Talk:Climate change/Terminology section

Terminology (Working version)

Note: this version may be edited to propose changes to the working version. To propose a widely variant version, or total removal, please create a new section below, following what's been done before. Note added by Abd (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Global warming" is a specific example of climate change, which can also refer to cooling. In principle 'global warming' is neutral as to the causes, but in common usage it often implies a human influence. The UNFCCC uses 'climate change' for human-caused change, and 'climate variability' for other changes. Some organizations use "anthropogenic climate change" or "anthropogenic global warming" for human-induced changes.

Comments on Working version

This version iswas from an old revision of the article, suggested today by WMC, below, in comments on Version 3. Because it immediately attracted approval from all but one of the editors active here -- and the other hasn't weighed in --, I've made it the working version. Comments on it can be in this subsection.--Abd (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated that I'm basically happy with this version, just doing so again in this section. Mishlai (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done some copy editing to it, feel free to revert, if anyone thinks it was better before, or to edit. I did not bold the sentence about in principle and common usage because I think that would distract from the basic function of the section, but I do agree that this is an important element. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is ok with me. Though perhaps AGW should be defined. (Sorry to make you wait.)

You know I still want more on the history of the definition. What is good, what is bad, and most important WHY. But that can be placed in another section or another page. I just think that that information is valuable, and perhaps it can stop the next edit war. Q Science (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's what this page is about. The way I'd see it, this page will become a standing RfC on the Terminology section. When new editors (say they are skeptics) come in and try to change the Terminology section (after the existing consensus is clear and stable, here), it is quite likely, as it is now, that they will be reverted. But now the reversion will immediately refer to this page, or someone will make this clear to the new editor. "Revert change to consensus text. Editor is invited to join or shift the consensus at Talk:Global warming/blah blah. If their arguments are already on this page, then, presumably, they will also be answered on this page, they will have been considered in forming the consensus, and they will see, hopefully, that other skeptics have signed off on the result. There will be a poll here, by the time we are done, to show exactly who is part of the consensus and how strong it is; this will be a standing poll. (We'll work out the details as we go.) If the arguments are new, then the the new editor can comment here and attempt to shift the consensus in this "committee" -- another way of conceptualizing what we are doing. But controversy gets shifted out of the article to here, an environment that is quite different from the article or even the article Talk page; the goal here is complete consideration, as well as maximum consensus, and any new editor is invited to become a part of this. So a good-faith skeptic, say, can be confident of being heard and considered, without taking up everyone's time or space on the article Talk page, which is busy about many different issues that are not settled. And a bad-faith editor will quickly become visible as such, if persistent.

I don't necessarily consider the Terminology section fully settled. But we now have an acceptable core to work with. Given your consent, here, Q Science, one of us should replace the article section with this one and see if it sticks. If someone reverts it, they'll be invited to participate here, to try to convince us that the other version is better. We do not decide here what will be in the article, but we recommend and show consensus, which is almost the same, in the end.

And then we can turn to other issues, one at a time. This is long term cleanup intended to create a stable article without becoming rigid and unwelcoming. It's important that all POVs be represented in this process. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As to AGW, ACC is mentioned. The meaning of each of these is clear, I believe, without explanation, from the comment that GW is a special case of CC. GW refers to just what anyone would expect from the words, and commonly, at present, GW is used in a manner that implies that it is Anthropogenic. "Stop GW," as a slogan, would mean "Stop doing what we are doing that is causing GW and start doing what will reverse this." I.e., change human activity. If it didn't mean AGW, then we'd be trying or demanding that we change something that is immune to our activity, we'd be better off preparing for the changes, if they are happening. (Though, possibly, if GW were being caused by, say, solar activity, and we decided that it was in our collective interests to reverse that, there are climate engineering measures that might be taken. But this isn't what people are talking about, they are talking about reversing the effect that our existing activities are having on the climate.) Basically, we had a conflict here because both sides were right, but each in a different way. --Abd (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

one of us should replace the article section with this one and see if it sticks. Since this is a highly contested area with many people weighing in, don't just throw text around, as that would be the precursor for edit warring, which is why we started this sandbox in the first place. And I suggest you are more likely to have your thoughts considered if you were more concise in your rationale. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We could have, as I thought might be necessary, solicited wider comment. But what's wrong with taking a version which has been explicitly approved by five editors, after, already, quite a bit of solicitation of input, and placing it in the article to replace an earlier version that already came from this workgroup? -- with the exception of some minor edits. I'm now being quite concise. So .... I removed the bold to satisfy the only specific objection KDP made. Skyemoor, I saw no reason to wait. Last time, the edit warring stopped because I and others didn't continue to edit war, faced with your apparent determination to do so. That restraint won't necessarily stand, once consensus is clear. Obviously, we can't be certain of consensus based on a limited sample of editors here, but I'd say we have a reasonable suspicion of consensus, sufficient for testing the water. --Abd (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what you have here, is not a "reasonable suspecion of consensus" - but rather a limited group of people, who are willing to discuss and read large blocks of text. The rest (just as me and Boris) simply ignored the discussion, because of its long and tedious character. And yes - i did read this page first, and came to the conclusion to ignore it, until a result was forthcoming.

As for a reason to wait, its generally a bad idea to present a new case, not even a day after people have accepted another one.... and edited it to a real consensus version. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a "new case." It was an old version from the article, which stood in roughly that condition for a long time. It has the explicit approval of four or five editors, including at least one skeptic and one prominent "GW supporter." Note that the supposed "real consensus version" was based on one that I'd placed from here as well. We had created a fork, with more editors, apparently, working actively on the version here, rather than in the article. While KDP objected, his objection did not stand. So far. None of this implies that a solid consensus has been formed, only that there was more basis for considering the current revision of the article, more or less the same as the working version above, as representing "consensus" than what it replaced. That's a reversible presumption, and, indeed, true NPOV requires that it always be considered reversible. With discussion and a wider or equivalent consensus. This process will continue. --Abd (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Abd I think your points are excellent. I would suggest, for completeness, including AGW, as in "some organizations use Anthropogenic Climate Change or Anthropogenic Global Warming to explicitly mean human caused changes." "explicitly" is a suggested add for clarity, it can be removed if someone doesn't like it. We might also, mention the IPCC definition? Seems likely to come up again. Mishlai (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now brought suggestions from the main Talk page here, made by Boris, mostly. Feel free to revert me if anyone thinks what I replaced is better. --Abd (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the word sometimes because the PBS special that introduced the world to GW does not use that interpretation. For concrete examples, please see the Common Usage section at the bottom of this talk page. Q Science (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I edited "sometimes" to "often," which is true without implying that this "common usage" is unusual. I assume this will be acceptable to Q Science and surely is more likely to be acceptable to the AGW camp than "sometimes," based on the history of this. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry? "Introduced" as well as "the World" must stand for your own opinion on this subject. It neither introduced a subject already widely disseminated (at least in Europe), nor did it have any specific influence in "the World" (afaik). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that both Global Warming and Climate Change have multiple, conflicting definitions, and common usage depends on what year it is and which audience is being sampled. Q Science (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this has been argued. I've come to the conclusion that it's not true. There is only one definition of "Global warming." It means what it says. However, it is used sometimes with an implication of anthropogenesis. The phrase "corrupt Republican administration," in an editorial today, has the same "definition" as it would have had many years ago, but it certainly would be used with an extra implication, normally, today. It would refer to the Bush administration, because of context. I don't know that we need to talk about "common usage" in the Terminology section, but it's True (TM) and if it is what it takes to satisfy a substantial camp of editors, that's fine with me, and we have reliable source for it. Or is it reliable? It's the EPA, which if it has any bias here, the bias would be in the other direction. That's why I suggest that the EPA version was already crafted to be NPOV, to be noncontroversial, acceptable to all camps. --Abd (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I created a diff to show the difference between the current article text and the working version.[1]. I believe that the current working version is better than the current article version, so, without objection, I'll make the edit to the article. Note that there are some minor changes that haven't been broadly discussed here, recently made. Consent to replacement does not constitute consent to every single change, it simply represents an opinion that the replacement is an improvement. If objecting to replacement based on one of these details, please edit the Working version above to reflect your objection (which should, at this point, be the removal of the minor changes, so that we stay on track toward full consensus). I intend to continue to take changes back and forth so that the working version here reflects apparent improvements in the article, and so that the article reflects preliminary consensus here, or at least has an opportunity to. --Abd (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding to a revert on the article that complained about lack of source for some of the working version, I've inserted the old source, the EPA definition, which is, to my knowledge, the source for "common usage." Based on lack of objection here, I'm going to go ahead and move the current working version to the article, with this source. I'm aware that there are objections to this source, but it's sourcing usage, not "science" as such. And, in fact, we agree that the term is often used that way. --Abd (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And once more you confuse the lack of activity here, with consensus. (nb. and judging by this page - there is a distinct lack of consensus here on the EPA as a WP:RS!) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the current working version as equal to or better than version 3 below. And I repeat the WP:RS issues with the EPA source as being insurmountable for this article. --Skyemoor (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's correct that there is a present lack of consensus on the use of the EPA as a source; however, the EPA was supplied as a source for the comment about "common usage," a very long time ago, and was stable as such until, lo, I came along and noticed the discrepancy between the source and what the article was making of it, a shift in emphasis that was clearly calculated for effect. Suddenly the EPA isn't okay as a source, though that stood through, what, 3000 revisions? It's a source for usage, it's an example of usage if nothing else, and it simply states what is common sense and common knowledge, and it does not deny anthropogenesis in any way. Skyemoor, I understand that you don't see the working version as superior to Version 3, but many editors have, and others, including yourself, considered it acceptable. The working version is actually a very old one from this article, suggested by WMC. What, specifically, is wrong with it? The "common usage" language is in both the working version and version 3, but it's not sourced in version 3. What's your source? --Abd (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)There have been some changes to the Working version that was explicitly accepted by a number of editors. If those changes made the version worse, in your opinion, feel free to (1) change the version above back, and/or (2) change the article to reverse those changes. Obviously, you are all free to make other changes, but I suggest respecting our process so that we can proceed with versions that have increasing consensus, instead of alternately satisfying one or another editor or faction. What has happened in the article is that bald reversion has been made to Version 3, and the shift from Version 3 to the Working version roughly as it is was explicitly approved as acceptable by the most editors. I have reverted once, now, as a bald revert (i.e., not incorporating changes attempting to satisfy suggestions or criticisms in a prior revert), compared to one bald revert each from two editors, Skyemoor and KimDabelsteinPetersen. --Abd (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on prior Working version

discussion of prior working version

I've placed my version as the seed for the working version, since it is (1) fully sourced -- as to any parts of it that were a matter of recent controversy, to my knowledge -- and (2) it contains all the elements that have been asserted by various edits recently as belonging in the section. I think there was a change or two after my version that were good or which would supplement this, I may scare them up and put them in. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This version relies almost solely on the EPA definition. As the Bush administration is well known for it's manipulation of scientific findings surrounding global warming, this treatment of the subject clearly diminishes the science of current global warming by pushing the common definition and the causes to the last positions in their respective paragraphs. Therefore, this definition is not appropriate for use as a definition in the article. Indeed, I don't see the need for a definition above and beyond what we have in the lede. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed some of the details of causes etc. & summarized. Also removed the "... and troposphere, which..." because it seemed like a bit too much detail & explanation for basic term definition. What do you think? Mishlai (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly fine with it! --Abd (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Drop the "in common usage" bit because scientists use the term in this way too.[2] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientists use it in various ways: that's one of the things that we should research, if it hasn't already been done. But the point I've been making is that we shouldn't be synthesizing definitions here, we should be reporting them, essentially, from reliable sources. "In common use" covers scientific uses; one problem with it is that it is ambiguous. Does it mean "frequent?" Does it mean "non-scientific?" My opinion is that it isn't the primary meaning, at all, but because there is so much concern about the cause, so much worry about it (justifiably, by the way), anthropogenic global warming gets covered by the simple term global warming. But that is disastrous for definitions. And I did not base my version on my opinion, period. I find this whole discussion amazing, kind of ingrown. --Abd (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

By far, the most common usage of GW is with respect to anthropogenic warming, though the definition above soft-pedals it to the latter portion of the second sentence, which removes it from the most important aspects of the thesis statement, almost an oversight. Version 5 doesn't have these issues. --Skyemoor (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Soft-pedals" is an expression of intent, an accusation of bias or POV. It's the same as "whitewash," which has also been used about this text. Both of those terms betray an interest in what is otherwise "Making a sharp point" or "Blackening." In fact, what the EPA definition does (I don't think it actually came from them, am I right about that?) is defined the terms in logical sequence: suppose we want to define "black fence." What do we define first, the noun or the adjective? Is this a black thing that happens to be a fence, or is it a fence that happens to be black? It's traditional to define terms with the narrowest category first, the one that gets the reader closest to the meaning, with only details left to be added to the rest of the definition. So first, we define this phenomenon of the earth warming. What is the name for this? I'll contend, without any shyness, that it is "global warming," and that practically any decent secondary school student would readily supply this term. Is this difficult? I didn't think so.

Then the EPA definition goes on, quite correctly and properly, to note that the term "global warming" is often used to refer to a specific warming: anthropogenic warming. So the EPA definition is complete, and, as others have noted (see Gwen Gale's note on Jaimaster's Talk page about his AN/I report over alleged disruption in the GW articles), it appears that sensitivity to spin has made some editors see bias where, really, there is none, there is only minor and accidental possible spin caused by the fact that every statement has a likely effect on the reader and can thus be seen as supporting preferentially some position. Should we define the term so as to support some position? How about defining it to support what we believe is the majority position or even the supermajority position? Well, no. We report definitions like we report any other fact, based on sources. If someone here is truly exercised about the "whitewash" involved in simply defining the term "Global warming" in logical sequence instead of a sequence that supposedly emphasizes the "important aspect," find a notable and reliable source with a better definition and propose it, if it's not already there. We'll either replace the definition with that, if it is better, or possible have both. But the EPA definition already covers the two definitions that I know of. And I suspect that it was created to do that, precisely, by a committee that was seeking consensus, and that put a lot of effort (professional effort) into that. --Abd (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think the sentence "In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the recent period of warming, and often refers to warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.[1]" addresses that common usage is with respect to anthropogenic. I agree with Skyemoor that the EPA is a source to be wary of b/c of anti-GW spin, but I also agree with Abd that the text of these definitions is pretty good. If a tweak needs to be made then we can certainly do that. Skyemoor didn't actually raise the EPA issue this time, but let's explicitly put it aside. Mishlai (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Skyemoor didn't actually raise the EPA issue this time, but let's explicitly put it aside. I would say just the opposite; let's bring the EPA issue to the forefront.

Dr. Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a new survey that revealed that 150 federal climate scientists personally experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past five years. UCS received reports of at least 435 specific incidents of political interference with the work of government climate scientists.

Rick Piltz, formerly a Senior Associate at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), testified that he left the program because “politicization of climate science communication by the current Administration was undermining the credibility and integrity of the” CCSP. He testified about the role of Philip Cooney, former Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, in editing science program documents like the CCSP Strategic Plan and CCSP’s annual report, Our Changing Planet. According to Mr. Piltz, “Taken in the aggregate, the changes had the cumulative effect of shifting the tone and content of an already quite cautiously-worded draft to create an enhanced sense of scientific uncertainty about climate change and its implications.”

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1162

Abd said; it appears that sensitivity to spin has made some editors see bias where, really, there is none. On the contrary, we must assume that every word, phrase, and placement of both were carefully crafted to achieve a perception. Based on the history of the Bush EPA, this source must be considered to be unreliable at best, without a doubt failing to meet WP:RS. --Skyemoor (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a very naive concept of how government works, that's what I'll say. The EPA is a massive agency, with many scientists and bureaucrats working for it who are not political appointees. Yes, they are subject to pressure. However, they also need to look at their future as well. They will, in self-interest (setting aside those who are bravely defiant), attempt to general neutral text, when they write, so as not to offend either the present administrator, congressional oversight, the public including environmentalists and industry, or the future administration which will replace their top bosses with new ones. Thus, whenever they can get away with it, they will find and use solid, consensus text, often very well sourced so as to cover themselves. I.e., they will do precisely the work we need. Now, can we use the EPA as a source? What I find amazing is that this is raised now, when the EPA has been the source for our definition for more than 1000 revisions, that's all I've looked at. Is there any reliable source -- or even political source, say from environmentalists, challenging the EPA definition of global warming? It looks to me like it was designed to avoid that! So I'd vote for allowing the EPA as a source here, though not without caution. I don't know if this issue has been raised before. --Abd (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on the wording, and not the EPA. Skye you seem to want a definition that assigns anthropogenic cause. It's my impression that every other editor opposes that. Wouldn't you agree that the term Globlal Warming was in use before it's cause was known? I think the article already makes a strong enough point of the consensus that exists about anthropogenic forcings. Further, not all of the warming is due to anthropogenic causes. Would we describe some of the +0.6C as global warming and the rest as climate variability? I think "global warming" refers pretty plainly to the current period of warming. Anthropogenic cause is implied in most common usage, but it's not a required meaning of the term.

I would support current period as being part of the definition, but the wording gets sticky because of the need to define a boundary. I'm also comfortable with leaving the "current period" verbage in the common usage section. Mishlai (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And tellingly, if we suddenly realize that the current period of warming is due to solar or something else, no one is going to stop referring to it as "global warming." Cause simply isn't part of the definition of the term imo. Mishlai (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mishlai said: Wouldn't you agree that the term Global Warming was in use before it's cause was known?. Why would I agree? What do you have to back up that statement? Wouldn't you agree that Global Warming by GHG has been predicted for decades?

Mishlai said: Let's focus on the wording, and not the EPA. The definition above is drawn from the watered-down EPA wording, hence must be treated as primarily from that (currently) unreliable source.

Abd said: This is a very naive concept of how government works. (!) You've provided the belly laugh I need every day... --Skyemoor (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. However, I'd be careful if you laugh at someone -- let's exclude present company -- who could be twice your age with twice your knowledge of how language works. I'll say this: you do not understand what I'm writing, that's blatantly true, if I assume good faith, as I do. The EPA is a vast bureaucracy, and only a small part of it shifts with each administration, i.e., with the political appointees. This was set up in our government a long time ago to make the federal bureaucracy more reliable, see Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. Definitely, the top level of the EPA is politically appointed and functions politically in practice. But, also in practice, what they can do is limited by the vast inertia of the full bureau, hence the whistleblowers. Presidents constantly struggle with this, with most Presidents attempting to increase their political power, but this, then, creates scandals, congressional investigations, public outcry, etc., etc., so it is restrained to a degree. If they were political appointees, do you think there would be any whistleblowers? So there is political influence on the EPA -- even very substantial influence -- but it is a mistake to impeach the entire EPA and what it does because of that. (assumed to be Abd)

If you are twice my age, then you are likely on life-support. You shouldn't assume you have twice the knowledge. You also shouldn't assume that I don't understand your writing, but feel free to believe that I don't always assume that you are correct; that's an important distinction. Bureaucracies can be large, but still retain control at the highest levels over important public statements, which has been the case at the EPA, indeed all of the US Government with very few exceptions, on the subject of Global Warming. .. it is a mistake to impeach the entire EPA... I've not done that, I've merely pointed out that the EPA is not a trustworthy source on this topic, based on it's history, standing gag orders, and the manipulation of scientific findings by the current administration. You can claim that such an effort is difficult to perfect, and I would agree with you, but the interference in scientific statements stands clearly as a loud clarion call for us to question anything the EPA states on this subject. --Skyemoor (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

How about the early IPCC reports? The 1990 report uses the term "global warming" and also states that:

Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming.

indicating clear uncertainty about the role of human activity in that warming. I mean, seriously are you going to argue that the term "global warming" was never used until we knew the cause? I think that sounds unreasonable. Mishlai (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are admitting that the cause is known to be anthropogenic? Then this discussion is over; the definition should state such. Quite reasonable. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No. That's why I'm claiming that the arguments aren't being understood. For Mishlai to "admit" that the cause is "known to be anthropogenic -- he didn't say that, but let's assume he did -- would tell us nothing about how we should define the terms. Part of what is happening here is that some editors clearly don't understand the definitions, and this points to some possible ambiguities in language that we might be able to clear up -- or we might have to leave. The debate here is not over whether we say "GW is caused by human activity" or not," that's a misunderstanding of what happened and is happening. It's over how the words are defined. And then how they are used. Confusing definition and use is part of the problem we have had. --Abd (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. It so happens that I fully support the IPCC position, but my personal pov on the attribution of climate change doesn't have anything to do with this article's definition of global warming. Mishlai (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So you were arguing that the term Global Warming was in use before "we knew the cause". So since we know the cause (human activity), why wouldn't it be in the first part of the definition, instead of hiding it as a latter list element (with "natural" as the first) in another sentence? --Skyemoor (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your argument that our definition is unacceptable because it's derived from the EPA version is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem Mishlai (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please address the point. --Skyemoor (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) On the contrary, my argument is based on the reliability of the source especially in the context of this subject, and I have provided evidence to back up my claim. WP:RS must be followed. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What I'm asking you to do is focus on the wording of a definition, and not worry about the sourcing. When we're done it isn't going to be the exact wording from any source. I'm asking you to talk about phrasing, and you're talking about the EPA. This change of subject is precisely the mechanism by which an ad hominem operates.

Further, your assertion that the EPA is not a reliable source is pretty weak. Credible arguments have been made that the IPCC has shown human bias on various points (Paul Reiter and Chris Landsea for example), shall we throw it out too? I certainly treat anything the current EPA puts out with some caution, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it doesn't meet wp:rs

If you're going to take that (rather extreme) position then might I suggest you go post that on the reliable sources noticeboard and see what others think? Mishlai (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mishlai said: your assertion that the EPA is not a reliable source is pretty weak...rather extreme. Your opinion; I've provided sufficient evidence of rather extreme interference in climate science findings at the EPA, so I see no basis for your argument. And the phrasing from the EPA is still evident in this version, so the issue with the EPA source remains.

The IPCC still represents the culmination of the climatology community, regardless of those few involved who wanted a different outcome. Scientific consensus, as in any human pursuit, is imperfect ... but in this case, overwhelming. --Skyemoor (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion to check EPA on RSN remains. What is your exact problem with the phrasing. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that I wrote that entire text, that it did not come from anywhere. What do you not like about the wording? Mishlai (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the point I've been making, probably with too many words. (Or the question I've been implying, though, really, the burden is on someone removing sourced text to say why the text isn't appropriate, we shouldn't have to use a crowbar.) When text is not objectionable, or not clearly objectionable, but the source seems inadequate or unreliable, a tag is far more civil than reverting it out, then waiting a decent time before removing it. --Abd (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've provided the reasons already in the second comment in this thread. Abd says he wasn't aware of those comments. Boris' comment wasn't addressed. Version 5 still stands as the best overall definition. --Skyemoor (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What you provided in the 2nd comment is a criticism of the EPA. I've asked you repeatedly to discuss the wording, and you continue to refuse to do that.

I've asked you to check your notion that the EPA is not a reliable source, and you've not taken that option either. You're obstructing progress on this matter by refusing to discuss it or exercise options to resolve the disagreement over the EPA as a source. I would appreciate it you would engage this discussion in a meaningful way that would allow progress. I'm going to take a break from this conversation for tonight because I can feel myself getting hot under the collar about it, but please reconsider taking action on both of these main points:

• Please discuss specific wording concerns - separate from the source
• Please take your source concerns to WP:RSN

Mishlai (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)The second comment in this thread discusses both issues with the EPA source and comments on the wording. I've also discussed this in other threads on this page, so either you are not reading the other threads that involve you or you have forgotten them. I notice you or others had problems with the IPCC source, though you have not made the suggestion that the IPCC be taken to WP:RSN, which is a double standard. WP:RSN is a service, not a dispute resolution step, so your instruction to do so is not a mandate to me or anyone else. The only obstruction I am providing is hasty adoption of a poor definition from an unreliable source. WP:RS says a reliable source means "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy", and in the case of the EPA, I've provided evidence to the contrary and can provide much more, if need be. Besides, this conversation was started because we didn't have a sourced definition. We can't source the EPA definition, so it might as well be abandoned. The best sourced defintion here is Version 5. --Skyemoor (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This argument should be understood in the context, the history of the usage of this source. I found the edit that inserted the source.[3] That was in response to a cn tag placed on the existing language, which was:

The term global warming is a specific example of the broader term climate change, which can also refer to global cooling. In principle, global warming is neutral as to the period or causes, but in common usage the term generally refers to recent warming and implies a human influence.[4] The UNFCCC uses the term "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes. Some organizations use the term "anthropogenic climate change" for human-induced changes.

The language in the section, the actual definition, goes back further, but this is many thousands of edits back, it's tedious to find. Now, this source stood since that edit, 9 February, 2007, in an article with perhaps hundreds of experienced editors and administrators, many highly interested in the article, with practically constant edit warring and various factions nitpicking each other to pieces, with many thousands of edits, and I didn't notice anyone challenging the EPA as a source for this purpose. (But that's a lot of history, it could easily be in there.) Notice the way in which the definition is presented. It's NPOV, it respects the general usage (i.e., without specification of cause) and the "common usage," i.e., anthropogenic global warming. This has to be considered to be, in round outline, a source accepted by consensus and language accepted by consensus. But that's not the language we had recently or in some versions. Impeaching the source, with the political arguments given by Skyemoor and the wikilawyering re "generally accepted as trustworthy," is clearly arguing, at this point, against consensus. Sure, consensus can change, but to take this kind position, and edit war to keep this "unreliable source" out, is the kind of activity that, from a skeptic, would have gotten the skeptic blocked almost immediately. --Abd (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

@Skyemoor. I have indeed read your posts throughout this page. Typically in a discussion the participants are willing to restate things locally for convenience, and I honestly don't know why you're being hostile about this. I've collected what I can find here for to make it easier. The 2nd comment, which seems only to have a problem with the positioning of cause relative to other text (aside from EPA criticism):

This version relies almost solely on the EPA definition. As the Bush administration is well known for it's manipulation of scientific findings surrounding global warming, this treatment of the subject clearly diminishes the science of current global warming by pushing the common definition and the causes to the last positions in their respective paragraphs. Therefore, this definition is not appropriate for use as a definition in the article. Indeed, I don't see the need for a definition above and beyond what we have in the lede.

this comment on version 5:

I see this as the cleanest, least problematic definition. Obviously, it has wide acceptance within the climatology community that produced the IPCC 2007 report, and has the added benefit of fitting cleanly with the common understanding of the definition. Others will undoubtedly try to attack it because it does not represent a small minority opinion, but that can be accomplished further back in the article.

to which I respond:

a definition of global warming which already assumes it to be anthropogenic is extremely problematic.

and you reply:

Why? That is the IPCC findings and the consensus of scientists. What other sources should be be basing the article on; Bush appointees?

are the only content based discussions I can find. Taken together it seems that your only objection is that you think the definition should state the cause. If I've missed something, then please restate your points here to facilitate discussion.

On references

• My mentioning of Landsea, etc. in connection with the IPCC was not an indictment of the IPCC as a source. My point was precisely that the IPCC is considered the gold standard of references for this topic, even though some criticism of bias has been leveled at it (and by both sides). The existence of criticism does not necessarily mean that a source does not meet wp:rs
• I continue to maintain that there are no problems using the EPA as a source for the definition.
• Other reliable sources, such as Real Climate give similar definitions [5] that do not attribute a cause to the warming described.

On content It seems to me that your basic objection is that you want the definition of global warming to state it's cause. I don't understand why, in the context of an article the states very strongly the scientific concensus regarding the cause of recent warming, you feel that cause must be part of the definition. Ultimately, we're talking about semantics. In my version a term like "anthropogenic global warming" has meaning, which is "global warming caused by humans" and in your version "global warming" already means that. Some other term would have to be used to describe warming that was natural.

I am NOT, and I want to be absolutely clear here, arguing that global warming isn't caused by humans. I'm arguing that the term itself does not inherently mean that. Using a definition that includes human cause presents us with several difficult problems:

• It introduces a strong sense of POV to the article by asserting in its basic definition of terms that global warming is caused by humans. It's my opinion that this would substantially disrupt the article's credibility.
• It makes questions of cause and percentage of attribution of global warming meaningless, since all global warming is, by definition, human caused. The very fact that people are capable of asking the question "What is causing global warming" implies that it's definition does not and should not include a cause.
• It makes language unwieldy. A contrarian position would no longer read "global warming is likely to be caused by solar effects" but something more like "the recent warming seen all across the entire Earth isn't global warming because it was caused by the sun and not people."

These things represent an obstacle to clear communication, and detrimentally impact the quality of the article. Separating definition from cause in no way "diminishes the science of current global warming". We're going to define global warming, then go on to cite the IPCC on "most of the observed warming is very likely to have been caused by blah blah blah", and then give proper weight and treatment to other matters.

We've also seen that the history of the term "global warming", even as used by the IPCC, pre-dates our knowledge of its cause. This too indicates strongly that the meaning of global warming did not imply a cause. The meaning of words can change, and an argument might be made that "global warming" does now include cause, but this is addressed in the common usage. Applying it to the strict definition of global warming would be a detriment to the article as already described.

So my question for you is why do you feel that it's unacceptable to state the definition and the cause separately, and what can we work out here?

As for your concern that "pushing the common definition and the causes to the last positions in their respective paragraphs" I don't think this is an issue. The defined terms will be close together. The working version has common usage in the 2nd sentence, which attributes an implication of human cause, the definition of AGW can be moved up the list if that helps, and the lede already states the consensus attribution of the cause of global warming. There are no POV issues being generated here.

No one is trying to hide, subvert, or obscure the scientific consensus. We're just defining global warming as... warming... that's global... and then attributing cause separately. Note that this isn't about representing a small minority opinion, it's about representing no opinion whatsoever within the definition. Majority and minority opinions will receive due weight throughout the rest of the article. Do you object to that, and if so, why? Mishlai (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well stated. The Real Climate page and the old definition provided by Abd are important contributions to understanding the development of that phrase. I would support a new page just to track this type of information, without getting into the science. Unfortunately, the highly contentious IPCC definition IS the gold standard, even though I prefer your position. Even worse, USGS (Global warming, or human-induced climate change, is ...) and Webster's 1969 definition support the IPCC definition.

This USGS definition is real bad

An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's surface, which occurs following an increase in greenhouse gases

In my opinion, these are wrong. Since I don't know how to fix this problem, my suggestion was to present several conflicting definitions and to discuss the differences. I wish a few more regulars would comment on this page.

Q Science (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

More is not necessarily better, at this point. It's not efficient. We will seek consensus here among those participating. We will then know the next step; we are not obligated to refrain from editing the article in the meantime, or to keep participating here beyond what we consider useful. I won't detail what I see coming, it's easier to just do it. What I'm interested in insuring is that every argument any one of us thinks relevant is presented, fairly and fully. Then we'll start to seek broad agreement on small things, leading to larger ones. In this process, it will become apparent if someone is truly participating in bad faith, but it's not necessary to identify or exclude such people; however, those who are truly seeking consensus will simply step around such editors. At any point, one of us can take something from here and put it in the article; but if consensus hasn't formed, it might not stick. Or it might. This process and the actual editorial process on the article are independent, which is why it was improper to revert edits to the article pending this process.

As to the problem, there isn't a problem. The USGS definition is incorporated in the EPA definition. The USGS definition isn't really a "definition." It's an explanation. The full EPA material (Version 2, I think) is also an explanation that includes a definition. Let's get this clear. An explanation can say much more about a thing than a definition of the thing. "What is lung cancer?" The word "tobacco" won't be in the definition. But it is very, very likely to be in an explanation. --Abd (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I just reread, more carefully, Mishlai's extended comment above. I cannot detect any difference in opinion between what he wrote and my own understanding of the issue here. It's nice to have some company.... I think that Q Science is also in agreement. So I'd ask Skyemoor to first tell us what is agreeable or acceptable about what Mishlai wrote, and then any specific disagreements, so we can see if there is anything left to discuss in this narrow part of the issue. (Even if we agree totally on most of this, that would not determine the article text, but it would give us some foundation on which to build or choose the text.

Short Brigade Harvester Boris also commented here, making his position clear (as it was then) that he favored removal of the Terminology section. Before we are done, he should be asked to comment, but we aren't ready for that; he should see a proposed section that has some kind of consensus here first.

Other editors who might be asked would be others who have edited the Terminology section recently. I'll come up with a list. We should only do a formal RfC if we find serious disagreement after thorough discussion. --Abd (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So I'd ask Skyemoor to first tell us what is agreeable or acceptable about what Mishlai wrote. Why don't you just read what I said in response to him? And all editors should have a say on their thoughts. --Skyemoor (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I read over what you wrote. I didn't notice any agreement on anything that you didn't reject as immaterial. Is this correct? Did I miss anything? Could you think about what you might be able to agree with the rest of us on? (At this point, Skyemoor, nobody is agreeing with you on most of the points you are raising, though that could easily be participation bias. None of the major article regulars have shown up here yet. I'd rather, though, make it easy for them by having something clear for them before inviting them explicitly -- and personally.) --Abd (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

@Mishlai

On Reference

You and other editors mention the IPCC definition is the gold standard. If that's the case, why not use that standard?

You contend that the EPA source is reliable, and I contend that the source, because of evidence I've provided, is not.

The RealClimate article you reference is simply a guest post.

On Content

There are other content-based remarks I made, such as "By far, the most common usage of GW is with respect to anthropogenic warming, though the definition above soft-pedals it to the latter portion of the second sentence, which removes it from the most important aspects of the thesis statement, almost an oversight".

As for your concern that "pushing the common definition and the causes to the last positions in their respective paragraphs" I don't think this is an issue. The defined terms will be close together. The working version has common usage in the 2nd sentence, which attributes an implication of human cause, the definition of AGW can be moved up the list if that helps, and the lede already states the consensus attribution of the cause of global warming. There are no POV issues being generated here. The last statement is a simple assertion. Imagine the list was seven elements long, and human attribution was the last on the list. Now do you see the point? Moving the attribution to human activity to the first element in the list would be a slight improvement. Identifying it as the primary influence at the same time would be an even greater improvement, which is the scientific consensus.

# It introduces a strong sense of POV to the article by asserting in its basic definition of terms that global warming is caused by humans. It's my opinion that this would substantially disrupt the article's credibility. The scientific consensus states that human activity is the main driver of global warming, so I hardly see any disruption in credibility. Remember, the usage is overwhelmingly predominant for the preceding decades; scientists refer to other periods of climate change as climate change, where there has been some warming, cooling, or stability.

If scientific consensus states that human activity is the main driver of global warming, then human activity should not be part of the definition. Q Science (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree.--Skyemoor (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes questions of cause and percentage of attribution of global warming meaningless, since all global warming is, by definition, human caused. The very fact that people are capable of asking the question "What is causing global warming" implies that it's definition does not and should not include a cause. This is solved very simply by saying "due primarily to human activities" at the end of the first sentence. You can even include "in recent decades" or the like if it helps.

It makes language unwieldy. A contrarian position would no longer read "global warming is likely to be caused by solar effects" but something more like "the recent warming seen all across the entire Earth isn't global warming because it was caused by the sun and not people." We aren't talking about the contrarian opinion here. Nothing I've suggested above is unwieldy.

These things represent an obstacle to clear communication, and detrimentally impact the quality of the article. On the contrary, it simplifies the definition so that a scientific or non-scientific reader can more readily understand what is being communicated.

We're going to define global warming, then go on to cite the IPCC on "most of the observed warming is very likely to have been caused by blah blah blah", This is the first I've heard of this; you've been defending the EPA text almost verbatim up to this point. and then give proper weight and treatment to other matters. That depends upon what one considers to be proper weight and treatment. I haven't seen any working text about this yet, so withhold comment until someone proposes it.

We've also seen that the history of the term "global warming", even as used by the IPCC, pre-dates our knowledge of its cause. We have not seen this; all you provided was a snippet from the 1990 IPCC that said much of the warming could be natural variability. This line of reasoning isn't evidence or rationale that would affect the article language, unless you wanted to give a history of IPCC positions on the matter. It certainly does not have a place in the thesis statement.

We are discussing the Terminology section - not the thesis statement. Q Science (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the thesis statement of the Terminology section. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So my question for you is why do you feel that it's unacceptable to state the definition and the cause separately, and what can we work out here? I see the cause as a primary part of the definition. Note that Boris said that "In common usage" was unnecessary, as scientists also use it in this manner, In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the recent period of warming, and often refers to warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities. I would also contend that the word "often" is undoubtedly intentionally used as it is too faint and vague, and that it should either be eliminated or replaced with "predominantly". Once done, that sentence should be the thesis statement.

No one is trying to hide, subvert, or obscure the scientific consensus. I see such activity all the time in some mass media outlets, and it's clear that human influence is soft-pedaled in the EPA definition. If you mean this of WP editors, it's easy to see such activities in the past with some editors.

Majority and minority opinions will receive due weight throughout the rest of the article. I have no issue with this, though this is not the subject under discussion.

--Skyemoor (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A few years ago, Microsoft tried to trademark the term "Windows" without any qualifiers. The judge said that that was too general and rejected the request. Microsoft was using terminology to try and control the market.

I see the IPCC's definition as an attempt to control thought on this topic. Accepting their definition is just like letting Microsoft get their trademark. The correct term is Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), and it is just a theory.

Q Science (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct that the usage of "just" in "just a theory" betrays that you are a GW skeptic, Q Science? I'm just trying to find out if a variety of positions are represented here. I'm a supporter of the scientific consensus re anthropogenic global warming and consider it a crucial issue. Let me put it this way, I'm trying to push my POV by making this article NPOV, so that it will be more widely trusted, and properly so. People need information and access to trustworthy and neutral analysis, not propaganda and spin. If we have an article that even skeptics can agree is accurate and fair, then, heh heh, I trust the Truth (TM) will be clear.

I believe that all science should be questioned. (Notice the Q) When questioning is critisized or forbiden, then it is religion - many religions are well known and supported by consensus. Blaise Pascal wrote about how religions manipulate definitions to control people. Specifically, he discussed how warring factions use different definitions of the same word.

Skeptics aren't sure what to believe. I have proof for my position. As far as this definition, I prefer to document the various uses.

As for "just a theory", Hansen provides rock solid evidence of that (on page 7).

Q Science (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that edit button is way up there. I agree with the "document various uses" approach. Mishlai (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

@Skye - thank you for your detailed response. I haven't responded back because I'm not sure what I could say without repeating myself. Mishlai (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology (version 3)

this is the last version before removal/restoration edit war

In common usage, "Global warming" refers to the recent average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities. It may also, less commonly, be used to refer to other episodes of warming in Earth's history. In scientific circles, the phrase "anthropogenic climate change" may be preferred.

"Climate change" refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer) from whatever cause . The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses "climate change" for human-induced changes, and "climate variability" for natural changes."United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article I". United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved 2007-01-15.</ref>

Comments on Version 3

I'm perfectly happy with this version. Mishlai (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

AGW should be added to it though. Mishlai (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I can accept this version. --Skyemoor (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I can accept it pending our work on the section. Hence I'm acting. I'm putting this version into the article. Please don't revert it unless you really consider it unacceptable. (I understand that it has problems, but this is similar to what was in the article before the edit warring, and letting it be there now does not prejudice efforts to improve it. If it's biased, fix it by making it more faithful to sources or by adding new text to balance it, likewise reliably sourced.) --Abd (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"the recent average increase in the temperature" is nonsense. It should read "the recent increase in the average temperature" Q Science (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is my version (unless I missed anything) and I'm happy with it. I'm also opposed to all the others. Adding AGW would be OK. Shuffling average around per Q Science, ditto William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the version, as to text, that some editors were edit warring to remove, I think AGW was already in it. I bolded it when I reinserted to make it more visible. The issues raised with this version have not been resolved. (This is a version that was descended in part, I think, from edits made to my version, which was based roughly on the EPA exact text plus some other material from other references. It has now been sourced from other than the EPA entirely, largely to satisfy Skyemoor and others, though the EPA had been the source for the definition for a very, very long time.) This version, however, will not satisfy GW skeptics, nor does it satisfy me (I am not a GW skeptic), and I believe it is possible to do both without offense to accuracy and NPOV. So work here should continue, or else, I expect, we'll see more edit warring in the future. --Abd (talk)

As stated above, I can accept this version. We don't have to satisfy GW skeptics, we only have to provide the best verifiable, reliable information. --Skyemoor (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to do anything, but we should seek the broadest possible consensus, which is the most secure guarantee of NPOV. This does not mean pandering to fringe views, but it does mean being scrupulously fair, and if we do this, there should be greatly reduced contention over the text.

The lede also defines GW, and defines it differently. One definition assigns cause and the other doesn't. I strongly prefer the approach taken in the lede (no assumption of cause in the definition), but I also recognize that the definition of global warming increasingly does include the attribution of AGHG. How are we proposing to resolve that?

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

I actually like the lede definition a lot. Mishlai (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh hen. I did miss something. I'm not happy with it. What I do like is a version from when wiki was younger: The term 'global warming' is a specific case of the more general term 'climate change' (which can also refer to cooling, such as occurs during Ice ages). In principle, 'global warming' is neutral as to the causes, but in common usage, 'global warming' generally implies a human influence. However, the UNFCCC uses 'climate change' for human-caused change, and 'climate variability' for other changes [3]. Some organizations use the term 'anthropogenic climate change' for human-induced changes. [6] I've added the bold, and I think its important. We can't *define* GW as anthropogenic, otherwise it makes no sense to talk about possible solar influences :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In broad strokes I'm happy with this older version that you've suggested. It could perhaps be improved, but I would accept it as it is. Mishlai (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh rooster. Ok, this touches all the bases and is as neutral as a Swiss banker. I'll sign up to this. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo! New working version? What can be done about preserving but removing the lengthy discussion above? Mishlai (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work, William. I do think that this is equivalent to the EPA definition, but has been explained. What you have bolded is what I've been saying with, I'm sure, too many words. I wouldn't have put the in principle, it's neutral bit in because I don't know a source for it, unless you think we can leave that diff in as a reference :-). In other words, I doubt that I could have gotten away with sticking those words in, but your support might be sufficient. I suspect that this version will be far more satisfying to the reasonable among the skeptics (if anyone thinks that's a null set, please don't mention it!) than the versions I've considered problematic. I'll put this above as our working version and do some other housekeeping here. --Abd (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to stick with my first comment above. Straightforward, captures the most common scientific usage, covers all the bases completely. --Skyemoor (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted elsewhere, there are problems with Version 3. The basic one is that it isn't true to its own sources, taken completely. The 2007 IPCC Assessment Reports consist of reports from Working Groups I-III, plus a Summary. The WGIII report is on mitigation, i.e., it assumes, in its task, both the existence of global warming and its cause as anthropogenic, hence its definition of "global warming" is specific, when they talk about "global warming," they are talking specifically about the recent warming, which they accept and do not debate or even argue for, and assume it is due to human activity. This is in their glossary. Each Working Group presents its own glossary, presumably defining terms as the working group uses them. The group that was concerned with the reality of global warming and its cause was Working Group I, which scrupulously, in reporting their conclusions, avoids the language of certainty that we have so casually included in Version 3, as if it were "scientific consensus." They do report the recent warming as "beyond doubt," as I recall the language, i.e., there is a warming since the mid-20th century. So they simply incorporate that. However, causation they do not report in that way. Rather they say that human causation through the greenhouse effect is "very likely" to be the cause of "most" of the global warming. "Very likely" has a precise meaning, as explained in the Summary (under the heading of Introduction/Treatment of uncertainty, p. 27).[7] It means greater than 90% probability of being true. There are two more levels of certainty in their usage: "Extremely likely" (greater than 95%) and "Virtually certain" (over 99%). They note the "advance" since the previous IPCC report, the probability of anthropogenesis through emission of greenhouse gases is upgraded from "likely" (greater than 66%) to "very likely." But, definitely, the IPCC report does not support definitive statements of anthropogenic cause as if there were no doubt, which is what the Version 3 definition implies. That was a special definition used by a special working group, which, in its task, debated and considered neither the existence nor the cause of global warming. It assumed, for their purposes, that it exists and it is anthropogenic through emission of greenhouse gases, and was concerned about what could be done about this. I am now advocating removal of the section on Terminology entirely, since, it turns out, the IPCC usage is followed quite well in the rest of the article, and we might consider incorporating this definition of "very likely." --Abd (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology (version 2)

(full EPA source version and discussion)

this is Abd's full version

"Global warming" refers to an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

"Climate change" refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from:

• natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun;
• natural processes within the climate system (e.g. changes in ocean circulation);
• human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g. through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g. deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.)

However, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses "climate change" for human-induced changes, and "climate variability" for natural changes.

"Climate change" is often used interchangeably with "global warming," but according to the National Academy of Sciences, "the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures."

"Anthropogenic global warming" refers to global warming caused by human activity.

Comments on Version 2

This version is largely verbatim from the source which had all along been given for the first definition in the section, the EPA web site. It includes some material that goes beyond pure definition, that might be redundant to what is elsewhere in the article, and that might be more appropriate for the article lead, or removed. (The existing lead is pretty complicated.) --Abd (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this version relies almost solely on the EPA definition. As the Bush administration is well known for it's manipulation of scientific findings surrounding global warming, this treatment of the subject clearly diminishes the cause of current global warming by pushing the common definition and the causes to the last positions in their respective paragraphs. Therefore, this definition is not appropriate for use as a definition in the article. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is pure argument ad hominem. It asserts that the text is unusable because it came from a disliked government. The problem with the "common definition" is that it actually makes it extremely difficult to discuss the topic and to find consensus. It assumes a political position, an attachment to a particular conclusion, whereas there really are two separate questions and both of them are crucial. (1) Is there a warming trend? (2) What's causing it? There are two more questions. (3) Is this a serious hazard? and (4) What can or should we do about it? Because a political consensus hasn't appeared on the first question, it's exceedingly difficult to approach a consensus on the second one, not to mention the third and fourth questions (which are increasingly political questions in essence, science never tells us what to do). The first question is pure science, a matter of measurement and analysis and interpretation, sciences is really good at this, especially when not warped by assumed conclusions, and good scientists are trained in how to avoid this. The second question is also scientific, but much more difficult, because complex events often have complex causes, and unless we can directly observe causation, it becomes a matter of inference and settled science can take a long time to arrive, not to mention to spread outside of scientific circles. Even if it is settled or becomes settled that present global warming is anthropogenic in origin, it confuses discussion and description if cause gets mixed up with a definition of the phenomenon.

"Common usage" here simply means that if some politician, say, talks about the "global warming problem," he's not just talking about the warming, he's often talking about the human activity that is being presumed to be causing the warming. I.e., he is talking about anthropogenic global warming, presently. To be clear, notice that I still use the word global warming. In the phrase "anthropogenic global warming," "global warming" is used in its generic sense. And if I want to talk only about the warming, what word will I use? I'd suggest "global warming," not, say, non-anthropogenic global warming or some other locution. It is clear, simple language, uncomplicated by politics. Politics comes in because some people want us to immediately think of CO2 and human activity when we think of warming. Perhaps, indeed, we should. But if we lose the distinctions of clear language, we really do lose the ability to think and, as well, to find consensus with people who think differently. And that is not only the political task we face in the real world, it's also our task as editors here. --Abd (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

One more comment: sure, there is a problem with relying on a single source, and a possibly political one, to boot. But that web site was all along the source for the definitions here. But the text was distorted from what was in the source, probably to spin it. I'm not sure that I agree that the definition above is spun, though. It is probably a very carefully crafted compromise, but I think we can tease this out from some hints I've seen in some comments. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"...disliked government...". No, a government that has altered scientific findings for political reasons, which is a clear reason to question its scientific veracity. "It assumes a political position... Is there a warming trend? (2) What's causing it?". These are not political questions, these are scientific questions. The political question is "What to do about it?". "Even if it is settled or becomes settled that present global warming is anthropogenic in origin, it confuses discussion and description if cause gets mixed up with a definition of the phenomenon." Absolutely not; I believe it's clear that a vast majority of the populace and scientific community understands the term Global Warming to be associated with humankind's activities.

When EPA scientists were pressured to alter their conclusions and papers, there was a huge flap about it. Has such a flap been raised about the definition of global warming on the EPA web site? Any citations to such? I only used the EPA source because it is what had been used for donkey's ages. I looked back 1000 revisions, and there it is.[8] You want to break an obvious consensus because of your political opinions? (I may agree with those opinions, though I think that the political influence on the EPA is a bit moderated by public and congressional pressure, and I suspect that this definition wasn't politically forced, because it is actually quite balanced and accurate. We could argue about which meaning should come first, but I'd say that you can't really understand the second meaning -- "common usage" -- until you understand the first.)

You have totally confused the issue, and your last sentence shows it: In that sentence, what does Global Warming" mean? If it means what you'd have be in the article, the sentence is a tautology. The "common usage" that our article -- and the EPA source -- refers to is that "global warming" means "anthropogenic global warming." So, expanded, your sentence is saying that the vast majority believe that anthropogenic global warming is associated with humankind's activities. But that is simply a statement of the definition. It would be true even if there were no present contribution from human activity. Of course it is associated, by definition that's what global warming means. But, in fact, that is not what the phrase means when any author is being careful. Instead, "Global warming is associated with humankind's activities," is not, in common speech and writing, a tautology, it is a statement of an opinion, belief, consensus, conclusion, or whatever, about the cause of global warming, which is a phenomenon observable and describable entirely distinctly from theories or conclusions or opinions about what is causing it. Global warming occurred in the past. Have any trouble parsing the meaning there? Does it mean, necessarily, "the past but still due to human causes?"

Version 1, below, is really the same as this version except for the shifted sequence and it's highly condensed. What about it? --Abd (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"...an obvious consensus...". Nope, that's why we're having this discussion. The issue (in the context of this article) with the tampering of scientific findings by the Bush administration is not political, it has to do with scientific malfeasance, which calls into question the veracity of the EPA under his purview. "Global warming occurred in the past." True, but see paleoclimate for that, as the intro into the article clearly states. I'm not convinced we even need a terminology section in this article. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) We are not having this discussion because there was no consensus. There was an editorial consensus, and I presented specific evidence for that, i.e., long-term stability under close scrutiny. I'm not dismissing Skyemoor's arguments about the EPA, but they do not represent a consensus, and one or two editors raising an issue (the usability of the EPA as a source) does not negate an existing consensus. We are having this discussion because Skyemoor was willing to edit war to maintain his position, and, in order to make this in the least defensible, he moved the content here. In other words, what's going on here is that Skyemoor challenged the consensus, using edit warring. I'll note that other editors supporting the removal of this section either gave different reasons for it, or didn't give any reason. As to the need for a terminology section, again, the existing consensus was, yes, it's needed. Currently, I don't have an exact count, but I think the majority at this point favor inclusion. I may, indeed, reinsert the section if I don't see sufficient reason presented here for not doing that. Removal was contrary to normal procedure (it's considered inappropriate to remove sourced material without consensus or at least extensive discussion, particularly material with long standing, and doing so simply invites reinsertion and edit warring. There is a different procedure for challenging the use of the EPA as a source, and, I'll note, if the text were unsourced, the procedure would still not be to remove it, it would be to cn tag it, as was previously done (I presented the diff above where this text was cn tagged and then an editor supplied the source). Further, the removed section included more than the EPA quote, is Skyemoor challenging all the sources? --Abd (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the scientific consensus; I realize that the 'consensus' of 3 other WP editors in this particular discussion is certainly different. Long standing text does not impart consensus, WP:CON Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. At this point in time and in this context, the only source I have issues with between the IPCC and the EPA is the trustworthiness of the EPA on Global Warming. I have no issues whatsoever with the reliability or veracity of the IPCC as a source. -- Skyemoor (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology (version 1)

(older deprecated version died for lack of a second)

this is a version prior to Abd's last full version

"Global warming" refers to an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term "climate change" for human-induced changes, and "climate variability" for natural changes. The term "climate change" includes not only measurements of temperature changes, but also changes in precipitation or wind patterns, lasting over an extended time period. The term "anthropogenic global warming" refers to global warming caused by human activity.

Comments on Version 1

I think this version is similar enough to Version 3 that we could just remove it from discussion. Mishlai (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who prefers Version 1 to Version 3? If not, it should be collapsed. After a decent pause, I'll do that or anyone can do it.--Abd (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology (version 4)

(some relevant discussion, this version inactive)

According to the IPCC (2007)

Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions.

Many (WP:AWW) people have problems with this definition because

• It does not contain the word theory

• The phrase was already in use with other implied meanings before the IPCC suggested its definition. For instance, many (WP:AWW) sources make a distinction between the following

Global Warming

Anthropogenic Global Warming

• The surface temperature change may be due to anthropogenic actions not associated with radiative forcing, such as soot or land use (farming, cities, draining the swamps)

Several Wikipedia versions of the definition have contained one of the following phrases

• in the past century
• since the mid-20th century
• in recent decades

It can be argued (WP:AWW) that these qualifiers are not needed because "everyone knows" that anthropogenic emissions were not significant before 1970 (or some similar date, depending on the reference).

One of the reasons that the topic of Global Warming is highly disputed is because the "definition" is regularly changed (WP:AWW passive voice) to support different positions. As a result, no one is ever really sure what anyone is talking about (WP:AWW) - which definition is being used. Using definitions in this way is a well known method of controlling an argument.

Because the phrase Anthropogenic Global Warming has always been associated with Greenhouse gasses, the Greenhouse effect, and global surface temperature, it is incorrect to define these phrases in separate articles. Note that while the definition of Greenhouse gasses is fairly straight forward, the science behind the other terms is strongly disputed by a small minority (WP:NPOV tiny minority).

Comments on Version 4

These are my thoughts on how to address terminology. I have references for most of this, but have not included them. I wanted some comments before investing the effort.

Many good definitions include background and variations related to a phrase. Most dictionaries include how the meaning has changed in time. If different interpretations are omitted, then something is lost. I suggest that this is just a start.

I have intentionally omitted Climate Change to keep this simple. It, and others, should be included in a final page. Q Science (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• The absence of "theory" doesn't bother me. I'm not even certain that observing upward temperature trends and calling that "warming" would even qualify. "Global warming" is descriptive in nature, whereas AGW would be a theory of why we've seen those changes.
• I have a problem with the IPCC definition assuming anthropogenic cause.
• I don't think that definitions of greenhouse effect, etc. necessarily need to be defined in the same article. These topics have full treatment in their own articles, and a link should be sufficient.
• The distinction between GW and AGW is important.
• Global surface temperature definition continues to be problematic.
• I prefer but do not require the inclusion of language indicating that global warming is a recent phenomenon. Mishlai (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The insistence on the usage of "theory" when referring to a scientific consensus is heavily discredited by obviously biased political action to demand it, but just because a fanatic wants something doesn't mean it's wrong. It's crucial for a real scientist to keep raw data and clear inferences from it (such as looking at a temperature record and noting a rising trend -- which can then be described precisely with very sophisticated statistical tools) distinct from hypotheses, theories, and conclusions drawn from that data. The analogy with evolution, often used by one side in our GW debate, is apt, but not applied completely. Suppose we have an article on morphological differences between members of some genus. Would we define "morphological differences" as "differences between various forms caused by evolution"? Surely an understanding of difference precedes a complex conclusion as to cause! However, the edits I made to the article were based upon WP:RS principles: we should be true to the sources we cite. There is variation in the sources, and the EPA definition, in fact, covered that. It just might be the most NPOV definition I've ever seen come out of a government agency.... --Abd (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Skyemoor, When I posted this, I intended the discussion below the IPCC definition for inclusion in the article. As a result, I have moved the "comment" tag back to where I had it. In addition, I removed an attribution to Abd that apparently you added on text that I typed. I see why you would be confused, but that is really what I meant.

I also removed a signbot reference that cluttered Mishlai's comments. Q Science (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that all the comments so far have missed the point - I am not strongly arguing for including specific terms, but suggesting that the argument itself is part of the definition. It demonstrates the change in understanding over time and helps to explain why people disagree with the definition of the day - what ever it is. I also hope that by explaining the differences in the article itself some of the edit wars will stop.

As for the word "theory"

• The way the average temperature is calculated is still questioned (even by NASA)
• Whether increasing CO2 will increase the temperature is still questioned (Hansen wrote a paper on this)

I don't have a particular problem with leaving the word out, but it is instructive leave in the fact that some people believe that it should be there, and why. As Abd has said, the definition is political. In my opinion, adding OR leaving out "theory" shows bias, so explaining why it is bias should be part of the article.

Basically, I think that the terminology sections should discuss the terminology, not provide a definition. Q Science (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I like that approach Q. Mishlai (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would add that the discussion should also provide a reasonably solid definition of the terms as used in the main (non-quoted) text of the article by its editors. Mishlai (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology (version 5)

The IPCC "Gold Standard" version

According to the IPCC (2007)

Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions.

Comments on version 5

I see this as the cleanest, least problematic definition. Obviously, it has wide acceptance within the climatology community that produced the IPCC 2007 report, and has the added benefit of fitting cleanly with the common understanding of the definition. Others will undoubtedly try to attack it because it does not represent a small minority opinion, but that can be accomplished further back in the article. --Skyemoor (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

a definition of global warming which already assumes it to be anthropogenic is extremely problematic. Mishlai (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? That is the IPCC findings and the consensus of scientists. What other sources should be be basing the article on; Bush appointees? --Skyemoor (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is confusing "conclusions" -- which include consensus conclusions -- with logical and clear presentation of the meanings of terms. The two apparently variant meanings are actually not variant in reality, rather, they refer to different kinds of definitions. "Rise in average temperatures" is a clear meaning that, while it does depend on interpretation of data, depends on it at a very primitive level, one on which it is much easier to obtain consensus. What remaining quibbles might exist could be dealt with by attribution if such quibbles are notable. "Notable" is quite different from "consensus" opinion, a fringe view might be notable while being the view of a small minority. (undue weight deals with a different issue; it can be possible to be fair to fringe views without creating undue weight. You could establish "rise" (quite well, at least) with data tables and clear rules for interpreting them. Establishing "rise due to human activity" is extraordinarily difficult and possibly impossible in detail and with full accuracy, even if there is a consensus that there is some such rise, or significant such rise, or even a great rise. It can be inferred from data, such as showing close correlation between two variables, but as is well known to anyone who has studied where scientists have fallen on their faces, historically, such correlations can have hidden causes, can be coincidental, and careful scientific reporting on this will state confidence levels, not absolute facts. Or something like that. (I'm not a scientist, as such, I'm a generalist with a great deal of respect for the scientific method as well as some understanding of its limits.)

The article wouldn't be based on "Bush appointees." While Bush appointees could have censored this definition, I highly doubt that they wrote it, it simply doesn't serve their purposes, except that it finesses the conclusion of cause, but only in part. If the appointees had their way, we'd probably have seen "theory" and some considerably imbalanced mention of dissent. Instead, they simply defined the terms! Note that the EPA definition specifically includes the IPCC "definition" -- which I'm contending is not actually a "definition," it's a "description," and, in a description of global warming, mentioning cause can be quite appropriate. But that is not necessarily an encyclopedic definition. An encyclopedia might define Global warming as "warming (etc). Global warming is attributed by the vast majority of scientists to increased human activity (etc)," if one wants to be fair to the minority. A statement like this should be sourced (as would "consensus of scientists," and this is where I wouldn't trust the EPA as a source, for lots of subtle judgments and difficulties are involved in a responsible estimate of the percentage (of what?) who hold a view (precisely what view?) No, I'd trust an ordinary RS to make that judgment, with preference for peer-reviewed study based on solid research (some peer-reviewed publications are not a great deal more than speculation that was considered interesting by the reviewers and not obviously wrong). And where there is conflict, we, again, have means for dealing with that neutrally. --Abd (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The consensus conclusion is the basis for the thesis statement, just as in a court of law, an expert witness gives testimony according to their specialty, and their word becomes evidence (far from 'problematic'). Your attempt to suppress undue weight goes against WP policy, so don't expect me to go along. Minority opinions are mentioned in the lede, though are not considered to be notable by the scientific consensus (our virtual expert witness here), so have no place in our definition. There, a complete explanation in a few short sentences. --Skyemoor (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll confess that I'm not sure I understand Skyemoor's comment here, but I can say for sure that he doesn't understand mine. There is no attempt to suppress WP:UNDUE above. Rather there is an apparently too-sophisticated examination of the interplay between WP:UNDUE and maximizing NPOV (which is judged by our consensus) without violating WP:UNDO. I'm not surprised that Skyemoor doesn't understand this, I've seen admins fail to understand it, some think that they own NPOV and it is the job of admins to enforce it, and I'm not sure that it's my job to explain it further, and definitely not tonight. --Abd (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I understand what you are attempting to communicate, it's just that I have a different perspective than you, which is an important distinction. --Skyemoor (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Skyemoor unhid this, which is fine. It's not clear to me why this is considered the "gold standard," perhaps someone can explain that. I'd hidden it because nobody else was proposing it as the definition to be used in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by abd (talk • contribs)

Both Q Science and Mishlai used the term "Gold Standard" to describe the IPCC definition before I did. --Skyemoor (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Version 6: No Terminology section

This was proposed by Boris, and did attract some support. I'm not sure what the rest of the article looked like at that point, but looking today, after having studied the IPCC reports (2007), I now conclude that the definitions of global warming stated or used in the rest of the article are better than what is in the Terminology section, which is not true to the sources asserted, and have now come to consider that removal is indeed the best option, that the section isn't necessary; the plain and simple and obvious meaning of "global warming" is quite adequate. Climate change vs climate variability (per the UNFCCC or whatever) can be explained in situ as needed, if needed. If this is supported, here, I'll take it to Talk for the article. Or maybe edit the article accordingly, as can anyone. -- Abd (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the Terminology section, with discussion and justification in article Talk. So far, no revert, but it's only been eight hours. I concluded the same, more or less, as Boris. The section was redundant at best, given that we use Global warming in the lead without any unclarity or problem. The idea that there are conflicting definitions is probably a red herring. There are no conflicting definitions, only various usages. Global warming refers to warming of the globe. We can, and do, get more specific about it, but that's the idea and why it is called "global warming." Most common usage: the current period of warming, since the mid-twentieth century. And since anthropogenesis is considered (by the IPCC) "very likely" (greater than 90% likelihood), naturally, most usage is associated with human activity. But incorporating that into the definition of the term makes mincemeat (tautologies) of usages like "Global warming is caused by human activity." It's an explanation and where do we explain the term? We start with a summary in the lead, which should be based on more detailed and sourced material in the rest of the article.... For this term, Global Warming, we don't need a Terminology section. The usage of Climate change and Climate variability are explained elsewhere to cover the UNFCCC special meaning. --Abd (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

General comments, comparisons, etc

I've set up a structure for this working page, with three versions: the last version before removal of the section, my full version from before that, and a version which existed before my revamping of the section. --Abd (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

After that, I added at the top, a "Working version" to be edited. The idea was that numbered versions were to be fixed, not edited except by consent of the creator of that version or by general consent. The Working version should come to represent a consensus as the best version to put back into the article, if that's what we decide to do. The other versions are for comparison, or, should we decide to take a poll, we'd have specific alternatives to refer to. I'd rather wait before any polling. Please don't create a new version just to make some minor change. Rather, we can discuss specific versions in the spaces set aside for that. We should end up with a set of alternatives that all of us agree is inclusive of anything we'd want to consider, a kind of proposed consensus version (the working version) and there will also be the null alternative, no action. (Which means no terminology section, right now, that could change.) If you think that one of the numbered version is better than the working version, you could try replacing the Working version with it and see if that sticks. It shouldn't be a big deal, because the name "Working version" doesn't really prejudice our final conclusion. -- I'd say that if a numbered version replaces the Working version, the Working version should become a new numbered version. We can eliminate numbered versions that nobody thinks are needed any more. Think a version isn't needed? Delete it. Nobody reverts, it isn't needed. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? --Abd (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What is "common usage"?

Common usage here has been, I think, misunderstood. It means that when someone says that they are going to discuss Global warming, they don't mean that they are going to discuss the end of the Ice Ages or some other period or some other cause than anthropogenesis, they are going to discuss anthropogenic global warming, largely because, I'd assert, this is something we might be able to do something about, and further because the present warming is by general consensus, anthropogenic. So if someone who believes that the warming is anthropogenic talks about the present global warming, that person is going to talk about anthropogenic global warming.

Saying that "in common usage, Global warming refers to warming caused by human activity" simply means that this is a very common topic of discussion, among scientists and nonscientists, and this discussion is mostly about anthropogenic global warming, and, in fact, probably, most of the discussion about possible nonanthropogenic global warming is among scientists (but also skeptics as well). I suspect that there might be a survey of this somewhere.

Common usage here doesn't mean that the term itself has been defined to include anthropogenesis, though.

In any case, we tend to talk about relevant topics, i.e., ones where our talking might be hoped to make a difference. (We might actually be able to do something about other possible causes of global warming, but not if we can't talk about that as a separate topic!) We are not, though, going to convince GW skeptics -- or a less involved public -- that AGW is real if we can't first convince them that GW is real! It's ironic, I find, that those who might consider themselves to have or be promoting a scientific perspective will make a very gross scientific error: presuming that the cause of a phenomenon is known and linking the cause with the phenomenon so that they become inseparable. If that assumption is made, we have proof of anthropogenesis: the earth is warming. Why does this fail to convince? The answer is pretty obvious! That the earth is warming does not prove that we are warming it, that is a separate inference, much more difficult to make than the primary, observational one that only needs, at most, massive collection of data and good mathematical analysis of it.

This series of events actually started with Jaimaster replacing, as I recall, "caused by human activity" with "attributed to human activity." The latter statement is, on purely abstract grounds, more NPOV than the first. It is practically impossible to deny the second statement, much easier the first. Anyone who says that it isn't being attributed to human activity has been paying no attention at all. Yet Jaimaster's comment was called a "whitewash." No, to continue the analogy, the truth is dark, but when you replace a black tarp with a clear one, the thing appears "whiter." One could go further, attributed to human activity" could become attributed by scientific consensus to human activity. A skeptic might want to weaken that slightly, and this would be the last refuge of legitimate debate, I'd say, how about "attributed by nearly all scientists to human activity." Does any skeptic here deny this? (And if we don't have any skeptics here, we'd better get one, or a few, because we will not find a stable consensus without their participation, at least in the near term That's why this "block the disruptive POV pushers" mentality will maintain long-term disruption.)

Unfortunately, we can't just synthesize a definition, that may have been the real problem with Jaimaster's edit. Or can we? I'd say that, if we can agree completely on it, or at least almost completely, such that GW believers and GW skeptics sign on or at least stand aside without resentment, we can. Short of that, we have only insistence on faithfulness to source to legitimately rely upon.

I would argue that it's acceptable in the lede or in a description of terms as used in the article to synthesize a definition that helps the reader understand what precisely is being said. The point is that it should be NPOV and have the effect of clarifying rather than slanting the article. It may be that I misunderstand policy, I'm a relatively inexperienced editor.

Excessive word lawyering in the name of satisfying opposing camps is sometimes useful, but it can result in a difficult to read introduction to an important topic. The basic thrust here is that terms like global warming and climate change can have multiple meanings. We need to address what they are. Other terms like anthropogenic global warming are much more specific but unwieldy and rarely used. Each side of the debate has come to assign "global warming" to mean what it means to them - either a hoax perpetrated by liberal scientists, an environmental crisis created by the use of fossil fuels, or something in between these. Our job is to illuminate these viewpoints and to break the definition down into something that is understandable and meaningful. I think the working version at present is close to doing that.

I don't understand what your opinion about "common usage" is, could you clarify? Mishlai (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Common usage has two major meanings. (1) a variation on a meaning that is common, i.e., of higher frequency than other usages. Usually this will come first in a definition (unless other organizing principles put it later). (2) a common context in which the word is used, in which it can take on additional characteristics because of what discussions are common. I believe that this is the meaning here. The "additional characteristic" is "anthropogenic." I don't think there is really any difference in meaning, global warming means what it says, a general {"global") warming, regardless of cause. A temperature effect, not a theory or hypothesis or conclusion. --Abd (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see above that Skyemoor has interpreted "common usage" with a third meaning: "by a layperson, as distinct from experts." (I.e., when people commonly talk about "global warming" they are referring to anthropogenic global warming, in general, just as when people talk about lung cancer, they are talking about something largely caused by cigarette smoking), but I don't think that is what the EPA meant. They meant that the usage is frequent, including among scientists. Does this usage thereby become an intrinsic part of the meaning? To consider so removes a meme from the language, not a good idea if what we want is intelligent and accurate discourse. The Webster dictionary cited above is really the same: Global warming: an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution. Does this mean that if it were found that the increase wasn't due to that source, that it wouldn't be "global warming?" I don't think so. It is merely noting the common context for the usage of the word. --Abd (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

...but I don't think that is what the EPA meant. Point of order: We are concerned with what the proper terminology is, not what the intent of the EPA was, which is (currently) an unreliable source on this subject. And as Boris points out, "in common usage" is not needed when referring to how scientists define GW as due to human activity. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Skyemoor has repeated this "EPA as an unreliable source" argument over and over. While it has some merit, it is not necessarily true, as evidenced by the fact that the EPA was used as a source for this section of the article for a very long time. If nothing else, it is clear evidence of usage (in both ways). Has anyone seen any RS objection to the EPA definition? It looks to me as if it was very carefully crafted to be neutral, i.e., acceptable to all POVs except the extremes. That's, in fact, what I'd expect from a U.S. governmental agency, normally. There are, of course, exceptions, where political pressure has been heavily applied, which usually causes a firestorm, it's not like this was some secret memo. I just don't see signs of that here. Defining a term with its obvious linguistic meaning first isn't biased! They were not obligated to mention, in the definition, anthropogenesis, but they did, yet, still, this definition did not satisfy some of us. They apparently want their POV to come first, then, maybe or maybe not, what is totally neutral. That's backwards! (The EPA definition/explanation is quoted in Talk:Global_warming/Terminology_section#Terminology (version_2.29) above, and there is also discussion of it in Talk:Global_warming/Terminology_section#Comments_on_prior_Working_version. --Abd (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The "'common usage' not needed" argument is based on a misunderstanding of the term "common usage." It means, here, "frequently," not "by nonscientists." This phrase allows us to present both definitions. We could say it differently. "In frequent usage...." See above in this section.--Abd (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of EPA literature on global warming because I've seen it slanted before, but the definition was fine and I think that it's going too far to say that they aren't a RS. Some of their literature may have a strong POV via sharpening and leveling, but I'd be surprised if they put out very much that was blatantly false. Mishlai (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. --Abd (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)The IPCC "gold standard definition" (Skyemoor's new name for it) appears in a glossary for Working Group III. It isn't in the glossaries for the other working groups, nor for the Synthesis Report. What's different about Working Group III? Well, WGIII was charged with studying mitigation; their work assumed anthropogenesis, i.e., it's as if they were asked "If global warming is anthropogenic, what could we do about it?" So of course their glossary incorporates that assumption. That's how they were using the term! This was a special definition, not a general one. If what Working Group I or the Synthesis Report says about GW is put into the article, some of our editors -- insisting on the IPCC as the most reliable source -- will be screaming "whitewash." And that kind of behavior has to stop. --Abd (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is just the tiny problem that the WGIII report isn't based on a "what if" scenario, as you lay it out. But instead is tightly coupled to the conclusions already reached in the WGI report (ie. very likely, most, last part 20th century). (and i'm not just talking AR4 but also the earlier reports). And i very much doubt if anyone is going to scream anything about "whitewash", if you adhere strictly to the IPCC conclusions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Both Q Science and Mishlai used the term "Gold Standard" to describe the IPCC definition before I did. You hid these posts. --Skyemoor (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Exact reporting of the IPCC conclusions has already been called a "whitewash." Yes. The WGIII report is what you say. Which is also what I say. (Your comment is internally contradictory.) WGIII uses a special definition of "global warming" which assumes what is called "very likely" by WGI, if I've got it right. The WGI comments include the language of uncertainty which is quite what has been called "whitewash," but, enough. Go ahead and doubt what has already occurred, if you like. Let's see what other editors think, as this comes to their attention. --Abd (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the WGIII doesn't use a "special definition" of global warming. That seems to be original research of your own. And what you completely forget is that while its very likely that most is human caused - its virtually certain that the warming cannot be natural. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious from the source. WGI and WGII don't even have "global warming" in the glossary, though WGI is the group that specifically examines cause. You can spout "original research" as often as you like, but you have presented nothing from the sources that shows anything different, and you have supported, with Talk and with bald reverts, text which is unsourced or which doesn't reflect what the asserted sources actually contain. So ... good luck trying to justify all this, should it become necessary. --Abd (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Common Usage

The purpose of this section is to give clear examples of common usage.

These are some selected quotes from the 2 hour PBS/Frontline documentary "What's Up With the Weather?" (transcript)

• There is no basis to say that more CO2 in the air is going to lead to catastrophic global warming.

• Withering heat waves in Texas and in Florida, cities that are setting thousand-year records for high temperatures - how much more proof do we need that global warming is real?

• when people talk about global warming, it's always in terms of, "Oh, gosh, it was hot last summer."

• If ..., does it prove humans are causing global warming?

• In the contentious debate about man-made global warming, ...

• But there is no basis, no mechanism that anybody can point to or look at to say that more CO2 in the air is going to lead to catastrophic global warming

Please don't read these quotes as supporting or denying the science, but as showing that the phrase Global Warming does not include blaming people. It simple refers to an increase in temperature. Q Science (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cherry-picked quotes from such a limited spectrum of people shouldn't be used for anything... What exactly does Gore's (to take an example) have to do with anything? And how would a 2000 PBS special have any relevance to this topic? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Cherry-picked" is an interesting spin - I searched the transcript for the phrase "Global Warming" and selected those quotes that showed one meaning or the other. The phrase was used in many other quotes but could be interpreted as either blaming or not blaming people. This special is relevant because it shows how several people were using the phrase at that point in time and because we are discussing terminology. In addition, since this program is re-shown every year or 2, it is still a current reference. (That info used to be online, but I can't find it today.) Based on the combined, multi-year audience size, only Al Gore's film might have more relevance to this discussion.

Al Gore's quote is important because it is the only quote in the documentary implies that people are responsible for Global Warming.

I was also hoping that other people would add quotes from other sources to demonstrate common usage. I never intended to be the only contributor or that one documentary be the only source.

Q Science (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

flap

I'm sorry - but this is all original research. We have to rely on authoritative reliable sources for something like this. (btw. its never been shown in Denmark (afaik) - and i rather doubt if it has an international audience). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reporting what exists in sources isn't original research. And even if it were, original research can have some legitimacy in Talk, even if it can't be a formal source for the article. I've seen the "cherry-picked" argument before from POV warriors, but, of course, the resemblance may be coincidental. If it was cherry-picked, pick the rest of the cherries and show us! The current revision talks about "common use," examples of common use here help us to judge that. I find it remarkable that we had, for more than a year, a "cherry-picked" part of a definition sourced from the EPA, and nobody said "boo!" until the full definition -- which was really quite the same in essence as to the present text -- was supplied. Apparently it's okay to sauce the goose, but not the gander. We could go back to that EPA definition. It doesn't require any synthesis. Except that some of us apparently don't like it and were willing to edit war to remove it, claiming the EPA couldn't be used as a source. Quite a story, actually. The EPA is fine as a source if part of it supports my position, but not if the full quotation doesn't. Sooner or later, you know, it all becomes visible. --Abd (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Trying to synthesize what common usage is by counting different person's usage of the word from various disparate sources is original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering apparently intended to suppress discussion. No proposal has been made to put counts in the article.--Abd (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but you really really should try to adhere to WP:NPA. (this should have been on your talk-page - but apparently my opinion is subpar and can't be heard there[9]). I suggest that you take this to relevant channels or stop accusations. Ok? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To describe an argument as wikilawyering and the obvious intention (Don't report sources here because it's original research) isn't a personal attack. However, if my understanding of the intention was incorrect, I apologize for that. Was it? Is it just fine to report these things here? Does WP:OR prohibit an editor from showing examples of text, on a Talk page, that he or she has found? No, KDP, your opinion is just your opinion, and is not necessarily subpar, but I've concluded that we aren't going to get anywhere; for quite a while you've disregarded and disrespected my responses as too lengthy. So I became brief. Get over it. --Abd (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitions found

Please add, here, sourced definitions for "global warming." (Non-RS sources may be useful for our discussion, not for the article.) --Abd (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Global Warming: An overall increase in world temperatures which may be caused by additional heat being trapped by greenhouse gases.NOAA
  • defines GW as "an overall increase in world temperatures." If it's not caused by greenhouse gases (allowed in the source), it would still be called "global warming" --Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Compendium of definitions by Google:[10]
• Global warming: an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution.Merriam-Webster
  • Again, the "widely predicted" is explanation or usage, not definition.--Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Global warming: An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's surface. Global warming is one of the consequences of the enhanced greenhouse effect and will cause worldwide changes to climate patterns.Australian Academy of Science
  • Very clear: global warming is an increase in temperature. The second sentence isn't definition, it's explanation.--Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Global Warming: The progressive gradual rise of the Earth's average surface temperature thought to be caused in part by increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.Pew Climate
  • Quite the same. There is no variation in definition or terminology here, just some variation in usage. --Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Global warming: Global warming is a phenomenon believed to occur as a result of the build—up of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It has been identified by many scientists as a major global environmental threat OECD
  • This isn't a definition at all, except that it's a "phenomenon," which is about as non-specific as one can get. I find it hard to think of anything that isn't a "phenomenon." --Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's sourced to another document.[11].
• Global warming: The progressive gradual rise of the earth’s surface temperature thought to be caused by the greenhouse effect and responsible for changes in global climate patterns. See enhanced greenhouse effect, greenhouse effect, climate change. UNFCCC
  • Again, the definition of the term is the "progressive gradual rise of the earth's surface temperature." Then the glossary gives what is "thought to be" the cause. The phenomenon does not depend on the cause, if it were caused by something else (in part, for example), it's still "global warming." --Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Global Warming: An increase in the near surface temperature of the Earth. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is most often used to refer to the warming predicted to occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. IPCC Special Reports on Climate Change - Methodological and Technological issues in Technology Transfer - COP6 (2000) Den Hague
  • Very clear, the definition is the first sentence. Then a common usage is given, that's not a different definition. It's global warming whether it happens now or then, predicted or not, anthropogenic or not. --Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that there is variation: for the IPCC, climate change refers to, er, changes in climate. For the UNFCCC, they have established special usage, we've been told in the article (and I think the EPA says this): climate change is restricted to anthropogenic change, i.e., change is considered to be human activity, whereas climate variability is used for natural change. (Did I get this right? I find this problematic, how do they, then, talk about the temperature phenomenon? I really should read that source!) --Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that you get the "climate change" vs. "climate variability" seems to be correct. But your interpretation above, about what is important, and what is not - isn't. A glossary description defines the meaning of a wording, as a whole. Your original research on what is important, and what can be ignored - is only interesting as rationalization for your POV. (i particularly liked your dismissal of the OECD def.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OECD doesn't "define" global warming, they say what causes it. What is it that the greenhouse effect causes? A "phenomenon." What is that? A political movement? A phosphorescent tide? Death of jellyfishes? Or expansion of the jellyfish population? There are other phenomena caused by the buildup of carbon dioxide. Which one is global warming? Wait! It says that it is believed to be a "global environmental threat." Aha! The Bush Administration! Or is the corps of lobbyists for Big Oil? Or liberal environmental PACs? Sorry, Kim, that's not a definition of global warming. All the others include a definition except that one. Why not? Well, because the meaning of, the definition of "global warming" is obvious. It means "warming of the globe." Expand that with more precise language (what does "warming" mean? what, precisely, is warming?), you get IPCC terminology, etc. Get serious, Kim. I'm not putting this so-called "original research" in the article. It's for our study purposes. --Abd (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As said before, even when a specific wording may have a literal meaning, it can have a specific meaning. As examples given: anti-semitism does not have its literal meaning, but instead is specific. Your assertion that the literal meaning overrides the specific - is purely your POV, and is not supported by the references or the usage of the wording. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is correct as to "literal" vs. "specific." However, normally specific usage does not override literal or general. Antisemitism is unusual, actually, due to the common equating of "semitic" with "Jewish." And I could definitely go onandon about that. The literal meaning is given in many sources, often but not always accompanied by an example. Some sources define by example. But to restrict the meaning to the example is preposterous, and it would make, as noted, tautologies out of such obscure sources as the "IPCC gold standard." Stop beating a dead horse. There is no consensus here for the claim that "global warming" means, by definition, anthropogenic global warming, and the fact that we don't object to the term "anthropogenic global warming" as a tautology, and we all know what it means, and what "non-anthropogenic global warming" means, likewise, shows that. Is the latter concept an oxymoron? --Abd (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's normal that the specific meaning does not override the literal or general. Context will supply what meaning is appropriate. I am not claiming what KDP asserted: the literal meaning does not, either, override the specific, when the latter is clear from context. What I see here is endless argument with the obvious, for no apparent purpose other than supporting a POV spin to the article (moot at the moment because the Terminology section has been removed). From a skeptic, this would result in a block, quickly. I'm not arguing that KDP should be blocked, only to note that there has been biased maintenance of this article with support from involved administrators. Hopefully, that's over. --Abd (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you still haven't found out what the meaning of WP:NPA is. Or why you should keep to discussing the issues, and not the editors? It is getting tiring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Abd wrote; What I see here is endless argument with the obvious, for no apparent purpose other than supporting a POV spin to the article. Abd, several editors have said similar things to you. Please consider your own actions before negatively assessing those of others. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Skyemoor, I haven't seen such comment, i.e., "similar things," from any neutral editor, with regard to my behavior with the Global warming article, with which I have only very recent involvement, an involvement coming from noticing, over an extended period of time, the behavior that I've described. If I'm wrong about that behavior, fine. I assume my error will be corrected. Let me repeat: I noticed the behavior that I've described before ever becoming involved, I originally noticed it as part of an effort to neutrally examine problems with the article as part of an RfC that I stumbled upon, and then with a report on AN/I. Have you read the RfC? --Abd (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(note this written prior to the comment from Skyemoor, above) There is a distinction between gratuitous personal attack and discussion of editor behavior that has an impact on articles. I've seen an "endless argument" comment used by you, Kim, and by some of your friends, and I didn't see objection to it, from you, or from those friends. And likewise with other comments that, should my own comments be "personal attacks," would be the same. Shall I compile a list of examples? That's a waste of time, unless it becomes necessary. Is it necessary? For starters, read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. That RfC concluded that GoRight had acted improperly, but the general consensus was that so had other editors, with equal severity, and I think you'd be on that list. The stated reason that no sanctions were determined for the other editors is that the RfC wasn't on them. I comment here, about editor behavior, for a reason: what has been happening with the Global warming article, and with related articles, must be discussed so that it can stop. What is it going to take?--Abd (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks Abd. Either take it to a private conversation, or bring it up in the appropriate channels. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The IPCC definition

The IPCC definition of global warming, found in one of the Working Group glossaries, (WGIII) has been called the "gold standard." What is it, where did it come from, and is it a "definition" or an "explanation"? An explanation will include information about the subject behind the term being explained, a definition will only state what is necessary to understand the term itself, generally, though definitions may sometimes give examples; the examples are not intended to be exclusive; really, they are part of an "explanation."

This is the IPCC "gold standard" definition, supposedly:

Global warming

Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions.

Linguistically, if global warming is a consequence of "radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions," that cause isn't part of the definition. It's an example or a usage. Is there other "global warming," not caused by human activity? Of course there is, because the earth has warmed before human activity was taking place on a scale that would be seriously significant. Could there presently be causes for global warming other than human activity? In theory, yes. Various phenomena that cause climate variability have not stopped operating because we've been modifying CO2 levels. Some of these cause cooling, some cause warming. So some global warming is not caused by human activity, and the IPCC report includes this in their conclusions.

Other Working Group glossaries for the 2007 report did not include this definition of "global warming." What's the difference? Well, this was the glossary for Working Group III. Their report is titled: Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change." [12]. This working group appears to assume that human activity is the cause of global warming, which is perfectly appropriate. But it leads them to define the term for their usage as referring to what would elsewhere be called anthropogenic global warming.

The other Working Group glossaries don't include the term "Global warming." Those group reports are titled:

• Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"
• Working Group II Report "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"

Working Group II looks at the effects of "climate change." For their purposes, it doesn't matter what is causing the change. We would face these effects whether the cause is human activity or changes in cosmic ray flux, for example.

Working Group I is concerned with what is happening (i.e., changes in atmospheric composition, temperature, etc.) I've reported here and in Talk for the article some of what they conclude, here is some different stuff:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

"Warming of the climate system" is roughly equivalent to "global warming," and the sentence works if we make the substitution. This statement is entirely independent from cause. As to cause, they state that separately:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.12 This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.

If we put this into the Terminology section, at this point, it's predictable how some editors will respond. Translating and substituting as would be appropriate in the Terminology section -- if it is to mention causation -- we would have:

Global warming is the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century, very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

And it will be called a "whitewash." But that's what the IPCC actually said, in the Working Group I Assessment Report.[13] They added the qualifiers "most" and "very likely." This was good scientific writing, in fact. We should take a hint.

What these editors have been insisting on, over many different versions, and with edit warring, is a bald statement like this (from the current version, which replaced a version where I had supplied the "very likely" qualifier:

global warming" refers to the recent increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

That definition can be supported by the Working Group III glossary, but that Working Group, in its mission, assumed the cause was human activity, which was quite appropriate. WGIII was about "What can we do about it," and mostly this would be about changing or reversing what we've done to cause it. If we can cause it, we should be able to reverse it. But that's a restricted definition, for their purposes.

Now, I'm new to this and it would be very easy for me to overlook stuff. There are users here with much more experience on this topic than I, and some of them actually care about NPOV and consensus. Regardless, all of them can be useful, if we cooperate.

Just found one more tidbit: the Synthesis report[14] defines "very likely." It means a probability assessment of greater than 90% but less than 95% (which would be "extremely likely"). Note that the highest assessment level they name is "virtually certain," greater than 99%. At the "very likely" level an encyclopedia article should carefully maintain an avoidance of certainty. --Abd (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

flap

What nice original research. Perhaps you should submit it somewhere - so that we can later refer to it as reliable? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reporting (exact quotation) and discussing what is actually in reliable sources is OR? What a novel concept! Try maintaining it in an RfC or before ArbComm sometime, for the lulz. I was quoting the source, and that's what I or someone else will put in the article, instead of synthesis that does not enjoy consensus. Laugh, if you like. This doesn't need to be published, it already was published, by the IPCC. Of course, now will you argue that the IPCC report isn't reliable? Or will Skyemoor take on that job? Edit warring can "win" today, maybe. It won't win tomorrow, or the next day. This isn't going away. --Abd (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What is in the exact text of the source is not OR (obviously) - but your interpretations, rationalizations and analysis of the text is. (or in the words used in main: Your "exploration" is OR). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a Talk page, KDP, not the article. Or are you and your friends the only ones who can "interpret, rationalize, or analyze?" It might seem so, from a review of your contributions history. I have a suggestion: if you'd like to see Skyemoor stick around, give him some friendly advice about edit warring, he won't (hasn't) taken mine as friendly, probably because I'm getting a bit pissed at being called a POV pusher, when I'm quite the opposite. (You've managed to remain unblocked, I'd guess you are careful; he hasn't been and isn't. He might listen to you.) The text he is defending so staunchly was most recently inserted in the article by me. And when text came along that had higher consensus, that's what I put in. This will continue. Don't think that because you've gotten away with persistent use of reverts to maintain your desired spin -- not based on source, but on synthesis -- that this will continue. I predict: it won't. You and he are largely SPAs, it makes you vulnerable, should push come to shove, which I surely hope it does not. Try addressing the actual issues instead of spouting "OR" once again, or demanding predigestion of it all (i.e., "be concise," when the only way to be concise is to gloss over important aspects of an issue, something POV pushers do quite readily). --Abd (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand where you're coming from here, and I get the impression from your tone of writing that you've become frustrated. You're normally more level, diplomatic, and rational than this, so you may want to take a night off & let things cool. What we have here is a simple failure to reach consensus. You, I, and WMC have one position, Kim & Skye have another. Their position is reasonable, because multiple sources - and most importantly the IPCC - support it. I think it defies logic, but they are unconvinced. Both sides have made their case ad nauseum and we continue to disagree. That isn't misbehavior on their part or ours, they just disagree with us on this point, which is ok. You removed the terminology section, and that's ok too. It may be the best solution.

The last guy I saw get blocked was being disruptive. I acknowledge that I've been out of this article for a long time, but that was my experience in the past, too. If skeptics are receiving more blocks here, I would argue that it's because Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not allow them to fill the global warming article with their viewpoints, which they most probably consider to be unfair. I think some of them get into a holy war mode and try to "fight the establishment" or whatever. A fair treatment of the article doesn't address the issue to their satisfaction, and they are driven to bad behavior in the attempt to get some page space for their points (which is rightly denied in most cases.) That's all well and good until it becomes disruptive, and then a block becomes appropriate. An editor that supports the mainstream view is unlikely to behave as badly, because really the article already represents most of what they believe pretty well. The larger point is about good faith. I'll tolerate anyone's viewpoint if they're willing to express it honestly and calmly. I think you're a good editor, and I think your attempts to reach consensus and your reasoning for doing so were excellent. It's unfortunate that the IPCC chose to define the term as they did, but we both have to acknowledge that contradicting an IPCC statement on a climate related article is going to be an uphill battle if the other editors don't agree with our judgments in the matter, and they don't. I think it's unfortunate, but I also choose my battles and this isn't going to be one of them. Mishlai (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that some skeptics are blocked for quite good reasons. However, I'm also sure that much of this isn't necessary and it's due to the hostile reception they get when they try to make the article, as it would seem to them, more neutral. As we've seen, the article, as maintained by a group of editors, can contain material for a long time that is presented in a way that is not actually justified by the sources. A skeptic sees this and tries to fix it, as I did. They are met with hostility, they are called "POV pushers," and if they respond in kind, they are warned and blocked. I'd urge you to read, carefully, WP:Requests for comment/GoRight and the pages in my user space (referenced from the RfC) where I compiled and analyzed evidence. I wasn't involved, I had never had any dispute with these editors previously. And it's ongoing. I came here because an attempt was made to sanction Jaimaster for his participation in Global warming, on AN/I. It failed, but it's obvious that at least one admin is itching to block him. He wasn't uncivil. Did he err? Possibly. However, if you look over the history of my own intervention here, and the response and other stuff that has happened in this brief period, you'll see edit warring with no attempt to reach consensus or attempt to thoroughly explain why not, characterization of edits as pushing some POV that weren't, tendentious argument, etc. This kind of situation often arises when a group of editors get burned out maintaining an article, you can see the impatience over and over, it shows up in how answers to questions on Talk are made by certain editors. "Read the sources!" will often be said. Sure. But ... sometimes what one gets from actually reading the sources is quite different from what is in the article or what these editors are claiming, and a reference might be to a huge source with no specification of where. When editors are burned out with maintaining an article, maybe they should take a break! If we can't be civil to newcomers, we've lost it.

And then there is the whole can of worms of administrative involvement. Just in the last, what, two weeks?, we saw a user, User:Logicus blocked for, apparently, writing too much in Talk. Not uncivil, just lots of text. He wasn't formally warned; the admin blocking, when challenged, pointed to comments in talk that weren't phrased as warnings, they were just on the order of "TL;DR" or "Why do we have to read this again?" (And, of course, the editor who wrote that did not have to read it!) Yes, the user was clumsy, wordy, etc. But blockable? Not by any guideline I know? And, making it worse, the admin is one who has been heavily involved with Global warming. Then when edit warring had started up (over the first removal of the Terminology section), an independent admin protected the article. It was unprotected by another admin who is likewise heavily involved with the article. With the comment that there isn't a problem here because the article is being watched by many administrators. That's correct, i.e., it's watched by many admins, who are largely involved, as one might expect from having the article on their watchlists! Both of these actions involving admin tools were violations of policy regarding conflict of interest, without there being any emergency. Likewise that admin -- though this did not involve tools -- deleted Logicus's comments entirely, even though some of it wasn't repetitive. (I later restored them and then collapsed them out of respect for that admin's position. Deletion was, quite simply, improper on Talk, they were not uncivil, were not personal attacks, and were merely, at worst, redundant.)

It's a huge can of worms, Mishlai, it is not merely business as usual. Or if it is, that's really scary! Anyway, look at the RfC and at who was involved, first in the edits in the subject period, with reversions and uncivil comments, then with the RfC itself, who filed it (uh, the two admins who acted improperly, recently, as described above) and who voted and how (some of this is analyzed on my evidence pages, in terms of who had engaged in edit warring with GoRight); notice that neutral editors almost overwhelmingly concluded that, yes, GoRight had erred, but his behavior wasn't any worse than that of other editors involved. Yet who was sanctioned? (The sanction itself was weird, I doubt that ArbComm would support it, it seems to have been punitive, since the offenses, such as they were, had stopped.) "Cabal"? Not necessarily a formal one, but it is "as if" there is one. This situation is a poster boy for WP:TAGTEAM; there have been efforts to dilute that essay to try to make it seem as if, to be a tag team, there must be some conspiracy. No, the essence of it is edit warring, with the reverts being distributed among a number of editors so that none of them violate WP:3RR, whereas the intruder is led right into doing that. The difference between this an legitimate article maintenance against improper edits is the attitude, the conduct. Edit warring, per se, purely stubborn reversion by itself, is not how we maintain articles, we must consider each edit as made in good faith, unless vandalism is obvious, and attempt to incorporate whatever is possibly good from it, or explain in detail why not. Burned-out editors stop doing that. They just revert. And that's what was repeated here, since I started working on this article. --Abd (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

References

This just makes it a little easier to read the references Q Science (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)