issues like this give voice to the theory's opponents.

Intellectual opposition isn't vandalism. Mcoers (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Matt C. 1/30/2010

There is a lot of stuff in your comment, some of which violates Wikipedia policy (like WP:AGF). But let me start with a simple one. The data is, modulo minor updates, plotted for the time it is available. We don't invent temperature records, we rely on the published one. See the FAQ Q7. And, assuming you talk about the CRU emails, neither is there an "AGW fraud investigation" in the UK, nor is Hansen "disgraced" or more then peripherally involved with the event. Making such claims without reliable sources, even on a talk page, violates WP:BLP. If you had not noticed, your NOAA link shows temperatures for the contiguous US, not global data. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, Stephan. Why don't you try addressing the point of my post rather than trying to undermine the source as not being "global enough". Go to the website and try a few queries, see what you come up with. I'm not making this stuff up, and I'm sourcing it correctly. You're just ignoring the source.
As for investigations in the U.K., I'm afraid you are incorrect, sir. Here's a link to the U.K.'s own parliamentary website announcing the enquiry:
Regarding Hansen, really I suppose the fact of his disgrace or lack thereof is more a matter of opinion and probably up to him in many ways. What can I say, some people have no shame. But perhaps you are correct and he doesn't feel disgraced. I'll concede that one to you. Mcoers (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Matt C. 1/30/2010
  • The UK parliamentary inquiry is not about fraud. It addresses three questions coming out of the incident. Implications for scientific integrity, adequacy of the UEA independent review and the independence of the 'other two' global temperature datasets. Mikenorton (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What's left to say? The UK investigation does not mention fraud, and the NOAA source, no matter how much I play with it, still offers data only for the lower 48 US states, not for the world. It hence is a useful tool for looking at the US data, not for coming to any conclusion about global temperatures (you are aware, of course, that the lower US is small compared to the globe, right?). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the chart is about 3 years out of date to me (2007 is the last data point). Funbutzian (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Try reading this thread again from the top. The last data point is for 2008. The only possible extra point available is for 2009 (you can look at it using the link that KDP provided above) and that has yet to be added. Going on past experience someone will produce an updated version of the graph in the next week or so (Dragons flight was good enough to to do the last update, but it isn't anyone's 'job'). Mikenorton (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The British Parliament not investigating allegations of fraud, Mr. Schulz? Come now. It is quite clear they are looking at allegations of manipulation of data, tampering with the peer review process, and attempts to thwart Access to Information laws, as per this selection of the committee's mandate:
"1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU's policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU's compliance or otherwise with the University's policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act ('the FOIA') and the Environmental Information Regulations ('the EIR') for the release of data."
Of course, they have not reached conclusions yet, as they are just getting started. But it's obvious the scandal created by the CRU e-mail release is not being ignored.

Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Ludwigs2 proposal

I think Ludwigs2 proposal in section above can serve as a template for debate we have had regarding the directon this article should take. The current state of "warping the science into a sub rosa political statement" needs to be changed to cleary reflect the science as a theory and the politics of global warming ( which really means money and power).

what's happened on this page (as far as I can see) is that editors have tried to frame the scientific language to exclude a political argument. that puts the article in a strange Shrödingerean state: if it is a science article it's neutral but incorrect; if it is a political article it's underdeveloped and violates NPOV. and of course talk page discussions are such that no one ever acknowledges this tension, so it can never be resolved; pure tendentious obfuscation. To my mind, either this article should be exclusively scientific (which would require discussing the matter as a scientific theory) or it should be more overtly political (which would require discussing GW as a theory in the political realm). Nothing good comes from warping the science into a sub rosa political statement (and yes, I know that all sides do that on this issue, and this side is not the worst offender by far, but I don't fid that a convincing argument for continuing to do it). Ludwigs2

Mytwocents (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think much like evolution global warming ends up being both the fact of and the theorical framework that explains. Gravity also functions in much this way with the phenom of and the theory frame that explains the phenom with the same name. I dont see how the current article warps science though into a political statement though or perhaps I am not seeing it from the same frame of reference. --Snowman frosty (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
As ever, we give due weight to the overwhelming majority scientific view that global warming is a fact, and that human activities influence it. The various theories to explain this, and projections from extrapolations, are part of the scientific field, with significant minority scientific views to be explained in relation to majority views. A brief summary style section outlining the political and antiscientific debates is also appropriate, with links to the main articles on these subjects. . . dave souza, talk 19:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) (and again...) your use of the word 'fact' above is ill-advised. 'Facts' are simple empirical observations - e.g. the average temperature in 1902 was X, the average temperature in 1903 was Y, the average temperature in 1904 was Z, etc. The claim that observations X, Y, and Z demonstrate a progression, a trend, or or ongoing phenomenon of any sort is a theoretical claim derived from those observations, one subject to further testing, examination, and explanation. There are numerous places in the article where trends of this type are referred to as though they were pre-given facts rather than extrapolations from a theoretical framework, and that is just a misrepresentation of the science to try to 'assert' that global warming is 'real' using linguistic tricks.
Don't get me wrong, I think global warming is real. I just object to the misrepresentation of the science, and I am (frankly) appalled that editors with an interest in science would stoop to this level of rhetorical gamesmanship. Science can get along just fine without that kind of bull, thankyouverymuch. --Ludwigs2 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hold on here. e.g. the average temperature in 1902 was X - come now, this is not a simple fact. It is a highly complex amalgam of a large number of observations, averaging, and a theory of how this is to be done. Even to state that "the average temperature at location X was Y in the first of January 1902" suffers the same problem. Even to state that the temperature at specific time Z at location Y (at a height of Z meters above ground level) can only be done when mediated by theory. In others words, if you insist on distinguishing "theory" from "observations" you far to rapidly zoom off into unprofitable metaphysics William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to take it that far, we could discuss it. however, it makes the wrong distinction. an average is a simple mathematical procedure: there are several different kinds of averages, and the act of averaging may be quite complex, but the intention of an average is to describe (give a summary of) a set of empirical observations. it is not intended to propose new information about those observations. a projection or trend, on the other hand, not only tries to describe the empirical observations that are given, but also makes claims about empirical observations that are yet to some.
In English, it's the difference between the past tense (temperatures rose) and the present perfect tense (temperatures have been rising); the first is a description of past events, the second an induction about ongoing events.
However, I'm not asking for a full (meta)physical of why this is a scientific theory - that's out of scope of the article. I'm merely asking that the article deal with GW as what it is - a well-crafted, heavily-supported, broadly accepted set of theories that deal with the perceived environmental changes taking place on the planet. It's honestly not that big of an issue. --Ludwigs2 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Enough. Folks, stop encouraging this stuff by responding to it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
lol - thanks Boris. It's people like you that make wikipedia what it is. Face-smile.svg --Ludwigs2 01:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new first paragraph for the Global Warming article

I would like to propose editing the first paragraph of the article to include information about the latest developments and climate observations that are available from reputable sources. Please do not delete my suggestion without allowing debate to happen.

        • Begin Paragraph ****

Global warming is a scientific theory that became popular in the 1980s to explain the observed increase in global temperature. The theory was proposed as a human-caused phenomenon, and is often referred to as Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW). Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.[2][A] However, the most recent decade has seen temperature declines in North America, Australia, and Europe. As a result, the controversy over human-caused global warming has increased. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The University of East Anglia, the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other education and governmental institutions have recently come under increased scrutiny as revelations of missing source data and allegations of fraud revealed in the "Climategate" scandal have called some of the fundamental assumptions made by leading AGW scientists into doubt.

        • End Paragraph ****

Sources to cite:

  • Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing N. American temperatures over the last decade:
  • Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing European temperatures over the last 8 years (Compare Seasonal Averages):
  • Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing Australian temperatures over the last decade:
  • Sources to substantiate the fact of increasing public scrutiny:
 -  Time Magazine:,28804,1929071_1929070_1945175,00.html
 -       The Washington Post:
 -       The Times:
  • Source to cite to substantiate the initiation of fraud investigations:
 -  United Kingdom Parliament:
 -       Penn State press release regarding an investigation into Michael Mann:
 -       Washington Times:
  • Source to cite to substantiate the fact of the Climategate scandal:

Mcoers (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Matt C.

Hello Mcoers, your proposition looks to me to be a very nice exercice of spin. From the use of the word "theory" in the first sentence, as a general rule, it seems that only deniers of evolution or Global warning want to use that word. Everybody else understands what theory means in a scientific context. To the expression "became popular in the 1980s" implying that it is recent and fashionable whereas it is actualy a cut and dry scientific question that has been studied for decades.
You assertion that temperatures have declined in the last decade is factually wrong. In fact the last decade was the warmest on record and there is not statistical decrease over the last few years. Incidentally, nice exercise of cherry picking your data. Because, if instead of picking just Winter like you did, we choose the whole year; and instead of Europe and Australia like you did we choose the whole world, it turns out, the results are exactly the opposite of yours.
Including the so called "Climategate" in the lede is a clear case of undue weight.
Last but not least, you conclusion that "some of the fundamental assumptions made by leading AGW scientists into doubt" is, and I'm trying to put this delicately, a statement that is laughable on its face. So, I would vote for not changing the first paragraph. --McSly (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Mcsly, calling my modification "laughable" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Furthermore if you have access to a publicly available data set that shows actual global temperatures, then I would like to see it (IOW, please cite your source). I don't believe that there is a "global" data set that we can go look at that is similar to those available from the governments of Australia, U.S., and U.K. One of the problems is that most of the pretty charts we see regarding "global temperature data" are manipulated the data with "tricks" and other procedures in an undocumented way. The data sets that I found are indicative of global temperatures in the sense that they represent the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western hemispheres. I chose these sets because they are on English websites. I can't very well investigate Chinese websites since I don't speak Chinese - even more importantly, neither do the visitors to the English version of this website.
Even better, these data sets are far more democratic for users since everyone can run their own numbers. I'm not cherry-picking data. You can run the numbers however you wish. Some monthly comparisons will show increases in temperature, some will show decreases. But if you average out the temperatures and develop trailing averages you will inevitably come to the same conclusion as I have that global temperatures are not going up. I could post those comparisons on my website, but the problem I have with doing so is that you guys will nix my results because that would probably be nit picked as originial research. Mcoers (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Matt C.
No need to post anything on your website, that would indeed be OR. We have good RS about the temperature for the last decade and you were right to insist that I need to provide sources. The temperature index from GISS is one and I don't think there is any suspicion over this data. Again from GISS, I quote "2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880 "[14]. Also, there was no cooling trend in the last few years (Statisticians Reject Global Cooling). --McSly (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Mcsly, you should know better than to use the term Denier it is not really WP:CIVIL is it? AGW is a theory, as is evolution (hence Darwins theory of evolution) to say AGW is not a theory is just pointless and unscientific. The assertion of temp decline is well documented, remember the now infamous e-mail, we can`t account for the lack of temp rise and that`s a travesty? And i seem to recall someone saying, yes temps have dropped but the heat is in the pipeline and will come back in twenty years or so? Your assertion that the term climategate in the lede is WP:UNDUE is obviously flawed, that term is not linked to global warming for eternity, and given the amount of press coverage weight is not an issue with it`s use. And that entire scandal has cast a shadow over the theory of AGW, many people who believed now doubt, those who just doubted now no longer believe. I would vote for changing the first paragraph to reflect reality. mark nutley (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
If my remark came across as uncivil, I apologize, that wasn't my intent and it wasn't directed at Mcoers. My point was, and we seem to agree, that yes, these are all theories, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, the theory of global warming, the theory of quantum physics. It's a _good thing_, it means that these are well understood phenomenons supported by numerous underlying facts. The only reason to include that term, generally in the first sentence, would be to try to confuse the reader who would know its colloquial meaning but not its scientific meaning. --McSly (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The full quote "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate".
Teneberth refers to that fact that only the top few hundred meters of water is monitored and he believes that there is storage of heat in deeper waters (In relation to the total energy budget, since there is some missing, a travesty of water warming not the near surface air!). Ie...that there is an inability to account for energy flow....A paper that came out after Teneberth's supported his notion of deeper water storage of energy (heat).
I also dont believe WP:UNDUE in relation to climategate is flawed, as it stands the scientific basis and understanding has yet to change. Unless you can demonstrate that there is a change in the climatic publications being released, the issuing of major corrections to the scientific understanding et al...then the science is saying what it was saying before...I see no change do you?
I don't believe the change to the lead is convincing based on the links provided, as per McSly's comments--Snowman frosty (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless you can demonstrate that there is a change in the climatic publications being released, What Like his you mean? The planet has cooled over the last 11 odd years, why would you deny this? And if this is the case but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate Then how in hell can they present their work as fact not theory? Riddle me that. With regards to he believes that there is storage of heat in deeper waters yes he believes, hence another theory with no factual evidence to back it up as yet. --mark nutley (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Energy & about 50% of the listed papers says it all, which does not say much...alas, other great climate related journals like The Electricity Journal, Iron & Steel Technology, Civil Engineering, Chemical Innovation highlight important reliable climate science I am sure...course the ones that are actually reliable are already given their due weight in the current article. Re cooling...It hasnt,
I also believe you have missed or failed to understand what Teneberth was referring to. He was talking about the oceanic temperature of the top ~900 meters depth not the entire globe or the near surface temperatures and that deep water measurements were inadequate Also did you read the paper I linked that confirmed Tenebreth hypothesis (not a theory) of deeper heat storage. Also if you go though the energy budget you can see what Teneberth was referring to, and to why the lack of heat in the top 900 m was an issue. I believe your last comment does not make sense. Since I referenced a paper that supported Teneberths thoughts on where the heat was...the linked confirmed this....mystery solved... --Snowman frosty (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Mystery not solved, NODC revises ocean heat content data – it’s now dropping slightly Looks like trenberth will have to rework his theory --mark nutley (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I still think you are having trouble understanding...if you look at the data link you posted you can read the NODC numbers refer to the upper 700 m depth of water. So this again confirms that the heat in the ocean is present somewhere else. I again refer you back to the paper linked above, above heat storage in deep water as per Teneberths suggestion. I am not sure what else to say, nothing else here is contstructive to the current article, and it seems clear you are not understanding the difference between oceanic depths. I'll leave you the last word.--Snowman frosty (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Say what now? You do realize heat rises right? If the top 700m of water are cooling then the heat below has already moved up. That`s basic physic`s. However i`m sure the reefs in the florida keys are cheered by trenberths theory Coral in Florida Keys suffers lethal hit from coldI thank you for the last word, it`s nice to see the mindset of those who are AGW adherents. --mark nutley (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The science of climate change is well understood. Those who wish to deny climate change often misunderstand the difference between climate and weather. Look at the data. The weather goes up and down, the climate is getting warmer. A cold snap is weather, not climate. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rick, if you can show how my edit to the first paragraph is looking at weather instead of climate, please be more specific. This blanket rebuttal you have copy/pasted is rhetorical and condescending. Mcoers (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Matt C.

Dear editors, I have provided you with sourced information that is NEW in the sense that it is using the latest available information. This information is much more reliable given the current circumstances surrounding the unreliability of information being released by the IPCC (think about Glaciergate, Climategate, etc) and others. Giving the public access to the base data is, in this respect, a far more honest way to run this site than any other right now. At least until we can verify the veracity (or lack thereof) of information coming from the likes of people like Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et al.

Really, I'm going to have to insist that you become more inclusive and open up your "good ol boys" network to allow competing ideas into this process. If you don't like my paragraph, then let's see how you would improve it. I mean, that is the philosophy of Wikipedia, right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcoers (talkcontribs)

I wouldn't. The article is under probation and it's a good idea to seek consensus here first before making major changes to the article. And everyone please sign your posts with ~~~~ Thank you. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 18:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

@ McSly: to the point, global warming is factually a theory: the general disregard for that point on this page I put down either to willful ignorance or to poor secondary school education.
@ everyone else (more or less): sarcasm is not normally considered a valid move in rational discourse, and certainly doesn't qualify when it is the entirety of the given argument. just an FYI. --Ludwigs2 09:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the general disregard you point out, I invite you to this quote from a wikipedian, yourself, in with respect to that disregard: "yes, I understand, there's a resistance to calling it a theory because there's a fear that identifying it as a theory will open the door anti-GW people who want to pov-push other theories in"
I ask that you consider this prior understanding now, as opposed to the assumption of bad faith or poor education. This is, it should be said, not meant to be taken sardonically. I didn't take your above statement to literally decry all of wikipedian editors that have related concerns, here or elsewhere, as either biased or ignorant. Nor am I trying to single out the statement on your talk page as some kind of proof that you were speaking dishonestly when you made your frustrations known here. I only want to highlight that it seemed, unless I'm mistaken, that you would argue that such a reason is not enough. If I am correct then I find myself wondering, can the perception of words be the foundation for a meritous argument against inclusion?
In other words, what if it isn't a 'don't give an inch, because if you do they'll take a mile' situation, but in fact an issue of trying to avoid framing the perception of a viewpoint in a non neutral way. Trying to avoid strengthening the chance of that view was being ignored for the wrong reasons (wrong in the eyes of wikipedia, I understand there is doubt for some, certainty for others). Let us say, for example, that someone went to the article on atheism and insisted that instead of the first sentence being 'Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities', we should write "Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the assumption that there are no deities." and the people hoping to get the wording changed repeated that it is factually true, with regards to their wording.
The facts are there, surely. But what if that is not the whole of the argument, is the new wording also neutral, was the old wording factually incorrect or biased in such a way that it would require a change? Does either benefit a point of view unduly? I can understand the arguments, I remember seeing heated talk regarding creationism in schools, where 'it's only a theory' was repeated with passion. Now, the contention for me lies elsewhere, and you may agree.
This is an article about the science. As such, I think that strengthens the case for adding such wording. I dislike using the word "theory" as a stand alone phrase, however. It has a colloquial meaning that, I don't believe, matches with the tone of the article. I am fine with the phrase "scientific theory", as I feel that is more precise. That said, I am unsure it is necessary, but then again I have been here hardly longer than two shakes of a lambs tail. By the way, I came here to check on another conversation for one quick moment, I may not return in a timely manner if at all. I hope, however, that I was able to make my stance clear enough for everyone to consider. (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right that I should have been a bit gentler in my phrasing (though I will point out that the kind of resistance I suggested above is a form of willful ignorance). You'e also correct that articles often need to be framed carefully to preserve NPOV. but framing of this sort does not extend to actual spin-doctoring. what's happened on this page (as far as I can see) is that editors have tried to frame the scientific language to exclude a political argument. that puts the article in a strange Shrödingerean state: if it is a science article it's neutral but incorrect; if it is a political article it's underdeveloped and violates NPOV. and of course talk page discussions are such that no one ever acknowledges this tension, so it can never be resolved; pure tendentious obfuscation. To my mind, either this article should be exclusively scientific (which would require discussing the matter as a scientific theory) or it should be more overtly political (which would require discussing GW as a theory in the political realm). Nothing good comes from warping the science into a sub rosa political statement (and yes, I know that all sides do that on this issue, and this side is not the worst offender by far, but I don't fid that a convincing argument for continuing to do it). --Ludwigs2 16:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
"if it is a science article it's neutral but incorrect" This quote, for me, would be the meat of the argument, it's one thing to be framed and avoid using certain wording, it's another thing to be demonstrably wrong. There are other thoughts, though. "talk page discussions are such that no one ever acknowledges this tension, so it can never be resolved" If I understand the sides here, it's not that one side is denying tension to keep the article in limbo, it's that the tension is because of earnest disagreements regarding how to best word the article. I invite it may even go deeper than that, I think there is real and legitimate difference as to what editors feel the intention of this article should be. I don't think I witnessed anyone trying to assert that no one disagrees. For those that feel that way though, I do clearly disagree with those that don't agree that people disagree.
You also mention a need to discuss the topic AS a scientific theory if the article were to be about the science. It seems to describe the elements of the scientific theory, are you saying they should mention or link to the wiki page on scientific theory, or something else? Regarding the concern for secretive statements and discussing the scientific theory in the political realm, I would would invite this thought. The wikipedia article on horses makes no overt mention of unicorns, it is entirely seated in the biological perspective, rather than in the magical perspective. However if we try to 'discuss unicorns as a biological entity from a magical perspective' as you want to discuss GW as a theory in the political realm, we might have trouble as they are not directly compatible.
This is not to discount any side as believing in the irrational, or anything else that might be inferred except that the science and the politics are separate entities. We can discuss the political climate, we can discuss the science, however those two 'realms' are separate, and cannot be discussed as if the politics is a facet of the science, or the science is a facet of politics. That may not be what you meant, but I did want to mention that in case because of the 'sub rosa' comment. Do you believe that the article considering skepticism as a fringe scientific perspective is a political statement? If so would that be the forefront of your concerns regarding neutrality? (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Mcoers, there are several editor who believe that there is not enough about scepticism in this article. I think there is support for adding well sourced material on this subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Just a note that this month a series of articles on this subject, including this, appeared in Nature. If someone can get access to them, they look like useful sources. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sent it to you, please email me or drop a note on my talk if you (pl.) see this and also want a copy. Awickert (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

dab GWC

Don't like this [15]. GWC isn't currently a sane page (under prot; and that isn't the worst of it). We should not be giving priority to a link to it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if GWC being anti-sane is a good reason, but it is already a dab in "Debate and skepticism," don't need duplicates. Removed. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Global Warming Controversy is poor because of constant non-policy and POV interference. An undocumented policy is in place for this main GW article viz no newspapers, which may be fair enough. But it's absurd to apply it to the controversy article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree entirely with your first sentence, with the exception of "constant", which a glance at the edit history refutes William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stratospheric cooling

This is now hidden in the solar variation section. I think we could mention this in a section in which all the nontrivial observed signatures of global warming are summarized, just like this section summarizes the independent pieces of observational evidence for the Big Bang theory. Count Iblis (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean like Climate change#Physical evidence for climatic change? We might want to get Boris and Awickert on board. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea and would be willing to help once I clear my current to-do list, though I have no particular expertise in modern climate (beyond being able to read and mostly understand the journal articles), Awickert (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed "steady or" from there, because I think it is wrong. Nontrivial observed sigs belong in attribution of recent climate change probably... not that they are. But they should really go there first before being summarised here William M. Connolley (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User AbbaIkea2010 adds new categorys

See his contribution and talk page. Category:Scientific controversies Category:Globalism Category:Political controversies --DuKu (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#AbbaIkea2010_and_DuKu William M. Connolley (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple clarification, please!

My understanding of the article is that solar radiation hits the surface of the earth, which is absorbed and re-emitted, then "trapped" in the atmosphere by the greenhouse gases. What I'd like to know (and the article doesn't explain) is why the incoming solar radiation isn't absorbed by the greenhouse gases before it hits the earth. Norman21 (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the linked wiki article, corresponding to your question. Main articles: Greenhouse effect and Radiative forcing --DuKu (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You want GHE, not radiative forcing. User_talk:William_M._Connolley#More_thermals may help William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Norman21, I'm guessing you arrived as a regular visitor/seeker after "truth", with only slight Wiki-familiarity. You've arrived at one of the most informative articles (indeed, entire topic) in the whole of Wikipedia, but I'm not convinced you checked the article carefully enough before giving up and asking us for help. You should really have done a search in the article for some key-word that particularly interested you. I chose to do a test-search on the word "radiation" and quickly found this. While that overview section of another article doesn't explain the answer to your particular question, as others have told you it does point to Greenhouse effect and Radiative forcing. The former begins with a section called Basic Mechanism which I think does an acceptable job of explanation.
You'll be interested to know this is almost the first "information test" I've done that the article has passed. If you'd come here wanting to know if Monckton is lying about the economic cost of adaptation compared with the costs of mitigation I don't think you'd have got to the answer. Ditto if you were looking for the savannahification (or desertification) of the Amazon or other rain-forests, or if you wanted to check on Antarctica and the melting of the ice-shelves.
When others have had a chance to read this, I suggest this whole section be taken and left at your (talk). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK, Greenhouse gases (generally) don't absorb light, some of the light is absorbed by the planet and the emitted as heat and some of that heat is absorbed by gases like H20 and CO2 and re-emitted, occasionally back towards the planet in order to cause the greenhouse effect. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your rapid and informative responses. The following answers my question (I think): "The Earth receives energy from the Sun mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths. About 50% of the sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface, the rest is reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. The absorbed energy warms the surface." (from Basic Mechanism). I was probably trying to derive too much information from the diagram. Norman21 (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the explanation could be better. The important thing is that energy comes in on wavelengths that are somewhat transparent to greenhouse gases but exits (or tries to exit) on wavelengths that are somewhat opaque to the same gases. If you're satisfied then the explanation currently in place scores a hit, and that's as much as can be expected.
But what I'm trying to do is examine the processes people use or could use once they'd arrived at this main GW article which was, in your case and presumably many others, the first point of call. For your particular inquiry I'd suggest the system worked almost as well as it could have done. Do you agree, or could the article have pointed you to the answer without asking at the discussion page? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting question. If your simple explanation (energy comes in on wavelengths that are somewhat transparent to greenhouse gases but exits (or tries to exit) on wavelengths that are somewhat opaque to the same gases) had appeared early on in the article, together with a link to more explanation, my question would have been answered. However, I wouldn't want my limited experience to influence policy! Norman21 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm less concerned with small improvements (like the one I've offered) than the structure that allows visitors to navigate. If you were to come from a different tack (eg wanting to know what Lord Monckton or Dr Will Happer were really saying) and try to find answers I think you'd be stumped. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that is OK, because the implicit answer is "nothing of interest", and that is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

link 5 is broken

pls fix to Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Awickert (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Glacier melt overestimated by 50%!

Again, I find it interesting how these mistakes always make global warming to be worse than it is. Where shall we include this tidbit in the article? And have we mentioned that the glaciers have been retreating since the last Ice Age (10,000 year ago)? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Good news, but it's odd how you've got this conspiracy theory about "mistakes" – you seem to be too credulous, you should be a sceptic like me and expect science to develop and find new and sometimes unexpected information. This, together with Susan Solomon's paper, could mean slower global warming, but still the consensus looks strong that AGW is significant. It'll be interesting to see considered analysis of this paper. . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I am a skeptic Souza and I've never said there was any sort of conspiracy. I believe the best explanation for the one-sidedness of these mistakes is simple human psychology like confirmation bias,groupthink and group polarization - a healthy human dose of apocophilia is probably part of it too. It is odd how you'd accuse me of something unscientific like a conspiracy theory, when my listed reasonings are based on the science of psychology. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It’s just greed - political and scientific greed with a healthy dose of liberal left bias like here at WP and you have the makings of the greatest scam/ponzi scheme ever attempted. Mk —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S. did you read the press release? "Ice loss from Alaskan glaciers since1962 is evidently smaller than previously thought. However, thinning (sometimes over 10 m/year, as in the Columbia glacier) and glacial retreat remain considerable. Moreover, the spectacular acceleration in mass loss since the mid 1990s, corresponding to a contribution of 0.25 to 0.30 mm/year to sea-level rise, is not in question and proves to be a worrying indication of future sea-level rise." Better get your wellies ready. . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes of course I read it and if I recall I believe that was put forth as a sort of exceptional case. Also, the smaller ice gets the faster it melts (due to surface area/volume ratios) and so glacier melt (as long as the temperature/precip is constant) should theoretically always be accelerating. Also, the sea has been rising since the end of the last ice age too :). TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Historic Low of sub-400 ppm CO2 Levels

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that at 380 ppm today, we are at an historic low of CO2 concentrations when we look back at past CO2 levels? The only other time CO2 has dropped below 400 ppm has been the late Carbiniferous some 300 million years ago, but at all other times CO2 has been above 400 ppm. The graph here [16] shows CO2 levels with a black line, and temperature is the blue line. In fact it's been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was so favorable to life that it resulted in the famous Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. This seems to contradict the predictions that our 380 ppm level will result in dire consequences for life. It's a basic crime of omission by leaving these facts out. JettaMann (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The concentrations in prehistoric and prehuman times are relevant to paleoclimatology, but of only contingent relevance to the current warming. The current warming is not predicted to have effects such as mass extinctions and the like; rather, it's likely to cause changes that we'd rather, as humans, avoid. Costly changes lasting many human lifetimes.. --TS 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Or you could say that humans originated and evolved in a special niche in which CO2 concentrations were extraordinarily low. That's to say that one can speculate either way, so it probably shouldn't be included here. Awickert (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's also say that "historic" usually refers to written history. CO2 is at an all-time high for at least 100 times longer than written history, and possibly for 2000 times longer than written history. The 20 million years currently most likely is about 10 times the average life time of a species. And Tony, global warming is predicted to cause mass extinction, although it will be hard to separate it from the holocene extinction event that's ongoing anyways. An extinction event does not require every third animal species to drop dead and rot away immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Your assumption about "Historic" is erroneous - just convenient for your argument.Dikstr (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that this "historic low" is really relevant. However, it is yet another example of an issue that people should find if they search the article. Having found it, readers should be diverted to another article that (maybe) gives this feature the attention it deserves.
The list of missing key-words may not include "historic low", it most certainly does include words such as "Antarctic", "desertification", "Amazon" and many others which are currently missing from the article. Two of those in my short-list above were removed immediately when I put them in. (Comments on "advocacy" of this kind by me to my TalkPage, please). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the resistance you're encountering here is because most other editors don't share your view of what this article should contain. You can't just stand around and say "X is missing", "Y is missing", and so on. You have to persuade by presenting evidence that a significant aspect of global warming is omitted. --TS 12:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
JettaMann believes a discussion of this "historic low" needs inclusion, I've told him that a mention would indeed be valuable, but i couldn't support the whole nine yards. I trust others to contribute in a similarly balanced and article improving fashion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Stephen, isn't it worth noting in the article that historically CO2 bottoms out at about the 400 ppm level. If you look at the Tertiary period in that graph it clearly shows CO2 levels starting at about 1000 ppm, then leveling out far before industrial production began. They have no where to go but up, at least it appears that way from past behavior of the planet. This just seems like relevant information that people reading up on Global Warming would want to know. JettaMann (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Tell us the "key-words" that help guide people to find out about this feature, and I'd support including them. But there is said to be a problem with article-bloat, so the discussion presumably needs to go somewhere else. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Jetta, that is not true. CO2 levels during the last half million years (i.e. "historic period"*100) or so have been between 200ppm and 300ppm (during the warmest periods of interglacials). Our best current estimates are that CO2 has not been as high as it was today in the last 20 million years. Assuming you talk about the graph labeled "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time" at [17], that graph is intended to show, in broad strokes, CO2 and temperature over half a billion years. It simply does not have the resolution to show details on the million year scale. The uncertainty for the last 20 million years in that graph goes from about 0 ppm to approxiately 350 ppm. [:File:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png] shows the last 400000 years in some detail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Well yes that's true, we are at another low point in CO2 concentrations. As I said, the current period started at around 1000 and decreased gradually then *leveled off* far before industrial inputs, leaving no where to go but up. Likely if we had more accurate records the Carboniferous would also show levels bottoming out at a similar number (you can see the error bars in the graph go to about 0). On examination of the micro level it was probably spiking up and down as we see today. But my main point here is that it is important to give data in context. You can look at smaller periods of time such as the transition from winter to summer and predict a massive trend in warming, or 1940 to 1970 and predict a massive decline in temperature, etc... up to all different time scales and periods. Without context, it can make people panic unnecessarily. The context here that is important for people to know is that: 1) the earth is at historic lows of CO2 2) It's been as high as 7000 ppm 3) Life thrived during the warmer periods 4) CO2 levels have gone down and up without any industrial activity in the past. This is important information for the average Wikipedia reader to know. JettaMann (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. First, you write "the only other time CO2 has dropped below 400 ppm has been the late Carbiniferous (sic)" - i.e. you talk about hundreds of millions of years. Then you talk about the Tertiary, i.e. about time spans of 10s of millions of years (and CO2 was below 400 ppm for large parts of the Tertiary). Now you talk about a thousand years? Or a 1000 ppm? Anyways, no, the Earth is not at "historic lows of CO2". It is likely at unprecedented heights during the current geological age. Going back even 20 million years, you are talking about a different planet. The Mediterranean dried up about 6 million years ago. Both the Tethys Seaway and the Isthmus of Panama closed up during the last 20 million years. Sure, life "thrived" during higher CO2 concentration. But "life" the last time we had 3000 ppm was the dinosaurs, not humans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
@ - JettaMann - the details of what you're talking about are not important for the reasons you've been told. No matter how good things may have been all those years ago, the re-imposition of those CO2 levels will likely be catastrophic to our way of life and possibly to our species.
However, it is an interesting and perhaps significant discussion. Rather than try to argue the details of these 'historic lows', we need to provide readers with a) a signpost they'll be able to spot amongst the forest of other signposts and b) a proper discussion of this effect. The latter will almost certainly have to be on a sub-page because it cannot be fitted in here at the moment (though later it might come to be more important and be fetched back). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
@JettaMann Can you give us a statement, boiled down to one sentence, with a ref so we can see it. I don't think the addition of one sentence will damage the page. We can point to the relative sub-article with a wikilink. Mytwocents (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's a simple statement that's more-or-less consistent with the designated scope of this article: "The current rise in CO2 levels is unprecedented since the appearance of homo sapiens on the earth approximately 200,000 years ago." Don't have time to provide a citation right now, but there are secondary RSs out there for this. The last time CO2 levels were 1000ppm, dinosaurs and ferns dominated the Earth. ... Kenosis (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Simple statement C&P direct from Atmospheric_CO2 "Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 [million years] and certainly higher than in the last 800,000." How that adds up to 'historic low' is beyond me, but a statement that says something like "Even though ancient pre-historical atmospheric CO2 levels may have been higher, present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 [million years] and certainly higher than in the last 800,000." (with the same cite as that article) might be a useful addition? ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that, per "These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[25][26][27] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago." already included. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
What I'm proposing is that we just present the data to the readers of Wikipedia, unvarnished. It seems to me like some of the people above are trying to interpret the data for people, which strikes me as problematic. Malcolm McDonald's statements above are bordering on original research and Kenosis' statement would be repeating what is already said in the article. The proposed addition would be something like, "In the geologic scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which resulted in the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered." The reference for this is provided above in my first statement.JettaMann (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
What's "unvarnished" about "CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm [...] which resulted in the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity"? Moreover, why do you feel this data should be included? I'm not aware of any serious scientists who claims that conditions during the Cambrian or Carboniferous are in any way comparable to conditions today. Continents are configured differently, the biosphere is completely changed, heck, even the sun was significantly fainter back then. There also is no serious scientist who claims that the current increase is some kind of natural recovery. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
^^^ That ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)



The statement above is not interpretation of any kind. It is a fact that CO2 was at 7000 ppm and the Cambrian explosion followed. There is zero interpretation there. Whereas the claim that CO2 levels today are unnatural and deadly is controversial to say the least, as you are well aware. That claim is not an observation, it is an interpretation. So I'm saying let's just put these facts in the article, which are not interpretations, which put current CO2 levels in proper context to the earth's past, and which put the interpretations of AGW scientists in context as well. I'm also not sure why you are saying scientists don't think the earth's past is comparable to today. In many ways it is comparable, and in some ways it is not comparable. For you to say it is in no way comparable is your interpretation and sounds like original research to me. JettaMann (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something here? I thought we're discussing an article on global warming not an article on historic (or even current) levels of carbon dioxide. If the current or historic levels of CO2 are relevant to this article, as established by reliable sources then it should obviously be included in a relevant context but otherwise it doesn't matter whether it's 'a fact'. It's also a fact that Venus has an atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide by volume and has a surface tempeature of 740 K; and evidentally that "Republicans have received 75 percent of the oil and gas industry's $245 million in political contributions during the past 20 years" [18] and evidentally, at least as of 2005 [19] that "Bush, who has received more from the oil and gas industry than any other politician" (in the US); and that in 2006 the US had the highest per capita emissions of CO2 of any country with a population over ~6 million; but in all cases again, not something that particularly belongs in the article unless there's some established relevance Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That the current CO2 level is unnatural is a fact, not an opinion. We don't claim that it is "deadly" in the article, so that's a straw man. If CO2 levels were 7000ppm in the Cambrian explosion is uncertain - look at the error bars. However, this is picking nits. The main problem is that you wrote "resulted", suggesting a causal link for which you have provided no evidence, let alone reliable sources. But that still misses the point. The "explosion" took some 70-80 million years. The dinosaurs left us 65 million years ago, leading to an explosion in the diversity of mammals. Does that make a major asteroid strike desirable? Granting you your nit, yes, the precambrian Earth was in "some" ways comparable to today's Earth. However, you cannot usefully compare the climate system. The sun was about 6% less luminous than today, equivalent to a forcing of approximately 20W/m2, or more than 6 doublings of CO2 compared to preindustrial modern levels. The continents were configured very differently. Oxygen content started at 3% and rose to 15% or so - something that might be much more reasonably be connected to the Cambrian explosion. In short, it's a different system, and trying to frame parameters as "normal" because they are within boundaries experienced within the deep geological past is fallacious. For that concept of "normal", an Earth without humans is normal, as is one without mammals, as, indeed, is one without multicellular life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"That the current CO2 level is unnatural is a fact, not an opinion", What ? "unnatural" how"s that ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Instead of saying "resulted in" we could say "was followed by", which contains no interpretation. You mention above that it "is a fact" that the current 382 PPM level is unnaturally high. Could I ask you how unnaturally high it is? In other words, how much ppm higher than what it is supposed to be today? This seems like a difficult thing to answer without a significant amount of interpretation because the history of CO2 levels is that it is bumping up and down all the time without any industrial or man made input. Sometimes it bumped up to as high as 7000 ppm, sometimes it was under 400 ppm, and all without industrial pollution in the past. So to me this seems like a very relevant thing to mention in an article that talks about CO2 levels with the earth today. You need to put in perspective what the earth has done in the past. You've kind of argued against your own case in my opinion by talking about what is "normal". Is it up to you to decide some arbitrary cutoff point in which "modern conditions" exist? You can't just arbitrarily select a narrow date range that Wikipedia readers are allowed to see data from. Like I said before, if you select the date range from June to December, it looks like massive global cooling! Yet it would be wrong to just focus on one small slice of data to try and convince people of a trend. JettaMann (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The appropriate 'slice' for this article is the one which includes where there most recently seemed to be a natural (non-human affected, for the sake of debate) balance or steady-state in CO2 levels for an extended period of time. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The currently proposed statement is something like, "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally." JettaMann (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I regret encouraging you. Yes, it would be nice to have some "key-words" (eg historic low) that led the reader to some kind of explanation of this argument. (Even though I'm pretty sure it's a straw-man of the deniers). But you seem to want a discussion on the page, and that would be completely WP:UNDUE. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see this paragraph as being more discussion than any other part of the article, but what specifically do you see as being discussion? Perhaps we can examine this paragraph in parts to identify which is discussion adn which is not. 1. "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity." Do you consider anything in this first part discussion? "The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally." Does this second part contain discussion? JettaMann (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Statements like "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally" smack of "discussion" (as in "explanation of detail") that is excessive (even in a 100Kb article). Call it WP:UNDUE. The solution is a sentence that only includes the key-words, such as "historic low" + Cambrian + Carboniferous, with a link to the "discussion" (as in "explanation of detail") at another article. Maximum informative potential without article bloat. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of non-human biodiversity. (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, well I agree we want this succinct and without bloat. And if we do have the ability to link to other Wikipedia articles (Cambrian Explosion, Carboniferous) that do explain these concepts then that sounds reasonable. Part of me thinks the problems we have in this article are that we are trying to explain two different things in one article: 1) Global Warming/Climate Change (which has happened frequently in the past naturally) and Anthropomorphic Global Warming, which is a theory that mankind plays a dominant role in temperature changes that are occurring at present. It's too muddy the way things currently are organized. JettaMann (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Wrong assumption. This article is not about arbitrary climate change, but about the recent warming and its causes. That's what the term "global warming" most often refers to, and that's the topic of the article. And that's why your 500000000 year old data is completely irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess the point that you are missing here is that past behavior of the earth is entirely relevant when talking about recent climate change. JettaMann (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
"Past behavior" - yes, sure. But not all past behavior, and not behavior that is so far back that not only the continents, the biosphere, and the chemistry of the Earth, but even the Sun have changed significantly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, this interpretation of yours strikes me as original research in which you are trying to say that the earth is just 100% different now compared to all other periods past 100,000 years ago (or whatever time period you want to focus on). If we take the Carboniferous period, for example, researchers believe present day earth is remarkably similar to the Carboniferous, more-so than any other period, even though it was in the distant past. JettaMann (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Who and in what context? I'm very certain that yesterdays Earth, for example, is much more like present day Earth than the Carbon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You are playing semantic games when you state that (paraphrasing) "the current period is most similar to the current period". That kind of discussion doesn't really get us anywhere. The original link states that the Carboniferous is most similar to the present period. [20] JettaMann (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Ummm...a self-published web site by a coal mining engineer? But even then, if you read it in context, you will see that his is a quite limited claim, talking about the later part of the Carboniferous only, and only about CO2 level and average temperature. He spends quite a while talking about differences like continent layout, too, but he misses two major issues - the evolution of lignin and the fainter sun. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but it logically seems that CO2 levels are unnaturally low. Now, perhaps if current trends continue, CO2 will rise, maybe become unnaturally high, but is there perhaps a danger posed to the biosphere if current levels of CO2 remain less that 0.1% of the atmosphere? --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, if they are "unnaturally low", they have been unnaturally low for about 100 times longer than Homo Sapiens exist. The biosphere as a whole will survive fine, of course. The question is what will happen to some of the parts that are important to us. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet more scaremongering

Naming specific "climate skeptics"

Three names are given in the article -- "Prominent global warming skeptics include Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer and Patrick Michaels."

I've never heard of any of these people, nor do I see what makes them special compared to scores of other climate skeptics across the globe. Not to mention -- why is an individual's opinion considered encyclopedic in the first place? Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a political debate board, and it seems to me this content is completely irrelevant. Since it's also an unsourced statement, I'd normally remove this as irrelevant, but given the "article probation" threat, I dare not change the article. So I figured I'd post to the talk page instead, requesting opinions. -Stian (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there already a wiki dedicated to Sceptics? --DuKu (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I am in agreedment with you on this one. I posted back on a previous thread that there isnt a reason to list specific people. Who decides which? Why one and not another? etc, just remove the names leave the rest is my opinion on that one --Snowman frosty (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There should be a link to a list to the denial campaigners. --DuKu (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Should there also be a page for global warming alarmists? Such as the ones claiming the glaciers will melt away in 5 years? Jeff K. Halle (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I tried to remove the link to the 3 specific names listed under "climate skeptics" section but was reverted. I agree with Stian for the most part. We have them listed in the list of scientists link within that section. Why do these 3 get listed and not every one the list, or 10, or 5, why those 3? Are there any editors that can explain why these 3 names are listed, why they are so, because I must be missing something? --Snowman frosty (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe the consensus was to remove all names but put in a link to the list off sceptics page mark nutley (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but add those names to the other wiki. Snowman i just saw your post on my user site, i remove it now. --DuKu (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you please be clearer? A wiki is a system for collaborative editing, or a concrete instance of it. Do you mean another wiki or another page on Wikipedia? Lindzen, Singer and Michaels have been on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming since time immemorial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Schulz, yes the link from the relative paragraph. Or do you imply there are more such listings? (If so please provide the link) I just had a quick look and the names are there. As long the link is inside the gw wiki i think it is not necassary to add those 3 names. --DuKu (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes stephen, it was agreed to remove the names and put in a link to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming with a line like, Tot everyone believes AGW is caused by man, or something along those lines mark nutley (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Reverted back to last legit version from snowman. --DuKu (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Stian - there are big advantages to inserting the names of some skeptics into the article. 10s of 1,000s of people are (almost certainly) flocking to hear Lord Monckton touring Australia right now and arguing that, amongst other things, the costs of mitigation far exceed the gains and few of the Copenhagen countries have even notified the IPCC of the CO2 target they set themselves, as they promised to do last December. Millions of people are hearing about Monckton's arguments and might expect the on-line encyclopedia of record to have mention of the arguments and of him. And yet, the key-word "Monckton" isn't in the article and I don't think any of the other key-words one might search on would lead you to answers to any of the questions such a person might have! I don't know what the answer is, it's obviously very difficult to help people find what they want. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a big fallacy. The aim of this article is not to counter Monckton or any of his or other fallacious arguments. It is to give a decent and correct overview of the topic. Monckton is one click off Monckton, feel free to add a discussion of his claims and counterclaims there. Likewise, Lindzen is, surprisingly, at Lindzen, and COP15 has its own article. Note how Evolution does not cater to each creationist fallacy, and how Earth does not contain a list of Flatland arguments and their refutation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The aim of this article should be to inform, perhaps to "settle arguments". It fails completely. Anyone hearing of Monckton's tour or his radio interviews needs to be able to dial in "Global Warming" and click on the Wikipedia article with confidence that it will cover the major points of interest eg do a search on the article for "Monckton".
My first experience of this was coming across an article on the views of Dr Will Happer, I naturally expected to check Global Warming and burrow down until I discovered whether Happer was a kook or not, or whether the really credible things he claims about GW were worth investigating further.
My comment to Stian is that a few "names of skeptics" definitely belong in the article, such names function as key-words that enable readers to find out what's going on. The problem is that it's the wrong names that are included. Happer and Monckton get excluded, just as Amazon and Antarctica and rain-forest and desertification are excluded. Perhaps I should re-start a section I wanted earlier, what the bloody hell is this article for? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
"to inform" is a non-statement. The question is to inform about what? And the answer is: About global warming - what it is, what causes it, what effects it will have. The article is not here to inform about every politico's or pundit's or think tank's propaganda. If we had an unlimited capacity for information and unlimited bandwidth into the brain, we would not need Wikipedia - people could just read all of the internet. Since that is not the case, we need to select what goes into this article. There is a trade-off - and I strongly maintain that we preferably put in relevant and supported information, not irrelevant and refuted arguments. In particular, we do not write articles that will become obsolete in half a year when Monckton's tour is over. Information we include should have a good chance of standing the test of time, both in correctness and in relevance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the arguments of Monckton (and numerous others) are refuted somewhere in WP. But I've not come across anything like that. In fact, if you arrive at this article expecting it to answer any questions you have about Monckton, I think you'll go away convinced that wP is not informative. None of the key-words I tried led anywhere, and his name (surely the first thing such people will try) isn't there either. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Note that if you arrive with questions about internal combustion at Swan Lake, you will have a similar experience. I would expect people with questions about Monckton to go to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, where I'm sure his personal claims, properly attributed and contextualized, could lead a useful life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems a bit random to name specific people surrounding a theory, when such people have not been key to developing the theories they advocate, but are rather distinguished mainly by the amount of media coverage they obtain or how vocal they are. Mentioning Plato in Platonism is somewhat essential, or Christ in Christianity, but giving a pick n' mix of proponents for the theory of global warming or theory of non-global warming is perhaps giving undue coverage to people who are not inherent to their respective camps (in the same way that Al Gore isn't, nor probably should be mentioned.) --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Truth is that it's a selection of strawman targets (at least in the 'common' perception). Will anyone admit this? Probably not. Top that with the fact that [NPOV] will never be realized with such strong wording as creationist fallacy instead of creationist theory (or at least concept, topic, idea). With thoughts like these directing articles, it's no wonder [NPOV] is impossible. I mean, political rhetoric is so apparent in these articles. I'd say you can remove skepticism all together and place in the see topics links, because honestly, if you wish to represent Global Warming as a theory and not fact, skepticism makes no sense. It's like having gravity skepticism (even though the concept is plausible and even debatable) the theory is not subject to skepticism unless it is fronted as fact. Science needs to get off its high horse of fact. Science is a model of reality, and it's only useful as a model, never will it be fact, and it will only approach fact as time approaches infinity (if we are even lucky to not get stupid one day). Cflare (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Settled Science" Takes Another Hit

The Dutch point out yet more sloppy work by IPCC:

The IPCC reports are becoming pretty fragile things upon which to build this article. (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Always interesting how all these "errors" seem to exaggerate the danger. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
So what? Its a 938 page report and there is two errors, neither of which actually effect the science itself used to measure climate change. Hitthat (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually the lead author on the glacier section said there were 5 "glaring" errors in the glacier section alone. And there are far more out there that have come to light recently. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Always interesting how all these "reliable sources" seem to fail to realise IPCC isn't one report William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Its irrelevant whether the IPCC is 1 or 100 reports. Taken together its being exposed as an inaccurate publication constructed in a slipshod fashion. But what else would we expect from one of the world's worst bureaucracies?Dikstr (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
IPCC AR4 is one report. If our intention is to persuade the paying public that we're presenting the state of the science in an NPOV fashion then we really need to look at the latest opinion poll that was on the BBC tonight. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ummm, no. It is several reports. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
AR4 refers to "The Fourth Assessment Report". While it has subreports, they combine to make one bigger report; the AR4. It's like Captain Planet. Macai (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, given that we were talking about a 930+ pages report, and that the WG2 Report alone has about 930+ pages, I'd say that in this context either they are several reports, or the time-space continuum has bent the Natural Numbers all out of shape... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
One report, ten reports? Who cares? We all know what we are talking about. Can we now get back to the content and the errors in it/them please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a greater respect for accuaracy would be useful William M. Connolley (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Bill - you still trying to cover for the lack of "peer reviewed" material in the IPCC Reports ? Don't you realize that your house of cards is falling down ??? Mk (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with William that the problems with the IPCC's report and its eggregious lack of accuracy is highly problematic and should be noted. The 300 year error and the other problems with the report expose a level of shoddy unscientific work that is a big deal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course, none of the True Believers address the IPCC reports' sloppiness and dubious science. Connelley pulls out yet another striped rabbit argument to say there's more than one report (a fact not lost on the original IP that posted the Dutch link). These are not "errors". Errors are using "it's" when you should use "its". Claiming the glaciers that supply water to 40% of the world are going to be gone in 25 years when, in fact, they won't be is no "error". Neither is saying a country is more than 50 per cent below sea level when, in fact, it's about 25%, a simple thing that could be checked by anyone who cared about accuracy instead of politics. It was all supposed to be unassailable science. Now the air is leaking out of the balloon. The hockey stick graph has been laughed out of science, Mann and the CRU are fighting to save their careers as their "science" is scrutinized, but there's nothing to see here, so just move along, folks.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Talking of accuracy whilst being unable to spell my name is someone ironic, no? As for the rest... you may want to read temperature record of the past 1000 years William M. Connolley (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That redlink speaks volumes. As far as your name goes, the short form Will would be much easier for people to spell. I would recommend going with that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yup, it certainly does speak volumes: it is saying, you don't have the knowledge to fix it. Fortunately, I do William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, Connolley, when you actually deal with an argument straight on, we'll worry about the spelling of your name. Right now, I, too, will make note of the useless link without even bothering to mention how the tree ring studies have been discredited by Russian scientists who say the data -- and the trees themselves -- were cherry-picked to include only those that fit with the AGW theory. Now, where did that pesky Medieval Warming Period go? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe the Dutch criticism of IPCC's work should be included in this articleSpoonkymonkey (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Settled science is challenged and overturned by peer-reviewed publications. If you have some of these, then let's see the refs here. What you guys seem to have is a "let's all shout together" idea that settled science is overturned in Wikipedia, or in op-eds, or by politicians. I haven't seen any evidence of a single important peer reviewed research paper's conclusions on AGW getting overturned. Have you got one? (hint: AR4 is not a peer reviewed research paper, it's just a summary for politicians and others to try to understand stuff that's harder than they're used to reading) --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

500 peer-reviewed papers challenging the AGW hypothesis. Get cracken'. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yup. That should keep 'em busy for a while. By the way, I'm still waiting for proof that Wikipedia's sourcing standards have changed from "verifiable" to "peer-reviewed" publication.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Assuming this is a re-tread of the "450 papers" of a while ago, it looks just as broken since people disclaim it [24]. And I notice they are sweetly pretending that E&E is a proper journal, not that anyone will believe them. Ooooooh, and they've got Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission (Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008) - G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin - I can't call it laughably wrong because Lar will get upset, but really it is too silly to waste any insults on, so I won't bother. Oops William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
If your requirement is that the papers are peer-reviewed, then the list counts. If your requirement is that they are peer-reviewed and agree with you, then you're acting like a politician. I'd hope that science never takes that course, that peer-review = consensus. Peer-review doesn't mean that you agree with the results. Peer-review means that the appropriate method was used for observation, recording data, performing experiments, and verifying results... All of which AGW supporting institutions seemed to have failed at. If any of the earlier atomic models had that same standard applied, the field of science would be useless, scientists would be discredited, and the entire institution uprooted. Imagine for one second if you are wrong, what damage would it do to the credibility of science? How many technological eons would we be set back? Cflare (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes yes, it is so laughable you had to mount a defense, that being of mockery (Rules for Radicals?), in order to curb any growing doubts people might have. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, that list certainly has an uncanny number of papers in E&E, plus a couple that definitely support the IPCC consensus (e.g. Knorr on the airborne fraction or a 1993 (!) paper on the difficulties of attribution, fitting between the 1990 and 1995 IPCC positions - like a transitional fossil). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
And as the climategate emails show, certain influential scientists got together to bad mouth and blacklist journals that published articles they didn't like. So please, forgive me for taking your opinion of scientific journals and papers with a grain of salt. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
No, they do not show anything like that. And how would that excuse misrepresenting papers that clearly do support the IPCC consensus position? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems my archiving was undone, so no new section was made to continue the discussion with a change tone, and as a result (or perhaps just concidentally) the conversation is still far from suggesting improvements to the article... carry on if you like, but I highly suggest that specific papers are picked and specific points are attacked. Otherwise this will just continue to be another bludgeoning match in the history of this sad page. Awickert (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I restarted the discussion below in the section entitled, 'Possible errors in IPCC report - restarted discussion as suggested'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you; I don't necessarily have anything to contribute, but hopefully something will get done this time around. Awickert (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The IPCC report doesn't seem to have any real merit as a reliable scientific source. Interesting, perhaps, but such a mess of speculation and non-scientific methods that it must be considered mere opinion by this stage.

--AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph, nicknamed the Torygraph, has no real merit as a reliable source on science. They're spinning like crazy, picking out errors in WGII and misleadingly suggesting that they compromise the solid science in WGI. Not, of course, that anything is infallible. However, it is interesting that Bob Watson is putting the heat on George W Bush's appointee Pachauri to improve dealing with errors. . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anybody is using the Telegraph (which is biased, but reasonably reliable - note MP expenses crisis) as a scientific source. The fact that we are comparing the IPCC 'scientists' with broadsheet journalists is perhaps indicative of their parity as scientific sources (which is objectively quite small). --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Another exaggerated report

This time, the reports' claims about drought in North Africa haven been found to have been invented and the "science" was not peer-reviewed. The British scientist who used to lead IPCC wants a mucking-out: Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a serious couple of issues intertwined, along with the usual exaggerated editorialising. More detail is needed about the Africa info, which was in WGII and didn't have to be peer reviewed. There are also various calls for improvements to IPPC procedures. These points belong in other articles. . . dave souza, talk 14:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The introduction is largely an appeal to the authority of the IPCC and the IPCC is cited throughout the article. If their reliability is now in question, then that question should be acknowledged in some way more than a single sentence at the end of a paragraph on debate. --B (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The IPCC remains a solid resource for the science of global warming, it's come unstuck in one or more instances of its WGII report on the impacts of climage change. Perhaps we should indeed review that sentence, taking into account Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent . . dave souza, talk 14:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The IPCC isn't any sort of "resource" for science - they don't do their own research. What they do is quite simple, collect magazine articles, greenpeace pamphlets and some peer-reviewed literature; sex it up, and then shout it from the rooftops. This is quite logical since without the threat of "global warming" their organization would not exist. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thegoodlocust - you missed "collect grant money" from us so that they can shout (inform) at us from our rooftops. Mk (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. By all means use the Independent material, but let's open the door to the connection between the True Believers and the carbon credit hucksters. I don't like corrupt science, and it seems almost all of this mess is being bankrolled by people who stand to make or lose a lot of money, whether it's on abatement, carbon credits or research grants. AGW may be real, but the science on both sides is so corrupt, petty and conflicted that its difficult to see what's really going on.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I'm aghast that, mixed into the so-called "settled science" is incredibly sensationalist material that, in Dave Desouza's words, "didn't have to be peer reviewed" but is being used by Ban and others to push the AGW agenda and scare well-meaning people who have not been given a score card to tell the "settled science" from speculation that, to be kind, appears to have been pulled out of thin air by a Moroccan bureaucrat who now peddles carbon credits for a living. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't collaborate with talk like that, to improve an encyclopedia article. Please suggest a referenced change to the text of the article, if you have one. --Nigelj (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Surely that is exactly the kind of thing we should be talking about. Both sides of the argument suggest that there is far more to the subject than science and this is clearly true. It is hard to think of any time in history when so much was at stake that was based on such complex science. There are enormous commercial and political issues involved here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Nigelj - the claim that the vested editors are "interested in improving the article" falls apart just from the way I was treated. I want the articles to be informative, incorporating key-words and links such as Antarctic and Amazon and key-skeptics such as Monckton. Every attempt I've made to include these things has been reverted with prejudice and my TalkPage recieved 3 warnings for "Advocacy". ie advocating improvements to the article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How can we incorporate this series by The Guardian into the various GW articles?

  • Part 1 -- "Battle over climate data turned into war between scientists and sceptics"Whether it was democracy in action, or defence against malicious attempts to disrupt research, climate scientists were driven to siege mentality by persistence of sceptics
  • Part 2 -- "How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies"Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation
  • Part 3 -- "Hockey stick graph took pride of place in IPCC report, despite doubts"Emails expose tension between desire for scrupulous honesty, and desire to tell simple story to tell the policymakers
  • Part 4 -- "Climate change debate overheated after sceptic grasped 'hockey stick'"Steve McIntyre pursued graph's creator Michael Mann, but replication of his temperature spike has earned him credibility
  • Part 5 -- "Changing weather posts in China led to accusations of scientific fraud"Climate emails suggest Phil Jones may have attempted to cover up flawed temperature data
  • Part 6 -- "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics"Peer review has been put under strain by conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions
  • Part 7 -- "Victory for openness as IPCC climate scientist opens up lab doors"Ben Santer had a change of heart about data transparency despite being hectored and abused by rabid climate sceptics
  • Part 8 -- "Climate scientists contradicted spirit of openness by rejecting information requests"Hacked emails reveal systematic attempts to block requests from sceptics — and deep frustration at anti-global warming agenda
  • Part 9 -- "Climate scientists withheld Yamal data despite warnings from senior colleagues"Ancient trees dragged from frozen Siberian bogs do not undermine climate science, despite what the sceptics say
  • Part 10 -- "Search for hacker may lead police back to East Anglia's climate research unit"Truth could turn out more embarrassing for university, but CRU 'dissidents', a corporate leak ahead of Copenhagen or bloggers intent on data 'liberation' are all still in the frame.
  • Part 11 -- "'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review"Peer-review was meant to be a safeguard against the publication of bad science but the balance is shifting towards open access
  • Part 12 -- "Climate science emails cannot destroy argument that world is warming, and humans are responsible"Climate science can no longer afford to be a closed shop or over-simplify the complexities of a changing climate if it is to reclaim credibility

The information found in these articles needs to be incorporated into the GW suite of articles, and it needs to happen quickly. The series is a treasure trove of information, and appears to be pretty pro-AGW, while not denying the major problems caused by Climategate. How should we deal with this series of articles? UnitAnode 17:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Carefully, as ever! The series gives good balance between various viewpoints, showing the context in a way that isn't currently reflected in our articles. My first thought would be to use part 12 to draw up an overview of these factors for the UEA emails article. Supplementing this, today's paper ran Climate scientists hit out at 'sloppy' melting glaciers error under a slightly different heading, including a brief mention of US climate monitoring information service gets go-ahead in Washington which will be in tomorrow's paper. This significant development is getting wide coverage, for example Agency Will Create National Climate Service to Spur Adaptation - These will come into the AR4 criticisms, and related articles. By the way, on a semantic note the Guardian is anti-AGW and thinks action is needed to reduce it. It accuses oil and manufacturing interests of being pro-AGW to the extent of lobbying to do nothing about it. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
needs to be incorporated into the GW suite of articles, and it needs to happen quickly. Both these assertions are incorrect. We certainly don't need newspapers refs for the GW article, and there is no hurry about this at all William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Souza for his circumspect response. I agree that Part 12 might be a good "jumping-off" point, as far as beginning the usage of this fine series in our articles. I remain unsurprised -- and unimpressed -- by WMC's intransigence. UnitAnode 19:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, do please call me dave... dave souza, talk 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Will do. And you may call me Scott, if you like. I'm thinking of putting that in my sig, since my RL name is pretty much out there now. UnitAnode 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Please take it to Global warming controversy. It simply does not belong here. Wikispan (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. It's a fantastically informative series, and it won't be shuttled off to only the daughter articles. Have you even read them yet? I've only read three thus far (part of #1, and all of #7 and #12), and this series is outstanding. UnitAnode 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
How can we have two related articles one called Global warming controversy and he other called Global Warming, which gives the impression that there is no controversy? Either there is or there is not some controversy about the subject. Looks like a content fork to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks as if the Guardian articles are written to be informative (#4 is pretty good, giving a cautious thumbs-up to the hockey-stick). Perhaps most importantly, there must be something about their presentation for editors to learn. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with William. People come to Wikipedia to read about a subject free of media spin written by science illiterate journalists. If someone really wants to read the media hype, they can always read their favorite newspaper or blog. Wikipedia should give the scientific view on the topic. If a topic is presented as being controversial, then that should mean that the controversy exists in the scientific community. Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


History of global warming

A link to the History of global warming article got removed entirely, as far as I can tell, from this article. This doesnt' seem constructive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You want the section above the one above this one. Follow that, read that articles talk page, and all will become clear. Next time, don't revert without bothering to check talk William M. Connolley (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome to include the "per talk" or even a link to talk page discussionin your edit summaries. That will help assist other editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

India is now discounting the IPCC

There seems to be yet more IPCC fallout. See

Now India is discounting IPCC findings. Should this be addressed in the global warming page, or elsewhere? Jeff K. Halle (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant sir. India once supported them, that's what matters. Criticism can go to a new article called Indian concerns about global warming with full context of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL. Of course it must be included in the article. India is just the first nation to break away from the IPCC. By the way, the head of the IPCC is an Indian himself - I guess the Indians know better than we do which Indian they can trust. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, as pointed out before, India is not "breaking away" from the IPCC. And Pachauri, for all that is worth, was pushed in by Bush-2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the quickly changed Torygraph story – see here for the gory details, and note that India's "PM Manmohan Singh said India had 'full confidence' in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its chairman, Dr Pachauri."[26] As good sceptics we know that spin in newspapers has to be checked carefully. . . dave souza, talk 09:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Snow storms

Rewrite of economic impacts

I wasn't happy with the previous revision:

  • The social cost of carbon cannot be easily explained in a few sentences. No confidence level was given for the estimates.
  • The description of the Stern Review wasn't particularly helpful, nor is the Review representative of the literature. Having to cite which economists support/dislike the Review was unnecessary.
  • Terry Barker's letter to the FT: Why not quote the opinions of any other economist in this field?
  • The stuff based on the UNEP source was not consistent with a literature review by Schneider et al. (2007), and was far too certain of itself:

"Developing countries dependent upon agriculture will be particularly harmed by global warming."

"Will be" suggests 100% certainty. This is wrong.

A summary of the changes I've made:

  • I've replaced the social cost of carbon estimates with impact estimates based on the possible future changes in global mean temperature. I think this is much easier to understand than social cost of carbon estimates.
  • I've based my revision on a literature review by Smith et al. (2001), the conclusions of which are supported in another review by Schneider et al. (2007). I believe that this source is more representative of literature than the Stern Review.
  • I've put in more detail about the distribution of climate change impacts.
  • I've trimmed down the description of the Stern Review.

Enescot (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Without regard to the rest, *a small increase in global mean temperature (2 °C by 2100... a medium (2-3 °C) to high level of warming is odd. How is 2 0C small, but also medium? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's up to 2 deg C = small, and 2-3 deg C = medium (Smith et al., 2001:957). Enescot (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up the citations, switch some of it to WP:LDR, compacted the section. Some style notes. Climate Change 2007 is actually (three) books, {{Cite book}} works a lot better.[29] :) I understand that they want us to cite the reports a certain way, and correct me if I'm wrong, but adding a "104 pp." to the Synthesis Report seems just strange. Article's not using parenthetical references, that's what the "pages=" parameter is for, see doc. Include all the lead coordinating and lead authors in the references at the end (up to around six or eleven). The above three author to "et al." is actually for the parenthetical inline references.[30][31] Article messed up on this part.

It looks good Enescot, nice job on Economics of global warming and here. Right now I'm wondering if there's a better way of describing "medium" and "high" confidence. Hmmm... In AR4 they're confidence intervals,[32] but in AR3 it looks like they're using a hypothesis test, statistical power (page 24).[33] Per WMC, think we can cut their groupings of projected increases in temperature and just say "at 2°C and above would..." The groups (I think) are to ease the math, sort of like discrete groups in a histogram, rather than continuous integrals in a probability distribution function. This is bi-variate though, I'm not that good at bi-variate statistics. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put in a footnote on this based on Chapter 1, Box 1.1 Enescot (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
They used Bayesian inference by aggregating their beliefs. There mustn't be a lot of them, can't assume normality. A little disconcerted. Thanks, a lot, cleared things up. One note though, I'm not sure if your using WikiEd or something like it, but it added spaces among list items, which causes it to parse incorrectly into XHTML (WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists). Please correct. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are tropical diseases considered "non-market" items in Economics of global warming? Is there any basis for that characterization? How much did swine flu and SARS cost, and what does the trend look like? (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)