Talk:Global warming controversy/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Problems with 4AR SPM

It appears Lord Monckton may have rushed into print too early. Since William said he was waiting for my rebuttal, I decided to post a few thoughts even though I have not completed a thorough analysis. Here are the facts as I see them:

1. The 4AR SPM is a political document not based on the science. This is seen first in the reasons given by Christopher Landsea on why he resigned from the IPCC. [1] [2] It is also seen in the fact the science document is not being released until it conforms to the SPM, written by and for policymakers.

Wrong on several counts....--Stephan Schulz 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Not true. The statement is accurate on every level. RonCram 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

2. In several places, the 4AR SPM does exactly what Landsea was afraid of – it changes the science. Here are some examples:

a. The negative contribution to sea level rise by Antarctic. In the charts, it makes it appear Antarctica is shrinking and adding to sea level rise but ALL of the science indicates Antarctica has more ice now than before. [3]
b. The 4AR SPM has accepted the Mann “Hockey Stick” claim that temperatures are higher now than in the last 1000 years. The Wegman Report sided with McIntyre and McKitrick. [4] National Academy of Sciences Report was polite to Mann but would only say temps are higher now than the last 500 (or was it 600?) years. [5] Other multiproxy studies that produce a hockey stick (Briffa, Wahl and Ammann, etc.) use the same discredited proxies (bristlecones, etc.) the NAS panel rejected. Multiproxy studies have proven not to be robust.[6] By accepting Mann’s reconstruction, the 4AR SPM has distanced itself from the science. [7]
Ron, you have often shown the ability to do some research. Why do you keep blindly repeating crap from sources like the Heartland Institute? Even if you disbelief the "Hockey Stick", there is plenty more evidence to conclude that temperatures are higher now than in the last 1000 years. Even Wegman does not contradict this. Contrary to your claim, the NAS report explicitely confirms it (with a very high certainty for the last 400 years, and lower certainty for the longer period - but still accepting that the balance of evidence is pointing towards this). Bürger and Cubash did not "prove" anything, but they made a number of simulations that suggest more care may be needed. But all 64 simulated reconstructions still show the present much warmer than any other time in the 600 year period they used. And check the SPM language for yourself: "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. Some recent studies indicate greater variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR, particularly finding that cooler periods existed in the 12 to 14th, 17th, and 19th centuries. Warmer periods prior to the 20th century are within the uncertainty range given in the TAR". This is by no means extremist, and fully compatible with the NAS report. --Stephan Schulz 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, you are misrepresenting the NAS Report. They were much kinder to Mann than the Wegman report was (Wegman's committee was made up entirely of statisticians and NAS spent a great deal of time arguing for the value of proxy studies), but the NAS agreed with McIntyre on every disputed scientific point. The NAS agreed the bristlecones were not credible proxies and should not be used. The NAS concluded it was possible temps are warmer now than 1000 years ago but said that Mann's evidence did not prove it. Every reconstruction that shows the MWP was not significant has relied on bristlecones or other unreliable proxies. There is no "independent" support for Mann's work in the true meaning of independent. They all rely on the same sloppy methods and bad data. If the NAS had examined all of the "independent" proxies, they would have come to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, the IPCC has shown itself to be an advocacy organization that is not interested in the real science. They should have checked Mann's work more closely before featuring it in the TAR but now they are truly without excuse.RonCram 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

3. The 4AR SPM makes no mention of the report by Bratcher and Giese of a possible shift in climate change regime to pre-1976 conditions.[8] The oceans have cooled since 2003 and surface air temps were lower than expected in 2006. Both of these facts are consistent with the observations and prediction of B+G and were completely ignored by the IPCC.

Sorry, but nobody but you thinks that B&G is significant.

4. The 4AR SPM pretends the oceans are warming when in the fact the oceans have been cooling since 2003. [9]RonCram 03:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Great peer-reviewed source, MSNBC. But no-one claims an even monotonic increase in temperature in all parts of the climate system, as MrRedact points out below. Check out e.g. Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png. While the overall trend is up, there have always been periods up to several years where the temperature drops a but (or even a lot). 1990 was much warmer than 1992 and 1992, for exmple. --Stephan Schulz 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
We are not talking about a one-year drop in ocean temps but several years. B+G are predicting a climate shift. The last two climate regimes lasted about 30 years (see response to MrRedact below). The fact the IPCC does not treat B+G as significant is further evidence of advocacy on its part and not attention to science. RonCram 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I found an interesting webpage devoted to news clippings of scientists on global climate over the last century. Very interesting reading.[10] Too bad the SPM does not seem to understand the variability of climate. This report makes the same mistakes certain scientists have made for a long time.RonCram 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you actually look at it a bit deeper? While nearly all of it is popular press, most of the clippings still refrein from predicting laternate immediate doom. The first two are very general (and still compatibe with current scientific opinion. Absent human interventon, there will be another ice age "one day"). The next one is just cute fluff. Two more from 1923 look like they come from the same press release and promote one expedition without claiming any current climate change, and the "next great deluge" speakes about a time frame of 30000 to 4000 years... --Stephan Schulz 22:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The 4AR SPM never makes the claim that the warming of the oceans has been or will be monotonic, merely that there is a warming trend if you look at the temperatures over the course of a century. If you look at short enough time periods, a plot of any of the variables involved in global climate will show wiggles above and below the overall trend line. For example, a major volcano eruption can cool the lower atmosphere by about 1/2 degree F for one to three years, which is much greater in magnitude than the global warming effect over the course of a couple years. But the effect of a volcano eruption is negligible a century after the eruption, unlike the effect of global warming over the course of a centure. There's something similar with atmospheric CO2 concentrations. For about 6 months out of every year, atmospheric CO2 concentrations decrease, during the time when the northern hemisphere is pointing more toward the sun, resulting in plants in the northern hemisphere consuming more CO2. But it would be incorrect to say "CO2 concentrations have been decreasing for the past 3 or 4 months, therefore rising CO2 levels must not be a concern anymore," because the long-term trend if you look over the course of multiple years is definitely that CO2 concentrations are increaing. I'm not an oceanographer, so I don't know about the kinds of things that cause short-term rises and dips in ocean temperature, but I'm sure it's the same kind of thing. I'm sure William Connelly could give you examples of effects that cause short-term ripples in ocean temperatures. MrRedact 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
MrRedact, I suggest you read the Bratcher and Giese paper [11] that has been discussed on the Attribution of recent climate change Talk page. The authors are predicting a return to pre-1976 climate conditions based on their observations of the Pacific Ocean. The two previous climate conditions, 1945-1975 and 1976-2005 lasted about thirty years. I do not think we are talking about a short-term fluctuation here, but a thirty year long climate shift. The fact the oceans began to cool in 2003 and temperatures began to drop in 2006 is consistent with their prediction. RonCram 12:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Place for the "Pro Global Warming" arguement

From what I understand, this page is for the "Global Warming Controversy" not for "Debunking" it. The "Global Warming" Wiki section is pretty well set up for that. Is it too much to ask to keep the sections and the politics between those who don't agree with one side or the other out of the respective section? I have made some edits today, for example, that removed allot of the "yea, but..." junk from some areas of the "Global Warming Controversy" Wiki, because if everything has a "yea but..." on it, its not really "Controversy" is it? If this article is in deed for “Controversy” then that’s what should be here, whether or not environmentalists agree with it.--Zeeboid 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

See my explanation in the other section. Also notice that I left the "yea but" you removed out of the article...--Stephan Schulz 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting the amount of interest that the editors on wiki seem to have on both sides of an issue. Few politically sensitive articles and their oppsoing piece are not controlled by the same group. It is often hard to tell which article is worse - they are always both pretty bad.

Actually, the place for this article is in the global warming article not as a separate article. I am horrified by the extremists - that have taken up residence on the global warming article and are pretending that they can just ignore WP:NPOV. I personally think the evidence more than supports the view that global warming is manmade, but that in no way excuses these thugs that seem to think they can just bullies others with alternative evidence and ignore basic policyMike 13:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid's edits

Hi Zeeboid. I see the purpose of your first edit (the he said/she said style is bad and does not fit the article), the rest of your edits is controproductive. There is indeed a consensus about global warming in the scientific community (see scientific opinion on climate change and attribution of recent climate change) that has just been reinforced by the IPCC AR4 SPM release (and will be further explained in the full AR4 reports later this year). The number of scientists opposing this consensis is small - there are about 3000 scientists with input into the AR4, uncluding more than 850 authors. There are, if I count correctly, 23 people on List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, and many of these are not even climate scientists. Many others are not active scientists any more and haven't published anything relevant in many years.This is just "a few". --Stephan Schulz 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I will put together the information and sources I have on my other computer and layout an explanation of why the way its written is incorrect. The implication of the way the opening is worded appears as if there is no reason to have a "Global Warming Controversy" page.--Zeeboid 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I am still ammassing the info, but does this help to refute the "few" scientists part and the "Consensus about global warming in the scientific community" part and the "number of scientists opposing this consensus is small" part? List of over 17,200 scientists who have signed the following statement:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Would it be helpful to have the individual names of each scientist on the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, as I can add them if you think that would help correct some of this.--Zeeboid 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This is the infamous Oregon Petition, which already has its own article. Raymond Arritt 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and as demonstrated by Stephan Schulz, without the names spelled out on the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, people end up with an incorrect count (as Stephan Schulz counted 23) of the number of scientists in opposition to the "Consensus". The number of signatures on the wiki link is 19,700 and if Stephan Schulz (heavy wiki editor) can miscount the number of PHDs apposed down to 23, and use that to support the opposition to the wording that I had corrected, then apparently it Is not clear enough. So, it has been demonstrated that the names NEED to be spelled out, and that there is not a "consensus" about human caused global warming, and that there is not "a few" scientists against it. Correct? after all, 19700 opposed is Greater then the 3000 who contributed to the IPCC AR4 SPM release...--Zeeboid 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Signatories to the Oregon Petition includes such illustrious scientists as Sexy Spice (Geri Halliwell), Dr. B.J. Hunnicutt (one of the surgeons on M*A*S*H), and a "Dr. Redwine", whoever that may be. I'll enthusiastically agree that those three names should be added to the list of scientists opposing the global warming consensus. Raymond Arritt 19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you refuting all 19700 signatures because of those three examples? Are you willing to say that it is impossible that someone with a PHD could have names that resemble or duplicate the names of fictional characters or actors or singers?--Zeeboid 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about all 19700. Just make sure those three are at the top of the list. Raymond Arritt 19:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So then, the three on the list you do not believe, but the other 19697 you do believe? Also, Are you willing to say that it is impossible that someone with a PHD could have names that resemble or duplicate the names of fictional characters or actors or singers?--Zeeboid 19:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I didn't say anything about the other 19697 one way or the other, just Geri Halliwell, B.J. Hunnicutt, and "Dr. Redwine". If you're convinced that they are coincidentally the names of qualified scientists then they should be easy enough for you to track down. Please be prompt; we're waiting... Raymond Arritt 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Prompt answer below, but you still have not answered the questions I asked as far as wether or not you believe it to be impossible for someone to have the last name "Redwine" or a name that is shared between more the one person.--Zeeboid 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Oregon Petition does not help refute the "few scientists" because it's not, in fact, a reliable list of scientists; this is well documented. You don't necessarily need to spell out the names individually, you just need to use reliable, verifiable sources. Also note that the petition does not say global warming is not primarily caused by humans; it says there's no evidence for "catastrophic heating" caused by humans. --Nethgirb 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Global Warming argument, the heat island effect is minimized by altering the measured data by the scientist's guestimate of what the alteration of the surface temperature by the heat island effect would be. If there are some false signatures in the Oregon Petition, could this not be corrected in the same way?
According to what the scientific American said in your well documented link, 3 out of 30 sampled were accurate. Using this example, then 1970 of the 19700 would be accurate. even at 10% of the signatures on the list, that is far from "a few," correct?
has anyone here scrutinized the signatures of the 3000 signatures on the IPCC AR4 SPM release in the same way? Perhaps only 10% of those signatures are valid as well. This should be looked into.
as far as the “catastrophic heating” comment… this is a poor attempting to play on semantics. Global Warming is Global Heating is Climate Change. To be more specific, it says that our output of greenhouse gasses is not or will not cause a disruption to the Earth’s climate. To quote the petition AGAIN:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Are you also refuting not only the signatures, but the data in the Oregon Petition? And what about the [Leipzig Declaration]? This has been signed by 80 academics and 25 weather presenters. should they be added to the list as well? were you using those examples when counting to "23?" What about the other "five prominent efforts intended to show that a "scientific consensus" does not exist on the subject of global warming" that is listed under that Wiki article about the Oregon Petition?--Zeeboid 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This is all a complete waste of time. Many of the OP sigs are dodgy, but that hardly matters, because the petition is largely consistent with the IPCC position, which doesn't predict catastrophic heating either. So no problem William M. Connolley 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You are very wrong here, as I would argue that the IPCC position and the OP position are far from consistent, as the IPCC didn't say "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Would you like to re-phrase your comment to something more accurate?--Zeeboid 20:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems you have not actually read the IPCC reports... Raymond Arritt 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Does it matter to anyone that the IPCC excludes anyone that is "skeptical"? Even with that 'stacking the deck' they still downgraded their alarms (when compared to the TAC). That is like removing Clubs and Spades from a deck of playing cards, dealing the cards again and then proclaiming how great your luck is because you keep getting red cards.
Also rather dubious is how the summaries are (a) for 'policy makers' though coming out months in advance of the actual reports, thus meaning policies should be made/altered without having the full reports available, (b) have significant differences from the actual reports (though with the removal of opposition from the panel this is becoming less of a problem--kind of like a homogenous Germany, eliminate opposition and everyone remaining eventually will agree), (c) are released with fanfare while very little fanfare is used for the actual reports.
I have read the reports, but I also understand that a flawed process of panel selection destroys the credibility of the study and conclusion. A fact of scientific methodology that I know Global Warming alarmists will ignore or dismiss.
-- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
IPCC participants are nominated by their national governments. (Sorry, it's not a sooper-seekrit cabal of global warming alarmists in black helicopters.) It defies credulity that the George Bush administration is "stacking the deck" in the way that you propose. Raymond Arritt 20:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
What is your source for that. I mean, I want to know the name of the people doing the nominating for the US, UK and, whichever other nations have a say in the IPCC panel creation, just out of curiosity. However, considering the methods of silencing opposition being used globally (the USA included) and the SOP by Wikipedians of REVERTING edits if they intimate at all facts contrary to absolute allegiance to Al Gore's vision of Global Warming, I tend to believe the numerous scientists who saying that such a blacklisting is occurring. I mean, we're talking about a group of people that want AMS certifications stripped, jobs to be lost, etc simply for not being a member of the Global Warming Alarmists community. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
For the call for IPCC AR4 participation by the U.S. government (you know, the one headed by George W. Bush and his clique of rabid environmentalists), click here. Raymond Arritt 21:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that link was about the nomination process. I missed (1) the part that said who decides on the actual panel members for the IPCC (not the US delegation), and (2) the part that says Bush did the nominations, sorted through them or even had a say in the selection. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
How does the statement "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth" logically contradict the IPCC report? The IPCC report only discusses changes in climate. It doesn't contain any discussion of how climate change may positively or negatively affect various species of plants and animals.
By the way, the statement "increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth" doesn't even logically contradict the statement "increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many harmful effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." It's all a matter of perspective, i.e., which species you're talking about, in what location. A climate change can cause one species to proliferate, which is beneficial to that species. But the same exact climate change can cause another species to go extinct, which is harmful to that species. MrRedact 22:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To quote the Oregon Petition, which it appears people are dismissing without reading: "Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist."

So, we're down to 17,800 scients who have been independently verified to not agree with Human Caused Global Warming. Is that enough to support the edits to the article I made earlier changing "A Few scients don't agree" to "many scients don't agree" ammong other changes? Also, Did you Raymond Arritt, actual read the Oregon Petition? Because I have read much of the IPCC.--Zeeboid 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we're down to an assertion of independent verification but no evidence for said verification at all. You're awfully trusting when it suits you to be. Now, as to the text of the petition: notice how easily you slip from what it says to what you want it to say. It doesn't say to not agree with Human Caused Global Warming - those are your words. You're abandoning the catastrophic warming bit, it seems, as not contradicting the IPCC (even though you quoted it as such earlier) and are left with only the "greening the earth" bit? William M. Connolley 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

After your edits, the The neutrality of this article is disputed. It is quite clear that there is only one side that many here wish to view, even though in Science, the deffinition of what IS ACTUAL science is something that stands up to open dispute. The edit history on a page set up for the Global warming controversy shows that an open dispute of the topic is far from what is going on.--Zeeboid 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted references to as self declares as a POV source. There is no way it looks like a reliable source for this kind of thing. --BozMo talk 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Was the data incorrect, or did you not agree with the way the site "looked"?--Zeeboid 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The other source,, is of equally illustrious scientific rigor. (A recent headline: "Stunning documentary links Darwin, Hitler.") I used to have to listen to late-night shortwave radio or mail order for this stuff, but with the Internet it's available any time. Raymond Arritt 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Was the data incorrect, or did you not agree with the way the site "looked"?--Zeeboid 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:RS. Raymond Arritt 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Why would you refute sources that do not suit your opinion, and yet also not take down ones like these, which are currently listed:

Exxon Democracy Mother Sheldon Rampton's World? --Zeeboid 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the source then that is refrenced Sci American that listed back when this study was done (when there were half of the scientists that is listed on the site now as having PHDs in related fields) that
" Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."
200 is quite a bit higher then the 23 listed by those of you who have been completly unwilling to read this information! and as I said, that was then. this information, as all informaiton, is updated over time, and there are twice the listed "Related PHDs" then there were when Sci-American reviewed this. This type of item is the exact reason this is now under review. No one here who has an alternate opinion to the data that is comming out, is just hiding it. there is no discussion, there is no alteration, there is no Improvement, just Deletion. And this is against WIKI's standards and rules. Improve upon what is here, not remove what you don't agree with.--Zeeboid 03:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The real problem with counting names on the Oregon Petition is that the supposed core of 200 climatologists are not coming out of the woodwork to *publish* with data to back up their purported opposition to the IPCC. The 23 names on the WP list of scientists at least have clear statements we can include showing what they state in their own words. If there really are some 177 more, we need their names and some links to current statements by them.Birdbrainscan 05:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Connolley's revert

Connolley reverted edits with no explanation. I put my edits back and would like to remind Connolley of a few things regarding reverts. From the Revert policies and guidelines.

"Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously."

Cannot say if this was done or not, but in light of the following items you can draw your own conclusions.

"Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism."

The edits that were reverted were not in any manner able to be construed as vandalism.

"If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it."

As I mentioned, there was no summary explanation and if an explanation of the revert was made in the talk page then I missed it as it was NOT its own subject and would have been buried somewhere else.

"If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it."

This is pretty self-explanatory. The revert was done to remove content that, prima facia, opposes the views of ONE side of the discussion on this page. Nothing more than that.

Let us review some more from the Wikipedia policies and guidelines about revert wars (which, basically are

Revert wars are usually considered harmful for the following reasons:

   1. They disrespect the work of the contributor. Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face: "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back"
   2. They cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles
   3. They make the page history less useful, waste space in the database
   4. They make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists

Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods like raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution.

Someone that is a member of the "Harmonious Editing Club should know better.

However, this is not an isolated incident. Just going through talk pages one will notice [pattern] that [[12]] to develop.

[reading]. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

William W. Connolley has stated before he is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. This is troubling and often interferes with the normal processes which should take place prior to his edits. I'm starting to wonder if this "admin" understands what a NPOV is.~ UBeR 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I reverted some of William M. Connolley's big changes that pushed a spicific POV back into the intro of the article.--Zeeboid 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Reverted the changes once again, this time from Stephan Schulz on Connolley's behaf. ADMIN POV PUSHING. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeeboid (talkcontribs) 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
It is time M. Connolley was reported for his edits which clearly contravene WP:NPOV. I am glad to find I am not the only person to have found him totally unwilling to listent to reason, intent on removing all other points of view and willing to use every underhand tactice at his disposal. (And I'm happy to say global warming has been caused by human action) Mike 13:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I will ask this only one time...and I'm looking for answers from each of you.

User:Raymond_arritt, User:BozMo and User:William_M._Connolley:

1. Explain why you reverted the edits (essentially deleting them) as oppossed to improving them?

2. What policy was violated to cause you to justify reverting?

3. What other avenues of correction/improving did you take before reverting?

The reverts I am referencing are:

  1. (cur) (last) 16:53, February 12, 2007 BozMo (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Zeeboid (talk) to last version by Raymond arritt)
  2. (cur) (last) 16:38, February 12, 2007 Raymond arritt (Talk | contribs) (→Funding of believers - delete unencyclopedic ranting and raving unsupported by reliable sources)
  3. (cur) (last) 16:08, February 12, 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (rv Zeeboid and Mynyakko)

-- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As above, get some reliable sources please:
Reverted references to as self declares as a POV source. There is no way it looks like a reliable source for this kind of thing. --BozMo talk 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The other source,, is of equally illustrious scientific rigor. (A recent headline: "Stunning documentary links Darwin, Hitler.") I used to have to listen to late-night shortwave radio or mail order for this stuff, but with the Internet it's available any time. Raymond Arritt 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So, your positions are that you deleted the edits because the information about funding of global warming 'believers' was not from a "scientific" source? (also, you did not answer the other questions) -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 22:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I reverted you because your edit didn't appear to be serious [13]. Global Warming industry isn't even pretending to be NPOV. The source you quote from [14] is hopelessly biased. Rants about scientists being pressurised into silence are far too common, and always badly sourced William M. Connolley 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I speak only for me of course. For me reliable was the issue: see WP:RS. is such a bad site it keeps coming up on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. Also the drop-in wasn't terribly well written, and had been reverted in twice which decreases the odds the author might be prepared to put the work in to improve it. Personally I don't have any problem about including issues of funding for Global Warming scientists and any significant allegations of intimidation. But raise it properly and discuss it properly. --BozMo talk 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"keeps coming up on..." I used your link to check on your claim. There was 1 reference to NewsMax and it was about a user that used only NewsMax sources and in large quantity. The only item that comes up regularly is a constant effort to remove NewsMax from Wikipedia...the article referencing the news organization itself, baseless efforts to discount the organization itself, etc. So, please explain again what you meant with " is such a bad site it keeps coming up on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam", because quite honestly as I compile your comments and reverts throughout Wikipedia it seems more and more like a strong case of your own biases being exercised against content you do not agree with and users who provide that content. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 03:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning was similar to that of WMC and BozMo. Again, please see WP:RS. You might also have a look at WP:V, WP:WTA, WP:NOT#SOAP, and probably a half dozen others that I can't think of at the moment. Raymond Arritt 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Still do not see why you all DELETED content rather than corrected it. That seems to be the part you three do not want to answer. Should I point out again the policies your reverts went against or would you rather just answer why you DELETED instead of IMPROVED. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It was so full of holes that repairing was not a reasonable course; there would have been nothing left. Sort of the Wikipedia version of a 1971 Chevrolet Vega. Raymond Arritt 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, bit harsh maybe. But you reverted in the same text twice without trying to adapt it in the face of criticism so maybe you should answer your own question about trying to improve it? --BozMo talk 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thats because the best someone had come up with for a reason not to allow it was: "Funding of believers - delete unencyclopedic ranting and raving unsupported by reliable sources" which doesn't sound much diffrent then the links to Exxon Democracy Mother Sheldon Rampton's World. you can't in the same breath defend any of those (which you defended based on your inaction when it came to their removal) and still speek out against the others. Nor did you attempt to fix it. This still comes down to soposid "Admins" DELETING information rather then IMPROVE it.--Zeeboid 02:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Criticism from biased viewpoints does not offer feedback for reverting edits. Simply put, you do not like the sources and it has nothing to do with if they are credible or not. They are to you what the New York Times is to me...biased and agenda driven over content.
The bottom line is that you three chose to delete content rather than fix the content. We can play the insipid 'you violated this and that' game. In the end you deleted content which, based on your User pages and your comments in this and other articles, disagrees with your personal viewpoints. So, decide now...will we apply the standards you have set forth in deciding to delete content or will you put the content back and discuss it (and "make it better") like adults that can accept disagreements? Your chance to set which standard of "source credibility" and content entrance is up to you. I will abide by those standards and do so in a way you have applying them to both sides of the discussion.
There is plenty of content in this article alone which fails to meet the standards you have set forth when justifying deletion of content that disagrees with your POV. So, the standards you three have provided is this: (1) must not be biased source (according to the person deciding on the revert), (2) must have been discussed PRIOR to being placed in the article, (3) sources must be a "scientific" source, (4) must be deleted (not fixed) if the above 3 conditions are not met (according to the person deciding to delete the content), (5) assume the author of content you disagree with is 'not serious'. I am betting none of you three will acknowledge the double standard that is in existance on this article and its talk page, thus you will not replace the edits that were deleted. As such, I will also conclude from that lack of replacement that you have chosen to have the standards applied to my edits to also be applied across the board, instead of having the standards offered to your POV to be applied across the board. As such, a list of content on this article which fits the standards you have exhibited today will be forthcoming...just so that it is all out in the open PRIOR to action being taken (a courtesy not extended to my edits).
Each of your reverts ignore the Do's and Dont's of Reverts.
  1. Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute.
  2. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end."
  3. Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly.
  4.'s a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely.
  5. Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate.
  6. Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
  7. If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
  8. If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
That would be all 5 of the "dont's" and 3 of the 4 "do's" (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on the 4th, that you took the reverts 'seriously' even though this seems to be a pattern for years for some of you, a pattern that has been before the arbitration board).
I can see that you folks would rather delete facts that do not support your points of view rather than allowing a presentation of the whole story. That is especially galling when it occurs on a page specifically about the controversy on the topic, and will stop at nothing in doing so. The shame is you are affecting the credibility of Wikipedia. And it doesn't take long for the internet or radio waves to spread the word (and documentation) of how Wikipedia participates in the slighting of controversial topics. Rather than admit and correct your biased deletions of content (which you have already admitted to doing, btw, thank you very much) you choose to rationalize the double standards applied in this article. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 03:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Could either of you so called admins explain how the deletion of information instead of the correction or improvement of the differing views about the Global warming controversy falls into the " WikiProject Climate Change, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wikipedia related to climate change and global warming."?--Zeeboid 03:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No objection at all so long as it's supported using verifiable statements by reliable sources and presented using neutral fashion. Pete, you and Tony have been advised on WP:RS before (in the Race to the Right RfD), and really need to recognize that it's a core tenet of Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Advised yes, so it is clear that we understand what we were advised on. The problem though is you, and others ( William M. Connolley who has been warned here before not to get into revert wars) removed information instead of correcting it, or talking about it, or asking that it be fixed. You, User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]], do really need to recognize that the core tenant of Wikipedia (including articles that are part of Wikipedia Projects) is about sharing as much information as possible. That is the whole point of this site. According to Wiki's introduction, this site asks users to "Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better." but all this group of so called admins are interested in doing (based on their actions) is limiting the information, no matter the source, to a topic that agrees with their opinions on this topic. Again, we come back to the "Improve, not DELETE" The bottom line here is you all have REFUSED to improve on this "Global Warming Controversy" topic, to limit "Controversial" items that are posted here. The entire tone of the article even displays this. Multiple users have listed items with verifiable sources, that you don't agree with, and even though many of the sources listed are of good quality, you still just "don't seam to agree" with what they say, so you delete them. This goes against what Wikipedia stands for. If I was wrong, you all would have edited what was posted that is "Controversial" to the "concessions" to improve upon it, instead of DELETING it. Your Actions speak far more accurately then any of you can, and this is exactly why requests for moderation and flags for the neutrality of this article have been requested.--Zeeboid 04:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, seriously, if you cannot see how biased the reverts were then this is pointless (discussing anything at all with you). The entire article is biased. The reverts are one-sided. The interpretation of "verifiable sources" is selectively applied in a biased manner.
Warned previously, yes, and considering we were both new it goes to show how wonderfully embracing the Wikipedia community is, especially to new people that do not march lock-step with the selective-application of Wikipedia's policies.
So, how is the best way to proceed? We have two choices within Wikipedia, as I see it. One, we take these standards that are currently being selectively applied and put the entire article, phrase by phrase to them. No hair-splitting, no exclusions, inclusions or exceptions. You have applied general standards...and those are what should be used throughout this article. Two, arbitration, which is not a fun process if it is even accepted. And considering how well admins stack the deck for themselves I would not be surprised to read more juicy rationalizations justifying 2-weeks probation for the biased reverters and 6-months for the users with different views that are being censored.
Frankly, you can point me to whichever sets of abbreviated policies you have sifted through to find ones that somehow apply magically to support deleting 'newsmax' but keeping some of the other pulp used as a source here. I can do the same...though I think the most applicable is the Revert page. That one has 5 Dont's and 4 Do's...of those 9 items every single revert has violated no less than 8.
So, how do you propose we fix the double standard? Restore the edit y'all have wantonly deleted; or revert all of the edits that fit the same criteria; or request arbitration? I can tell you which one actually strives towards making the article better...and it has nothing to do with reverts, deletes, rollbacks, censoring dissent, etc. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelise your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it." ~ UBeR 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources not sufficient

As set forth earlier today, text based on sources that are not "scientific" should be deleted. Here is the first part of a list of text that qualifies and should be deleted immediately. Reasons for the deletions are provided (in greater detail than previously provided).

  1. "Global warming is an even more central and sustained issue for the European Union. Both 'global warming' and the more politically neutral 'climate change' were listed as political buzzwords or catch phrases in 2005[6]." --Source is 'hopelessly biased' including its top article for 2/12/07 "Top Bushisms of 2006"; also is of 'illustrious scientific rigor' on the same scale as previously deleted texts.
  2. "However, in Europe, the global-warming theory has gained wider acceptance than in many other parts of the world, most notably the United States.[citation needed]" --No source at all...the standard on this article is to have solid writing and sourcing or have the content deleted.
  3. "Kevin E. Trenberth provides evidence for the controversy that occurs when science meets the political arena...greenhouse-gas concentrations."[7]" --IPCC's bias is in question, especially from its earlier years (inc. this source from 2001)
  4. "A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal [5] challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached on the issue, and listed the Science [journal] study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "a persistent effort to suggest . . .that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected."[8]" --WSJ is not a "scientific source" and is a biased news service.
  5. "Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than eight hundred thousand years,[9] with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence." --BBC is a biased news service.
  6. "The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years[11]..." --AAAS rec'd $135 billion in 2006 in research grants leaving to fair question the bias of their reporting (similar to the criticism of those receiving money from oil companies and researching global temperature fluctuations).
  7. "...and this is human-caused, as shown by the isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels." --unsourced and no definitive, unbiased, uncontested source provided.
  8. "The historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years." --unsourced
  9. "Climate models can reproduce the observed trend only when greenhouse gas forcing is included[12]." --source is biased, obtains over $30MM for 2007 in research grants
  10. "Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment, and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries to come.[13]" --Not a statement of fact, not encyclopedic
  11. "The current warming trend will accelerate when melting ice exposes more dark sea and land that will reflect less sunlight; and when the tundra thaws and releases large quantities of trapped greenhouse gases.[14]" --source is Wikipedia, which is being proven to be biased relating to controversial topics.
  12. "Atlantic, hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change.[15]" --source is requires registration; ignores the fact that there were zero hurricanes to make landfall in 2006 thus making the claim dubious at best. Submission thus must not be serious.
  13. "Betting over global warming...A number of scientists have proposed bets with global warming skeptics concerning whether future temperatures will increase. With the exception of two Russian physicists betting $10,000 that the average global temperature during 2012-2017 would be lower than during 1998-2003,[16] all other skeptics have either refused to bet on terms that pay out before the year 2100,[17] have refused all bets, or, like Richard Lindzen, have only accepted odds that indicate temperatures that are much more likely to increase rather than to decrease.[18]" --sources are either not encyclopedic or are 'hopelessly biased'. POV or poorly written, the section adds little to the advancement of the content of article and poorly states that global warming alarmists want their wagers to be based on short term payouts while global warming skeptics want the wager based on the long term results.
  14. "The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."[19]" --source maintains a bias for pro-global warming articles/stories and is thus not credible enough for encyclopedic purposes.
  15. "According to an Associated Press release of 30 January 2007 [64] delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.”" --AP is the same news organization that was discovered to doctor photographs and stories to suit their political agendas, source is not credible and is 'hopelessly biased'.

That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Understand that I am presenting the content that fits your criteria. You have subjectively applied some rationalizations for deleting/censoring content and using the same standards I compiled this first list of qualifying content for removal. The only question is which standard do you choose to be applied EQUALLY and without splitting hairs: delete content that is questionable, poorly written, etc OR fix the content? Do we restore the content you DELETED or do we remove these texts of equal qualifications? Just as you dismiss outright the validity of my sources, the validity of these sources is also equally disqualified. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us not forget, the subjectively applied rationalizations for deleting/censoring content, if true, should apply to ALL OF WIKIPEDIA, not just this subject.--Zeeboid 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelise your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it." ~ UBeR 05:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I am exiting this conversation, because however reasonable and engaging we are you people or person seem to come back with personal attacks about bias. I have no financial interest in Global Warming, but considerable financial interest in exactly the opposite. I never said sources had to be scientific only reliable. I am also not an owner or indeed contributor to the current article; it has loads of issues with it but the fact some sections are bad doesn't justify putting in other bad sections or weak content. You don't seem to want to help the article just pick a fight. However I will continue to revert changes which make the article (even) lower quality. None of your changes in my view made the article incrementally better. --BozMo talk 08:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I also strongly suggest you apologise for the personal attacks above. --BozMo talk 08:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There was a trio of people who made reverts yesterday. All of the reverts ignored 7 of the 8 "do's and dont's" of Revert policies. And taken together with the one-sided manner in which the standards have been applied throughout this article alone demonstrate an incredible bias. If those are the personal attacks you refer to then I apologize for the ones which specifically do not apply to you individually. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In my turn, I accept you are right and I was wrong on one issue: Newscast has only had one significant entry at Wikispam, albeit very recent: it did look like a straightforward link campaign by an employee but given the stated slant of the journal it could be just a "supporter". But please accept it is a rubbishy news source, go and look. Something as important as bullying toward consensus is bound to be reported in proper places (e.g. the Daily Telegraph has a strong anti-Global Warming bias but is still regard as reliable in its reporting of non scientific matters like reported bullying). --BozMo talk 08:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
NewsMax is a legitimate news aggregator. The list, at this point, of the "Inside Cover" headlines for today: New York's 9/11 Freedom Tower May Go Private, Bank of America Offers Credit Cards to Illegals, Rudy Giuliani: Move Calif. Primary to February, Navy May Deploy Anti-Terrorism Dolphins, God, Darwin Clash Again in Kansas, Joe Kennedy's 'Shameless Support' of Hugo Chavez, Mitt Romney to Officially Enter 2008 Race. These stories came from AP, CNS and Reuters. Any news aggregator and news outlet has stories that could give an opponent fodder to claim they are illegitimate. I have not seen the evidence to warrant labeling NewsMax as 'rubbishy' while not leaving Yahoo, AP or Reuters as equally 'rubbishy'. They have editorials, sure, which by the very nature of editorials are always suspect as far as news content (just read the MPLS Star Tribune for examples of editorials absolutely devoid of fact). That does not necessarily reflect on the news department. NewsMax to you is what the NY Times or AP is to me. We will not change each other, but we should recognize that both sources are equally legitimate. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
BozMo is right here. I don't agree with many of Tony's assertions discrediting various sources, but it certainly is true that this article is poorly written and contains quite a lot of unsourced statements on both sides. But two wrongs don't make a right. I suspect that a lot of the removal of edits that goes on here happens because some people are trying to make sure that at least no more unencyclopedic material gets put in the article. --Nethgirb 10:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The article has been continually handicapped by back-and-forth POV pushing by both sides. Raymond Arritt 13:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Nethgirb says: "[A] lot of the removal of happens because...people are trying to make sure that at least no more unencyclopedic material gets put in the article." Uh, two problems with this. One, if "unencylopedic material" exists already it should be fixed or deleted. Two, if new material gets deleted without tagging it or fixing it then there is a problem with one-sided application of standards.
I would not have a problem with edits being removed for whatever general reason if the same were true of the 'other side' of the issue. Take one specific example from yesterday (though, scores are available as the beginning of my list shows). Content was deleted because someone assumed the editor did not "appear to be serious". That can easily be said of entire sections in this article. Another example is the removal of 'oppossing' content because the sources were not "scientific" enough while leaving 'supporting' content in with a "citation needed" tag. THAT double standard pollutes this article and it is exactly THAT which has me speaking out. (It is especially onerous that this is occurring on a page about the controversy.) -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Funding of global warming theorists"

I've removed this section added by Mnyakko. It starts out with baseless accustations by Jim "Global Warming is the greatest Hoax" Inhofe, ends with a similiar one from James Spann (best known for the weather channel fight he is involved in), and the middle two paragraphs contain raw research dollar figure for research by "global warming theorists" (in other words, everyone but the tiny minority that are the skeptics) - meaningless given the group size. Raul654 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Its gone back in. So, I didn't remove it this time but tried to make it clear what it is. I think these claims are notable and the article is about the controversy. --BozMo talk 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Funding from Exxon is part of the controversy, but such funding issues should be discussed in the same context with monetary motivations by the pro-AGW group. The pro-AGW group gets much more funding that Exxon gives out. Plus, the best anti-AGW science is not being done by Exxon funded scientists. Giese, Lindzen, McIntyre, Svensmark, Veizer, Von Storch... these people do not take money from Exxon. Yes, I know these scientists are not all hard core anti-AGWers, but they have all published research that supports the cause. I will gladly put the quality of their work up against Mann, Hansen or Jones any day of the week. RonCram 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Supports "the cause" -- from which we gather you're here to promote a specific point of view? (And classifying von Storch as "anti-AGW" is absurd.) Raymond Arritt 14:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, I specifically said they are not all anti-AGW. Von Storch is someone who cares about getting the science right. That alone means some of his research supports then anti-AGW cause. For example, Von Storch was critical of Mann and his attempt to photoshop the WMP out of climate history.RonCram 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, so now you're equating "getting the science right" to "supporting the anti-AGW cause." Glad to see you don't have any preconceived conclusions... Raymond Arritt 18:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, this is tiresome. Von Storch is interested in getting the science right. He is not like Michael Mann, et al, who were caught red-handed with sloppy methods, fudged data and failure to report results that were contrary to conclusions. Because Von Storch will not fudge his data, his conclusions may not always take him into the same camp. So while Von Storch himself holds to AGW, he was able to publish a piece that was critical of Mann. The piece he published did support the anti-AGW cause. Why is that so hard for you to understand? RonCram 18:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not hard to understand at all. If I'm reading you correctly, you're now stating that unbiased science may coincidentally support the anti-AGW camp. No problem there. Had you had said that plainly at the outset, instead of saying von Storch was performing "anti-AGW science" and then stating "getting the science right alone means some of his research supports the anti-AGW cause", we wouldn't be disputing the matter. Raymond Arritt 18:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Funding as a possible scientific "pollutant" is an interesting topic. Has anyone found a correlation between (1) source of funding and (2) conclusions given, in research related to climate?
I've heard that Canada and the U.S. provide over half a billion dollars annually to fund pro-GWT research. How much is the budget for anti-GWT research? (GWT = global warming theory) --Uncle Ed 15:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why your insistence that research be divided into pro- and anti-AGW camps? Do you really find it incomprehensible that a researcher can approach a topic without preordained conclusions? Raymond Arritt 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Raymond Arritt asked: "Do you really find it incomprehensible that a researcher can approach a topic without preordained conclusions?" I would suggest the answer to your question lies more with the people who constantly use source of funding in an attempt to discredit GWT opponents. It is obvious that those who attach 'big-oil' to 'opponents' find it "incomprehensible that a researcher can approach a topic without preordained conclusions"; yet when pointing out the amount of research funding that pours into GWT proponents the response is cliche: 'one can do good research independent of the views of the benefactors.' Additionally I find it interesting that the 'oil'&'opponents' links include passive, indirect and old ties counting those as entirely discrediting. Meanwhile the 'global warming industry/research funding'&'proponents' links have parsing to exclude passive, indirect, nebulous or old ties counting them as illegitmate links. BTW, that occurs with recent edits on this article. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, apparently Bush is very keen on pro-GWT research. How anyone believes that is beyond me. But this is a common skeptic canard. Most (all?) of the research money is distributed n scientific merit (apart from pork like bridge-building in Alsaka, of course) William M. Connolley 16:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be pretty surprised if much funding was tied to being "pro-GWT". At least it doesn't work like that with Government funding in the UK. The US I am not so sure, but it seems unlikely. More likely that of the open research funding of half a billion dollars almost all researchers ended up concluding pro GWT... which is kind of the opposite? --BozMo talk 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My understanding, based on my the way the money works for my own research group, is that there are two ways to get government funding. There are competitive grants given by the NSF - you write a proposal, they read yours and a bunch of others (and I believe there may be peer review involved here), and decide on the basis of what is proposed who gets the money. There are also non-competitive line-item appropriations (where 99.99% of so-called "pork barrel" appropriations come from) for research. Line-item appropriations for research are considered taboo. Raul654 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gore's bad science

Interesting article in Human Events, a conservative weekly publication that has been around for decades. [15] I guess it should not have been news to me that Gore was such a poor science student in college, but it was. According to one observer, now even the NY Times is telling Al Gore to "cool his jets."[16]RonCram 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And this is relevant to the present article... how? Raymond Arritt 14:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
How is it relevant? It is relevant because Gore is controversial. It is relevant because the Times telling him to back off is probably controversial. As I understand it, this page is about the controversy. RonCram 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If the NYT has information as to why Gore should back off a bit it could become the article.


Do article abstracts say things like, "This article affirms/denies the theory of anthropogenic global warming?"

Or is it more like, "We examine the relationship of cosmic rays to cloud formation, and the consequent effects on global average air temperature. Changes in the sun's magnetism are found to affect the amount of sunshine which reaches the earth's surface."

Would the latter be counted as one of 928 abstracts not contradicting the GW consensus? --Uncle Ed 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. I'm interested to hear the answers. I have a hunch the latter is counted as not contradicting. Anecdotally speaking I have observed that articles with the word "skeptics" in it count as offering 'the other side'. Even if all that is said is something along the lines of "Skeptics still have their doubts." -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 15:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Organizations and individuals

I just thought of something. All the advocates on one side or another seem to be either "groups" or "indidivuals". Is it just me, or do the groups tend to be warmers and the individuals skeptics?

I can't think of more than a handful of individual scientists supporting GW theory, but there seem to be dozens of skeptics. And only a couple of small organizations oppose GWT, while the big (gov't-linked) orgs seem overwhelmingly for it.

Is it money, or power over money? Does ideology drive politicians to provide funding?

Are individuals, especially retired scientists, merely people with nothing to lose? --Uncle Ed 16:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another hypothesis is that there just aren't enough skeptical scientists to form an organization. And what few there are tend to be old because older people tend to have a harder time adapting to new ideas. Also, retired scientists are likely to not be as well-informed about up-to-date information, since they don't keep up-to-date as part of their job anymore. But how specifically does this topic relate to improving the Global Warming Controversy article? MrRedact 17:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are so many "advocates" for the consensus that they do not stand out individually, and we do not list them as such. It's more economical to say "the IPCC" than to list more than 850 active contributors. --Stephan Schulz 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
That was basically my point in my first sentence. When a large group of professionals come to believe that an important minority viewpoint isn't adequately being presented by the mainstream organizations in their field, they tend to form contrarian organizations to promote the minority viewpoint. For example, in the field of medicine, there's the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, at opposite ends of the political spectrum. If a large number of climate scientists thought that mainstream climate science was way off base, one would presume that they would form an organization to promote their viewpoint. If that were to happen, Wikipedia articles about the minority viewpoint would focus on the minority organization, not on a few contrarian individuals. The simplest explanation for why that hasn't happened is that there simply aren't enough sceptical climate scientists to form a meaningful organization. MrRedact 02:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It relates to the motivation for taking sides. In public policy debates, the two top motives are ideology and personal gain. (I neglect for the moment the sincere considered belief that a certain policy would actually be better for all concerned. ;-)
Partisans on both sides of the controversy which the present article describes, have accused each other of bias and corruption. Liberals call skeptics "deniers" (see Holocaust denial) and lose no opportunity of suggesting that Big Oil is funding junk science. The arguments of conservatives are basically equal and opposite.
Organizations can move around huge sums of money without attracting attention, but if an individual or small group gets funding this seems to attract a lot of attention: Joe Blow got ten grand from Exxon.
Shouldn't 'motivation' be described in the article? --Uncle Ed 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't equate those who accept the evidence for AGW and those who dismiss it with liberals and conservatives respectively. My observation is that scientists who accept the evidence cover the whole political spectrum while those who dismiss the evidence are overwhelmingly conservative. In other words most skeptics are conservatives, but many conservatives are not skeptics. Outside of the scientific community you're more nearly correct in making this connection. Raymond Arritt 17:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, scientists are not always politically-awake. Outside the scientific community, the average liberal and the average conservative both understand that the IPPC is the UN's Kyoto-support engine and that Kyoto comes mostly to a worldwide wealth-redistribution plan. Everyone's aware that there could have been other solutions (like investing in new technologies), and that's what conservatives want, while liberals want Kyoto for its wealth redistribution effect more than for its oftenly not understood climate change capacities. --Childhood's End 17:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doing that, Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe is.

  • "American politics has remained polarized. There are astonishing gaps between Republican science and Democratic science. Try these numbers: Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it." [17]

My only extrapolation was to link libs & dems, cons & reps.

But which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are cons biased, and is "most S are C" proof of this?

Correlation is not causation, which reminds me: how are we doing on our writing about the causal link between CO2 levels and air temp? Are there any proxy records showing that one tends to follow the other, or do they both rise and fall together? --Uncle Ed 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to make it clear when you're talking about scientists (as you were in your original comment above), and when you're talking about nonscientists like Ellen Goodman or the broad population of college-educated Republicans (as you are now). Drifting back and forth from one to another as it suits your purpose does not promote useful discussion. Raymond Arritt 17:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like the article to give percentages of AGW supporters, broken down by

Sun activity fallacy

"...and solar variation. A 2004 study at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany concluded that "the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years" and attributed recent global climate change to this increase in solar activity"

I cannot wait to see how this gets trimmed down and altered so as to create the illusion that it is unworthy of being mentioned. Sadly, this tidbit should be in every single Global Warming article...and I know it would not last 24 hours. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition of POV pushing is not letting views which you disagree with, remain in an article. For a 10,000 word article, if 300 words are about a view which opposes the mainstream, this could give the impression that the minority comprises 3%. If the minority is smaller than that, the article should make this fact clear, lest bulk seem to dictate importance.
What do surveys show? Do around 25% of individual scientists have doubts about GWT? (see Max Hans von Storch). Or is it 0.0%? (see Naomi Oreskes). Can the article describe the percentages of climate scientists on each side, or is even this a matter of dispute? --Uncle Ed 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh the logical fallacies of appealing to numbers and authority! ~ UBeR 19:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Especially when you can't even get the authority's name right... Raymond Arritt
Thanks for noticing the mis-peeling. Have a banana! :-) --Uncle Ed 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Could Uncle Ed or someone please provide a reference for where the 25% figure above comes from? I found von Storch's mention in Spiegel about there being some such survey but there were no details as to who conducted the survey, what the exact questions asked were, what sampling methodology was used, etc. Did someone just ask four climate researchers who happened to be standing around the water cooler at a climate convention? I can't tell from the Spiegel article. MrRedact 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's probably the 2003 Bray and von Storch survey, which has "serious methodological difficulties" to put it kindly. Discussed at Scientific opinion on climate change. Raymond Arritt 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The section title "sun activity fallacy" perked up my interest. Increased sun activity in recent years is old information - Astronomy magazine mentioned it several years ago. Mars, Venus, etc are all getting warmer - ditto and many other sources. The testiness of the editors seems to betray a flagging confidence. If man is causing some of the current warming I doubt ( I actually saw the percent that manmade activities are supposed to contribute ( forgot where ) but it is not impressive ) that is the cause of the moon's warming up - but that seems to be the consensus of "scientists". Do these "scientists" have degrees?

Percentage of support and scepticism

  • General public:: 50-50 (?)
  • College-educated registered voters:
    Democrats: 75% accept AGW (Goodman)
    Republicans: 23% accept AGW (Goodman)
  • state climatologists: largely natural (44% to 17%) (CSE [18])
  • scientists: ? (Bray & von Storch)
Are these figures accurate? Let's do some googling. --Uncle Ed 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Google is the panacea for all of our ails. ~ UBeR 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And what percentage of the scientific community believed the world was flat? Numbers do not make science. It is scary what direction this country is heading when global warming theorists are among the growing list of groups who adopt a "we say so, no discussion allowed" philosophy and are trying to carry that out in legislation. -- Tony of Race to the Right 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We as Wikipedia editors aren't responsible for playing scientist and attempting to determine what's true. Our job is to be concerned with verifiability, not truth. And the numbers of scientists who support a given position has a huge amount to do with verifiability. MrRedact 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, regarding your comment "It is scary what direction this country is heading": You may not have noticed, but not everyone here is from your country. It's important to keep that in mind in order to try to avoid geographical and nationalistic bias. MrRedact 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If the policy of wiki is actually "verifiability, not truth", then wiki is destined to keep on putting out a very low quality product. Much/most of the wiki history articles are worthless, except for the discussion pages. Too bad that the science articles are following the same vein - of course if you can count climatology as a science, at least in present day political conditions.

Content deletion (107865385) by

[19] User:KimDabelsteinPetersen deleted content earlier today from the "Funding of global warming theorist" section. The reason for deletion: "GEF's funding is all help to developing countries to live up to UNFCCC requirements (neither pro nor contra))" This is erroneous. Considering the nature of her nearly 300+ edits (about 95% of which are on global warming

A quick Google search of "Global Environment Facility" "global warming" turns up in the first hit a development summary for just ONE project involving GEF. Among the goals of this one project (for a mere US$7MM), "provide governments concerned with tools to assess the potential implications of climate change for their environmental and resource management policies". And the translation from poli-speak to plain English is "tell governments how the UN wants the governments to manage industry resources".

Why should this stay in the article? It would be the same standard that allows misleading comments about ties to Exxon being used in the neighboring section to discredit "opponents" without so much as an edit, much less a deletion. "[George C Marshall] Institute has received numerous large grants from ExxonMobil..."--curious how $630,000 over 7 years (avg $90,000/year) for an institute that also focuses on non-climate research such as "national defense, bioterrorism, and missile defense" Source: THAT gets no challenge to date for either POV or accuracy while deleting information about Global Environment Facility and getting over $2billion for one year. What is GEF's function? "The Global Environment Facility (GEF), established in 1991, helps developing countries fund projects and programs that protect the global environment. GEF grants support projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants." [20] That hardly seems to match with 'funding is all help to developing countries to live up to UNFCCC requirements'. Additionally, GEF is not a 'wall flower' in the global warming debate. [21] -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It may well be that the GEF is funding climate change related things that are not UNFCCC help - but the section was deleted because the reference didn't show that. It showed instead that the money was going to UNFCCC help. If you can find valid sources to include the GEF - then be my guest. We actually do check the references here. Oh and btw. you may want to check what "environmental and resource management policies" entail - if this is support to a local government in adhering to requirements that are put down by international treaties - then its neither pro- nor contra. --Kim D. Petersen 05:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Sources and deletions
Source checking is a great thing...the issue is that if a source on the 'contra' side of the issue is deemed "biased", or unworthy in the slightest degree and the entire content is deleted. If a source on the 'pro' side is biased, missing, misquoted, etc then nothing is done about it, much less does anyone delete the content. I check the references too, and if the source you deleted was incorrect then something should have been to request an update source...not remove it entirely. I am glad people "actually check sources here"...I wish for the sake of public discourse people would check sources more, and check sources from their own side at all. And as for Wikipedia editors, I wish they would check their processes for edit/deletion for all content rather than different processes depending on if the content agrees with POV or not.
Sorry - the trouble was not that the source wasn't good (i'd even go so far as to say that it was a grade-A source for verifiability). The trouble was that the source didn't show/say/support the claim of the text --Kim D. Petersen 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: organization function vs funding
Funny thing. GWT supporters split hairs and play semantics when trying to remove their pet organizations ties to global warming research funding. The brush to warrant removal is very wide. However, the opposite standard applies on the 'contra' side. For example, why did you not also delete the text about the funding of opponents that reads, "Patrick J. Michaels and Frederick Seitz have both been linked to the George C. Marshall Institute--Michaels as a "visiting scientist" and Seitz as "Chairman Emeritus.""? I mean, GW theorist supporters are deleting content here that discusses a direct funding link between an organization and 'climate change funding' yet play 6-degrees between Michaels and Seitz to attempt discrediting them based on 'financial' biases. C'mon, you wouldn't take as fact if someone told you what someone told them about someone why is that degree of linking considered "encyclopedic" enough to keep here and worse, considered "encyclopedic" for one side of the issue and not the other? And, a question I have relating to that section is How much funding did Michaels (or projects that he was the PI for) receive from Exxon? IMHO, THAT is worthy of being in the article.
Pick the across-the-board protocol...
  1. Do we delete text if the funding is not explicitly lables "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?
  2. Do we delete text if the beneficiary does not have an explicitly stated purpose of "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?
  3. Do we leave in text making 2nd & 3rd degree links between "benefactor" and "beneficiary" (or as exists on this article between "benefactor of a group" and "someone tied somehow to the group") or do we require direct links?
I will take the forthcoming edits, deletions and reverts as the standard if something was deleted and you do not think that standard should be held throughout the entire article I would suggest putting the text back. I'm flexible, I just want each side held to the same scrutiny and standards, however high or low that bar is does not matter. Just fair and consistent. -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Tony of Race to the Right for raising this issue and taking the time to explore it. As for myself, I am of the view that the same standard should be held throughout the entire article. Doing so, if the "skeptic" side is more likely to be biaised because of fundings than the "believers" side, like the global warming activists usually suggest, it should normally appear from this exercise. --Childhood's End 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Text relating to Funding Beneficiaries with Global Warming positions

Do we delete text if the funding is not explicitly lables "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?

This is NOT an official policy determination. It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page. It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts. Discussion is open. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Funding that is not labelled as "global warming research" can only leave to speculation as to what is done with it. What it is used for is not verifiable, and neither are following claims of bias.
I would even suggest that all funding mentions be deleted, even if explicitly labelled as "global warming research". These mentions remain ad hominem arguments, and although I appreciate that they are relevant to credibility, I think that sophisms lower the level of the debate more than anything else since they do not allow to verify or falsify any position. At the very least, they dilute the article with information whose value does not fly high. --Childhood's End 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete. To quote Raymond Arritt: "Do you really find it incomprehensible that a researcher can approach a topic without preordained conclusions?" The implication is that we should be able to believe that researcher and think tanks studying research, etc. are able to come to their own conclusions regardless of their benefactors. It may be a bit optimistic, but I tend to believe money/funding follows positions and not the other way around. Since the research and commentary communities hold that standard for themselves it should be accepted. It is not the job of Wikipedia or its editors to guess, assume or otherwise make assertions not proven and verifiable (to quote UBeR: "Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth..."). -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Much like anything else in Wikipedia, for the intrest of allowing all relivent informaiton, that which is not relivent should be removed.--Zeeboid 18:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Text relating to function of beneficiaries

Do we delete text if the beneficiary does not have an explicitly stated purpose of "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?

This is NOT an official policy determination. It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page. It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts. Discussion is open. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I suggest that all the funding stuff be deleted for the reasons stated above in the previous poll. If this stuff is to be maintained, then I guess that the fact that the beneficiary does not explicitly state its purpose does not warrant that the information is deleted, especially if on the other side, the funding has been provided for an explicitly stated purpose. --Childhood's End 20:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Text relating to Validity/Relevance of Associations between parties

Do we leave in text making 2nd & 3rd degree links between parties (such as "benefactor" and "beneficiary") or do we require direct links between parties?

This is NOT an official policy determination. It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page. It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts. Discussion is open. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Direct links--I think my comments previously reflect this sentiment. Using six-degrees to prove a connection or discredit someone is a dangerous game. How many degrees is the limit? How loose of a link is acceptable? Giving a speech...does that warrant a linking of speaker to the event's organizer? Indirect links lead to less accuracy in statements of fact, less credibility, etc. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Direct links Given enough degrees, you can link anything to anything.--Zeeboid 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Like the family tree chart that showed Kerry & Bush were related -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Direct links But I still suggest all of this is deleted. If kept, then the more degrees, the less relevant it is. --Childhood's End 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Somehow (thanks to my ADD?) that reminds me of another question. How old is too old? Prof. Smith supports nuclear energy, and in 1985 quit his position on the board of directors at Three Mile Island that relevant or is it too old to matter? -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Viewpoint of intro

Cut from intro:

Among the governments of developed countries, there is little debate about attribution of global warming to human activities. As of December 2006, 166 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, whose objective is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change; and the administrations of both the United States and Australia—the only two developed nations not to have ratified the treaty—have acknowledged that global warming is anthropogenic.

There is, however, an ongoing political debate about what actions should be taken to mitigate or adapt to global warming.

For example, the Clinton administration did not submit the treaty to the Senate, after that body preemptively rejected such measures unanimously (95-0).[1] The Bush administration also has not submitted the 1997 Kyoto protocol for ratification by the U.S. Senate on the grounds that it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and that it would damage the American economy.[2] The UK-sponsored Stern Review, commanded by Tony Blair's government in response to the House of Lords Economics Committee's report that had issued substantial scientific uncertainties about climate change,[3] concluded that "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting."[4] In addition to economic arguments, concerns include social justice for the adversely affected including likely climate refugees, need for intergenerational equity, and loss of biodiversity.

The above implies that the pro-AGW side is correct, and in the overwhelming majority. Both these points, however, are disputed by the anti-AGW side.

It would be better to lay out the points of contention first, and to say what the various sides assert about them.

If numbers of advocates are at issue, then let's describe the dispute over the numbers. For example, the pro-AGW side says that scientists are virtually unanimous in their support of AGW theory; while the anti-AGW side says that 25% or more of climate scientists doubt or disagree with it. --Uncle Ed 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm..Ed, what happend to your reading ability. This does not imply that the "pro-AGW side" is correct, nor in the overwhelming majority. It implies that the overwhelming number of governments hold this position. About the only thing that is neither sourced not common knowledge is the last sentence (which I agree could go). --Stephan Schulz 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced back-and-forth

Global warming skeptics sometimes assert that not all of the IPCC authors support its reports.[citation needed] However, only two of the 120 lead authors of the TAR are known to have voiced serious objections.[22] The adherents of a consensus say the statements of those who expend the effort to comment negatively on that consensus is moving in the opposite direction, toward more agreement.[citation needed] Others dispute this.[citation needed]

None of the above 4 statements are sourced. Why have them in an encyclopedia article. Is there some sort of rush, here? I don't want to see pro-AGW or anti-AGW stuff in the article, if it's just some contributor's opinion.

This is not a blog. We are not debating AGW here. We are contributing to an article about the debate. If we can't remember where we read or heard something, why put it in the body of the article? --Uncle Ed 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification...I added the 'citation needed' tags to those. I agree, they should be removed. Unlike some editors, I don't just delete unsourced content (or content citing sources I don't like); so I'm giving the interested parties some notice that those statements each need sourcing. -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea, Tony. In fact, I'd say that if one editor's response to another's tagging is a text move, then it's a good sign that the passage is "not ready for primetime". Cheers. :-) --Uncle Ed 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Filled out one of the quotes with the equivalent from the IPCC page. (Note - this source would normally not be acceptable - but i believe it to be acceptable because its from a contra- source - ie. because of the bias of the source the statement becomes acceptable) - it shouldn't be too hard to find the original quotes from Lindzen or Christy though. --Kim D. Petersen 23:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a standard for sources established

User:Raymond arritt has cemented the standard of this article. "Partisan sources" are absolutely not allowed. That includes Mother Jones, btw. And details about members of the debate are also not to be included (though typical of his POV edits, there is not any explanation). Additionally, the biased editors do NOT discuss these changes beforehand as common courtesy would dictate. I accept their standard and have made changes using the standards in practice. If this double standard continues and the obvious and blatant one-sidedness of reverts and content deletion continues then other steps will have to explored to remedy this continuing problem. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC) [edit]--I should say that I am disappointed in the standards chosen, but accept them and shall carry them out. If you don't like them blame Connelly, arritt, et al. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

None of us gets to decide what the standard is; it's already decided: WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. --Nethgirb 04:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, so, since the standard is to delete the text outright...having trouble locating that part of those pages you just gave. A little help finding the "delete text" part of the standard. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Non sequitur. But you knew that. Raymond Arritt 05:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No, seriously, Raymond, where is the part about deleting text 6 minutes after being added because "either give academic degrees for all individuals in the article, or none". First of all, I am intending to do that very thing. Secondly, you need to delete all "biased sources" and their related text or none of them.
Since you have been so busy deleting 'contra' text you may not have noticed that while trying to undo POV deletions like yours I have also been trying to apply the standards throughout. Silly me, I made the mistake of adding [[citation needed]] tags. I need to undo that and simply follow what you do...delete the text outright for reasons so broad and vague that nearly anything can be deleted. From claiming Kim deleting text falsely claiming the sources did not mention what was claimed in the article to you deleting seemingly any edit that is not favorable to the global warming alarmist is unbelievable. Certainly will have to use this ordeal on this air this week as we discuss how militant the effort is to silence GW opposition.
Leave the academic degrees up for 2 weeks. If I have not made significant progress (at least 1/3 of the names being referred to in this article implicitly as scientists or for scientific expertise/info) then delete them all and I will support the deletion. Just because you obviously have a POV on this topic does not mean you have to be unreasonable. -- Tony of Race to the Right 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I threw a parser error at "From claiming Kim deleting text falsely claiming the sources did not mention what was claimed." I still can't understand why you insist on including academic credentials for Oreskes and not for any other person in the article. Presumably you have a reason for targeting Oreskes, but you haven't told us what that might be. Care to let us know? Raymond Arritt 06:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Funny I was going back through the history (documenting for possible mediation) and trying to find something in response to Kim's deletions and found something that I was going to add here just to explain myself better. Then BAM, your request for the very information.
Three things prompted my desire to add academic creds...the first 2 never motivated me enough to do so.
First, I want to have a list of proponents and opponents academic creds in my Global Warming files for my radio show. I do not give a d*** which side a caller is on, I want the whole story presented, and I was once caught flat-footed by the claim that both sides were loaded w/ scientists in disciplines not related to GW, much less its forecasting, etc. That essentially means that they are, as far as being 'expert' enough to sign petitions or reports, no more qualified than you and me.
Second, (and quasi-related to the first), I am sick of the back and forth about 'your list is full of non-scientists', 'nah-ugh, yours is worse' garbage. All the while NOONE has gone through in encyclopedic interests and compiled the actual qualifications of these names. I was more appalled to find a great majority of the articles for these people do not have the academic quals and have so little content that I'm planning on submitting them for deletion (and yes, they are on both sides of the issue). Zeeboid (who, in the interest of full disclosure, is one of the staff of my show and one of the show's researchers) & I decided this week that we would compile such a list and when it is completed add it to Wikipedia. In light of the past few days I may pull the plug on that plan just because I am willing to bet my house that the list, while being fair to both sides and silence one aspect of the POV garbage that pollutes Wikipedia, would be deleted. As a stand alone article it would lose a RfD, as an addition to all of the relevant articles it would be a constant fight. Pro-GW's would delete the references pointing out their people were under- or un-qualified and Con-GW would do the same. So, because of the behavior I have seen on GW and other controversial topics Wikipedia will not see the benefit of that project en toto.
Third (and directly answering your question), while we are not going to do the entire list of names for the major reports, summaries, petitions, participants, etc. I was inspired to do this with ALL of the names on this article. I saw the following: 11:40, February 13, 2007 KimDabelsteinPetersen (Talk | contribs) (→Debate over the existence of a consensus - Is Oreskes a "History professor" or a "Science professor" - both are part of the title.)" which actually deleted all reference to Oreskes creds instead of 'making it better' and answering Kim's own question. (Incidently that was the first of three text deletions, all of them of con-GW text and all of them justifed with false claims). I saw that during my lunch break and decided I would help answer the question. Thus Oreskes was the first on my list. Seeing some of the absolute crap that is left on this page I figured I MIGHT have until the weekend to get many more of these done (as one could probably sense from my summary, I was not optimistic that this information which was not heralding pro-GW people would be left alone.). As it turns out I had 18 hours on the first attempt and 6 minutes on the 2nd.
There you go. Why Oreskes first? Because the question was asked directly about her first. Ironic (at least to me) that the question was meant rhetorically to justify deleting the fact that Oreskes' doctorate is in history (something I did not know until literally 5 minutes before posting it). -- Tony of Race to the Right 07:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
My... what long rhetoric - for something i could've answered (if asked) in a blink: I deleted the credentials - so that Oreskes complied to the standard on the page (rf. Peiser). Her credentials are listed on her page - which is directly linked. I see no reason to fill up the article with unneccessary data, that is readily available on a single click. I still don't think that the credentials are relevant - and specifically not in the current form. --Kim D. Petersen 08:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There really is no winning with you guys. Explanations too short then what is left unanswered is used to justify actions against the editor's contributions. Explanations too long then the editor is calumnated for using 'rhetoric'. It is almost as if it is intentionally made hostile for non pro-GW editors.
  1. Your answer confirms what I already concluded, and adds to the stockpile of subjectively applied standards.
  2. Too many people are being treated on this page as having authority on the subject. Their qualifications should be next to them on this page, imo.
  3. Not all of the "scientists" or 'authorities' have pages to click on thus making Wikipedia an incomplete source for that purpose. Fewer of those people have pages which are not candidates for RfD (and I will be doing that sooner or later). Considering the importance of their qualifications on this topic it is not unreasonable to include it here for the benefit of the reader and credibility of both sides of the issue.
  4. Having this information on these pages will help editors because one less avenue for either side to engage in POV motivated deletions. To be NPOV the information should be for anyone being treated as an authority on this page.
  5. The standard on this page regarding info duplicated elsewhere in Wikipedia is to include it here if it is also relevant to this page. Academic creds are most certainly applicable here since that is one of the major justifications for edits AND is one of the major points of the entire controversy.
  6. Would you have deleted this text if it were for a con-GW non-climatologist? Please don't begin another avenue for double-standards on this page.
-- Tony of Race to the Right 17:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Kim's text deletions (107865385) and reasoning

To quote Kim: "We actually do check the references here." and "the source didn't show/say/support the claim of the text"

Perhaps you should recheck (or even actually check) the sources you deleted. You deleted "In 1996 Global Environment Facility's quarterly report showed over $2 billion in research funding and donations." and 2 sources ( and On page 23 of the pdf file on the GEF website was the pledge page which states, "Contributions to the First GEF Replenishment (US$ millions)" and "Total Pledges 2,030.2". $2,030.2 in "US$ million" is $2.030 billion. That is the first source you deleted and it understates what was in the second source. The understating is not surprising since the GEF's report was on a shorter timeframe than the second source was referring to. However, the second source said

"global warming is an industry. In 1996, at the same U.N. meeting at which the Second Assessment Report was released, Mohamed T. El-Ashry, chief executive officer and chairman of the Global Environment Facility, released its quarterly report. He told the delegates that his agency had leveraged $462.3 million into $3.2 billion in climate change projects. And that was just the beginning."

So far we have the 2nd source being deleted by William M. Connolley at 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC) because "[it] is hopelessly biased. Rants about scientists being pressurised into silence are far too common, and always badly sourced" even though the source was not being cited for the silencing of GW skeptics. I add additionally sourcing 'from the horse's mouth' and you (Kim D. Petersen delete the text and both sources claiming neither source supported the text (remember, the text stating GEF rec'd over $2MM in funding & donations).

So please explain again why you deleted the text?

Chapter 3 - page 16 in the PDF would explain it quite well i think - it lists the total allocated amount for Climate Change: $133.7 million for 13 projects. And the total amount FY97: $7.9 million (help in complying with UNFCCC communications). The billions must go elsewhere - for instance to all the other things that GEF do. Same chapter describes how the funds are used: Primarily on complience with the UNFCCC and Kyoto rules. This btw. shouldn't come as a surprise since GEF is/was the interim operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. --Kim D. Petersen 08:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This standard of parsing the specific outlays is not applied or supported in the section relating to opponents funding. More on that double-standard below...and I guess instead we should delete the similarly unparsed sections in the opponents funding. -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Follow up question: If you have the $133.7 million figure, and you feel that was more accurate, and Wikipedia's policy is to "improve" instead of "delete", then why did you delete the text? -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
"Source" #2 is ruled out by Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources - its a partisan source making exceptional claims.
Define "partisan source" please so we all know how this applies to any other site. I'm not smart enough to go without it being spelled out, and so many sources seem to be deleted for being "partisan sources" in a highly subjective manner. Please help me out here so I don't use anymore of those "partisan sources" in the future. And wouldn't "partisan sources" include a politician? -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
How about checking WP:RS partisan sources WP:RS exceptional claims. --Kim D. Petersen 07:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign)
Follow up question...what specifically is the source in question claiming that is "exceptional"? (please copy the text here of the exceptional claim/claims). -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? The entire worldnet article is about conspiracy. Conspiracy is (imho) an "exceptional" claim. As a POV the article can be used on the page - since it evidently describes a particular sceptics view. Your addition of added GEF material to back up the source - can at best be described as ruled out by WP:NOR. --Kim D. Petersen 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Since these two sources are the documentation for including the text, and the third source merely describes the GEF - i deleted the text. --Kim D. Petersen 08:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course you deleted them.-- Tony of Race to the Right 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The third source and its text were also deleted by you. The text was "Global Environment Facility assists developing countries with environmental programs and local sustainable development projects, some of which are related to climate change." and the source was GEF...basically the first paragraph on the page. (Again, you said the source didn't show/say/support the text and we (imply you included) actually do check the references here." 100% of the references you deleted with that reasoning were nearly directly quoted in the text you also deleted. I am incredibly curious to know the thought process (and what you actually read in any of the 3 sources). Now the inclusion of this third source may seem odd, but that is because the funding info was previously deleted by you (edit #107865385) with the reasoning of "GEF's funding is all help to developing countries to live up to UNFCCC requirements (neither pro nor contra)" Clearly, GEF's own stated purpose is directly contradicting your claim, so in re-inserting relevant funding information I also added the source and text to address your previous deletion. The source, btw, GEF's What is the GEF webpage. So, please, again, since I am not a smart person, explain this to me again. Why did you delete all of the texts that you have? And if you are feeling bold could you please enlighten us all why you are not deleting text that is actually not supported by its citations which happen to be pro-GW? This is a recurring pattern with you specifically and nearly all of the editors on this article.

Finally, Kim wrote: "Oh and btw. you may want to check what "environmental and resource management policies" entail - if this is support to a local government in adhering to requirements that are put down by international treaties - then its neither pro- nor contra."

Kim, that implies that there must be a direct link between the funding and the research and the entity presenting a position. Review some of the pulp that has been allowed to exist on this article that use links to tobacco as discrediting someone for their GW positions, playing 6-degrees of seperation to diminish their positions...I noticed you did not delete any of those poorly linked benefactor-beneficiary passages but jumped all over this one (seriously--less than 12 hours to delete the contr-GW text. So, why did you delete all of these things? while leaving identically problematic passages in the article which support your POV? -- Tony of Race to the Right 07:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite your rhetoric - i imply nothing of the sort - my words are quite specific to the GEF and what it is that they specifically fund. But let me cut it out for you: If a country is required by international treaty or agreement, to do specific tasks - then economic help (whether directly or indirectly) for these task is neither pro- nor contra. --Kim D. Petersen 09:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like the contention on this point (relevance of GEF's funding) is summarized this way: You believe that GEF's purpose is helping developing nations to implement projects required by treaty. My position is two-pronged. And considering that you have not mentioned or fixed the texts you deleted on incorrect grounds, I have a hunch this is all just a waste of time to lay out as you have no intention of restoring the text or at least quit removing it. So, this is more to help document for future use the level of POV issues on this article.
GEF--pro- or con?. This part of my position on GEF's inclusion in the funding section of the article is specific to GEF. GEF does DO what you say. They however have sets of criteria within which they lend assistance [23] [24] For GEF assistance a project must be "consistent both with the country's national programs and priorities and with GEF's operational strategy and programs." [25]
So, what is GEF's operation strategy?
Well, it "incorporates guidance from conventions for which GEF serves as financial mechanism: the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification."[26] I know, POV pushing editors might think that is not specific enough to warrant including a pro-GW entity in the funding section (and I justify that comment in the next 'prong').
They also categorize what types of projects they will fund. The six categories are all part of "global environmental issues" and include "Climate Change".[27] There is the first mark to warrant inclusion in the section relating to their funding of this article. (And still, I bet this is not a direct enough link for the pro-GW folks--so let's drill down deeper.) What is the GEF priority under "Climate Change" that projects must be "consistent" with? "Human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases." [28] Not enough declaration by GEF to accept their outlays being properly categorized as pro-GW? Another statement of their Operating Strategy (which projects must be consistent with) is "Long-term mitigation measures respond [the concern stated by] Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...that it is the cumulation of emissions over time, rather than when emissions take place, that determines the impact of greenhouse gases on climate." ibid
What you call 'rhetoric' it seems is the necessary amount of explanation to even have a chance for a sliver of fairness, of non-POV edits and to even advance the hope that deletions are done so with honest cause. Additionally, what you dismiss as rhetoric is actually more for documentary purposes for (a) use on my radio show when we will discuss GW theorists' efforts to remove (not refute) opposition with this page being a case in point which damages Wikipedia's credibility and (b) more importantly, for future action here on Wikipedia. I know, you have to use words like 'rhetoric' to discourage other readers from putting any weight into that which you label. I understand it. If you were that confident in your positions and reasonings you would not such tactics...but enough of the meta-dialogue.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with the repeated removal of GEF from the funding section of the article.
And despite your very long essay. All you've come up with is exactly the reason for dismissal.
The GEF is only funding climate change related things, that are covered and required under international treaties - they are not a proactive funding source (in which case they would have been liable for inclusion). --Kim D. Petersen 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, so finally it is out be included in the funding section the relationship must be direct and specific. Consider it done. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)::Loose links vs straight links. This part of my position is specific to the standards used on this article alone. Contrary to Nethgirb's statement that the standards for text/source inclusion are decided, they are applied differently...sacrificed for POV purposes.
Are you deliberately putting words into my mouth? Or are you simply conducting a conversation in your mind, which isn't represented in the discussion? Read my (very specific) words: I did not at any time say or imply: "to be included in the funding section the relationship must be direct and specific". --Kim D. Petersen 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering that I applied took your GEF-deletion explanations and generalized them that left very little in the funding sections. Since you have not reinserted the texts I removed I must have properly interpreted your specific rationalizations into a general standard: regardless of a group's stated philosophies or positions their inclusion in the 'funding' sections is permissible ONLY for funds specifically to global warming projects and their income is only counted if it is specifically earmarked for global warming research. Not putting words in your mouth...simply doing what helps to prevent double-standards. That is understanding the broad philosophies in the pro-GW editors actions. -- Tony of Race to the Right 06:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be a Yes then. You are deliberately putting words into my mouth. And No you cannot take my inaction as properly interpreted your specific rationalizations into a general standard. --Kim D. Petersen 06:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is YOU provided a custom tailored rationalization to protect a specific group from inclusion but you have yet to offer the broad principle you followed that gives everyone else and idea of how the remainder of the article is treated similarly. It is, your deletions (and Connelley's) are easily demonstrated to be POV-centric, and in the interest of removing the POV I have been trying to understand the general principles being followed so they can be applied equally (NPOV) to the other side of the debate not being pushed by your edits. Forget it...done trying to get NPOV from you guys. Its time to explore other steps now that I have enough documentation. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that these are only specific examples of the differing standards on this page for a few of the general methods of bias. There are many more examples within each method and many more methods of bias being used.
You delete GEF information because it is "not sourced" (and then when called to task you demonstrate that the source DID support the claim but did not match the level of drill-down). So obviously an explanation is required to even attempt keeping non pro-GW text on the article. That necessity of explaining text is NOT needed for pro-GW content.
You and others delete sources as "hopelessly biased" or "partisan". NewsMax (a news aggregation service similar to AP in both function and reliability) and WorldNet are not valid, yet Mother Jones is? Can't get any more biased than that in applying "source standards".
Frequently people use shorthand links (or not even links) to claim adherence to policies. Commonly thrown out recently are W:RS (Reliable sources) and W:V (Verifiability). What seems to actually happen is someone will perform an action that is at best in a grey area and site a page ("del source W:RS"). When question for further detail they will only say something like, 'read the policy: W:RS'. Why? Because they know that if their 'justification' is further scrutinized it will be discovered that they were wrong, or at least not on the professed concrete standing they present. The flip side is when this is applied to their pet text. 'Can't delete this for W:RS, it says it is not for all cases'. Double-standards. If you are that confident in your application then quote the part of the policy you are using to delete content. Otherwise it becomes clear that the policy link is just a facade to mask actions that cannot be justified. But directly relating to this article is how text and sources are deleted for "bias" or "partisan", the deletor hides behind W:RS and conveniently ignores the following from that very page: If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the {{unreliable}} template. Have not seen that happen at all from the pro-GW editors.
Company A gives money to Group B. Person C holds an honorary title with Group B. Is that sufficient grounds to discount Person C's viewpoints being influenced and "funded by Company A"? The answer on this article depends on if Person C is pro- or con- GW. If Person C is con-GW then the answer is Yes and 100% of the funding from Company A to Group B counts against Person C's credibility (see reference to Seitz in Funding sections). If Group B is pro-GW then it is off-limits to connect Person C through Group B to Company A. Additionally, if Group B is pro-GW then parsing of the funding from Company A to Group B is required...only expenditures explicity labled "climate change", "global warming", etc counts (see rationalizations for deleting GEF funding references).
"Global warming industry" = biased/POV. "Fossil fuel industry" = unbiased/NPOV. Bias in standards? Certainly.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. All of those contribute to my position that the text you deleted should be in the article based on standards applied in this article already. -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Tony, I have to agree with you on many of these points. RonCram 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Critique of AR4 SPM by Dr. Vincent Gray

Vincent Gray is a long-time reviewer of IPCC reports. He has published a critique of the AR4 SPM that has been accepted for publication in "Energy and Environment" and is available online. [29] I would suggest anyone interested in this controversy read Dr. Gray's critique. He says: "I will therefore confine these comments to the aspects of the “2007 Summary for Policymakers” which I find the most distasteful. They come under the headings of unreliable data, inadequate statistical treatment and gross exaggeration of model capacity." Enjoy! RonCram 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Just read it, now I have to do cross-referencing between it and the Summary to parse the distortions and accuracies. Makes for a good bus ride home. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Grays ranting about the CO2 measurements is funny, and well worth a read. Just don't rely on it William M. Connolley 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What a hoot! I wouldn't be surprised if someone did a SCIgen on E&E. Raymond Arritt 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I notice William and Raymond like to laugh and that's good. I also notice neither of them have attempted to deal with any substantive points in Gray's assessment. :)RonCram 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Continued adding academic credentials to the people in the article and cannot find any for Grey. Help would be appreciated. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, stop, as per WP:MOS. While this is a lousy source, it claims Gray (notice spelling) has a Ph.D. in Chemisty. --Stephan Schulz 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I apologize. I thought the wikipedia article on Vincent Gray was on the climate scientist. I see now that it is not. That should be remedied as Dr. Gray deserves his own article. Dr. Gray earned his Ph.D. in Chemistry at Cambridge University and published more than 100 scientfic papers in several different fields, including climate science, environment, sociobiology and theoretical biology. This paper has a short bio on page 30. [30] Since 1990, he has been working mainly in climate science. He was until recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China.[31] You can check Google Scholar for his climate writings. [32] RonCram 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RonCram i see some social science papers (read: political) by Vincent Gray - but no climate science papers at all at Google Scholar. (all the hard science papers where by other V Gray's (fx. Vivienne Gray) --Kim D. Petersen 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not attempt an audit of the results from Google Scholar. I did notice both a journal article[33] and it mentioned a book I found on Amazon.[34] I hope this is helpful.RonCram 12:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Betting on GW section

I fixed up the horrible section of betting on GW. Once that was done I realized that it actually has no place in this article. It is more along the lines of "trivia" and does not seem to fit the "important and interesting" criteria by Wikipedia. Additionally, it is problematic in a POV prism. It sets up the false impression that "skeptics" are not confident in their skepticism. This actually is not true, in that the bet requires a premise of warming vs cooling. The most widely held view held by the skeptics is, in a nutshell, that man is either not the cause of, or an insignificant factor in the warming. The source for the section perpetuates this misleading facade (no surprise from that source, is typical and should always be treated with a skeptical eye). -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point -- it is worthwhile to note that many skeptics do actually believe that the Earth is likely to continue warming. You removed one of the references; I'm assuming this was accidental and I put it back in. --Nethgirb 21:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Academic Credentials

I have an idea but am not sure how to implement it.

I think it would be very helpful to readers and editors if the academic credentials for each person listed was provided. There is little room for POV complaints/actions regarding someone's level of degree and field of study. This would also go a long way to eliminating POV problems regarding who is/is not credible, etc.

I agree that the article will get cluttered with the information. So, if someone know how to make a "Academic Credentials" section similar to the Notes and References sections then we can simply put the information there. Then we can also put the year & institution for each degree.

If needed, we could create a template for the in text tag so it would be something like:

Joe Smith<cred>Joe Smith|BA|Basket Weaving|Univ of Minnesota|1992</cred> and Mary Contrary<cred>Mary Contrary</cred> claim that Pluto's gravitational pull is causing catastrophic global temperature rise.

...and the in text result would be something like:

Joe SmithCr 1 and Mary ContraryCr 2 claim that Pluto's gravitational pull is causing catastrophic global temperature rise.

...and the Credentials section output would be something like:

1. Joe Smith, BA in Basket Weaving from Univ of Minnesota (1992)
2. Mary Contrary, no academic credentials

Help would be appreciated.

Thanks. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it is certainly relevant info to have somewhere in Wikipedia, so you could start by putting the info in the individuals' articles. As for putting it here, maybe you could point out some of the edits in which there were "POV complaints/actions regarding someone's level of degree and field of study" -- has this really been a bone of contention here? --Nethgirb 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we have Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles (also check the following sections), which says to not add titles and qualifications arbitrarily. There is a place for this, and the place is the biographical page of the scientist in question. If he or she is not notable enough for an article, then what he or she says on global warming is not notable, either. If the article is bad, stubify or improve it. --Stephan Schulz 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The article from a NPOV and factual standpoint is horrid, but any effort to remove POV by balancing either inclusion or exclusion is undone. The goal seems to be not a good, factual, relevant article about the controversy but an article that diminishes the con- and augments the pro- in any way possible. There are blatantly-biased links that I have removed only to have them put back in within hours by the same people that delete news aggregating sources repeatedly for bias. I put credentials on a person being used as an authority on the subject matter. (See above to know who and how I edited that one first.) It happened to be that person's academic creds were not in a field related to climate...and BAM, deleted. Not once, but twice. The article is bad and fixing it is not a goal of most of the people here. Mitigating the avenues open to bias on this page is likely the only way to tame the destructive POV battle. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Two things from there: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead. However, it also says "Adherence to the following guidelines is not required". So, the benefits outweigh the harms, it is not contrary to any policies and the guidelines do say information about how a person obtained their title should be included. The problem with relying on the individuals' pages is the many of them don't exist and those that do not really merit their own article. 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Erm, did you see that big word "biographies" at the top of the cited MOS page? The present article is not a biography. Raymond Arritt 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, saw that. I did not want to point it out but wanted as if falls in line with how people provide links to policies and fail to quote what they are using to justify their interference. Quite honestly I have read most all that I can find about cites/sources (both guidelines and technical how-to). There does not seem to be anything prohibiting what I intend, latitude is granted to allow exceptions that aim towards Wikipedia's overall goals. What I propose does that. It is just a matter of how to do so in a manner that is not more complex than triple-embeded transcluded tables in wiki-code. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What would be like totally way cool

If we had a section about how many people that graduate with a degree in climate-related majors keep whatever funding or grants they get aftwards if their research shows something different than the consensus view. Sln3412 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on the above coupled with a breakdown of USA-based researchers versus non USA-based ones might be interesting also. Sln3412 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if you had that data, it wouldn't tell you what you want to know. Suppose that more skeptics lose their funding than non-skeptics. The data wouldn't help you differentiate between the following potential explanations: (1) Funding is judged based on the results, with legitimate anti-GW outcomes being unfairly penalized. (2) Worse scientists get less funding, and worse scientists are also more likely to come to erroneous anti-GW conclusions. --Nethgirb 07:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, that is not how funding typically works. A grant is given for one project (usually not longer than 3 years, followups are possible), and is extremely rarely ever canceled or withdrawn. Furher grants ar applied for independently. So "keep whatever funding they get" is near 100% for wither group. BTW, acceptance rates for competent grant proposals vary between 5% and maybe 50%, depending on the subject and the specific funding agency. So you would need a very large sample for any statistically significant results.--Stephan Schulz 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Roger A. Pielke (Jr) pinned this down pretty well with the following comment on a Lindzen op-ed: [35]

As far as certain scientists who are disfavored in the grants process or in peer-reviewed publication because of their political views, I guess I’d say: prove it. I have no doubt that extra-scientific factors often play a role in the publication process and in proposal reviews. However, the nature of peer-reviewed publication and funding is so decentralized that if you can’t publish your work somewhere or get it supported, eventually, well, there must be a reason, and, hint, hint, it’s not an environmental conspiracy.

--Kim D. Petersen 09:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Trenberth funding - WP:NOR - discuss.

Kevin E. Trenberth has received $5.575 million ($6.804 million in constant 2005 dollars) in grant funding for the 17 projects which he was Primary Investigator.[5][6] Projects were conducted from 1978 to the present and the funding agencies were National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, National Center for Atmospheric Research and NASA.[7] All 17 projects were related to atmospheric observations, global water cycles, short-term climate fluctuations, climate modeling and global drought in 1988. [8]

I've cut the above from the article - it is classifiable as WP:NOR (imho). Apparently the section was created to lead support to the statements by James Spann. Please give references to external (for Wikipedia) sources for these numbers and the allegation that these are all support for a climate change "theorist" viewpoint. --Kim D. Petersen 09:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) More specifically (but not exclusively) i believe the section to go against:

  • It introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments in a way that advances a position favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

--Kim D. Petersen 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- the text you removed, when placed directly after the Spann quote, is suggesting that Trenbeth has a conflict of interests by accepting money from the NSF or NASA because they desire a specific result -- which, even if it were true, is original research. (Hmmmm, does Richard Lindzen have a conflict of interests because he is a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at NASA JPL? [36]) --Nethgirb 11:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Inadequacies of Climate Models

The article needs a section on the inadequacies of climate models. We could use sources like Gray's critique of the AR4 SPM [37] and news articles like "Antarctic Temperatures Disagree with Climate Model Predictions." [38] I am certain a great deal of info can be cited here that readers would find helpful. RonCram 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Gray is not a reliable source. The news article is not peer reviewed science. And anyways, drawing conclusions about the alleged discrepancy would be WP:OR. Some of us are not qualified to do this, and even for those that are (I suspect William and Raymond would be), it would still violate WP:OR unless they manage to publish it independently first. --Stephan Schulz 12:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, wikipedia requires verification not verification from a peer reviewed source. You are attempting to raise the bar to protect your own POV. The inadequacies of the computer models is part of the controversy and deserves to be discussed here.RonCram 12:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. But either you report it as a "Gray states" in the "Assertions by opponents of the global warming theory" sections (in which case I don't understand why you bring up the news article), or you report on a scientific debate of the alleged problems, in which case we need reliable sources, i.e. in this case sources with comparable weight to e.g. the IPCC reports. That means indeed peer-reviewed reputable papers.--Stephan Schulz 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, Dr. Gray is an IPCC reviewer. He has comparable weight when discussing the IPCC process because he was a part of it. Your argument is going nowhere.RonCram 16:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't disallow a "news article is not peer reviewed science" and at the same time include "news articles that are not peer reviewed science" [39] Pick one or the other, because the standard applies to the entire wikipedia.--Zeeboid 14:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Of course I can. News articles are considered reliable sources for some topics. Scientific papers are considered reliable sources for other topics. Peiser's claims are unpublished (or at best self-published), so have low weight. Lambert adequately refutes him. The IPCC is published and multiply peer reviewed science. An editorial in a popular daily has essentially no weight compared to this. The mating behaviour of Britney Spears is probably best sourced to Rolling Stone or similar, and no scientific sources are ever likely to exist.--Stephan Schulz 15:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The final word on this subject: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such. - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (I remembered this passage because I wrote it). Raul654 05:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a rich debate about the accuracy and legitimacy of climate modeling and anticipatory science forecasts, especially when it comes to complex systems such as climate which contain chaotic or unpredictable elements. This is the core of climatology and it should be adressed. Henk Tennekes and Valerio Lucarini are other examples of valid critics about this issue, as are some mathematicians/statisticians. There should be a subsection in this article, indeed. --Childhood's End 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Rich debate about accuracy and legitimacy, thats exactly right. the climate modeling can't be run backwards with an accurate result. as I said in the section below:
--Stephan Schulz, If you don't even know what I mean by "run in reverse" you may give up all hope on being taken serious. Any accurate scientific prediction can be run forward or backwards and have a predictable outcome. The climate models vary by around 400% on a good day. This isn't science any more, it’s guessing. Also when you run them in reverse, you find they do not work out to the actual climate history. Much like the Tectonic plates, or the motion of planets in space, or anything of actual scientific value, that is un-molested by political agendas. The constant reduction of Co2 in the earth's history combined with the in-out-in-out-in-out-in-out-in-out of ice ages and warm periods without human activity seams to be ignored in these "climate models" and thus, the results of the models that predict huge temperature jumps in the next 100 years, when run in reverse, do not match up with in any way/shape/form, the measured climate of the earth... all 100'ish years of actual measurement that is... therefor not in any way accuratly reproducible.--Zeeboid 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's mathematically impossible to integrate the fully-coupled nonlinear equations "in reverse", i.e., backward in time. This is why people construct adjoint models for data assimilation. Raymond Arritt 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like someone to explain how the guessing that passes for "Climate Modeling" is in line with the Modeling for tectonic plate shifting or charting a satalite through the solar system.--Zeeboid 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
At least, this article should note that contrary to normal science, the products of climatology, climate scenarios, cannot be tested in a lab or otherwise and thus are not falsifiable. The only thing that can be done is change the models, but the scenarios still remain unfalsifiable. --Childhood's End 15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Backcasting and forecasting allow tests of climate models. Many fields of science are limited in their ability to be tested in the lab. And climate models are only a part of the proof of global warming.Brian A Schmidt 15:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Climate vs. weather/coin flips

"not Falsifiable?" Don't you ment "Not Verifiable?" I still don't know why people accept climate modles going forward a hundred years when: 1. Weather people can't predict out 15mn, let alone decades let alone a hundred years. 2. The climate modles, unlike any verifiable science, do not give identical results when run in reverse.--Zeeboid 15:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I cannot tell you the result of a single flip of a (fair) coin with any certainty. But I can give you a very good prediction of the head-to-tail ratio over the next 10000 flips. Likewise, climate is easier to predict than weather. If you keep up this tired old fallacy, give up all hope on being taken serious. And I don't even know what you mean by "run in reverse". --Stephan Schulz 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That's the old argument of the legitimacy of climate models, but it is wrong-headed. First, if you support climate models because of the odds that they give the good answer, it comes to the acceptance that model predictions are more random-based (what some mathematicians say) rather than science-based. Of course, if you keep on flipping coins, you will end up getting a tail, but not because you controlled something specific about it. Second, the IPCC's predications are not general odds but specific events such as "the Earth will warm by up to 4 degrees in the next 100 years". This can by no mean be represented by the 1000 coin flip analogy, which refers to an unavoidable event due to odds, not to a specific scientific prediction. --Childhood's End 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I make a specific numeric prediction. I predict there will be about 5000+/-150 heads (with a probability of about 99.73%) among the 10000 flips. --Stephan Schulz 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you do not differenciate odds and predictions. You're not making any specific numeric prediction - you only calculated the odds of something and announced the result. That's a bit like calculating 2+2 and announcing that it will result in 4, plain and simple. No prediction there. --Childhood's End 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Um. My physical system is the coin (plus flipper). My model is that this is a fair Laplace-coin (i.e. head and tails both have a probability of 0.5). This model does not allow me to predict any particular flip (the "weather"). It does allow me to make very specific numerical predictions about the long-term count of heads and tails (the "climate"), and even the odds that my prediction is right. Of course I use the law of large numbers - that's the whole point. --Stephan Schulz 07:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Still confusing things. As you said, your physical system is limited to one element (the coin) and the flipper, which makes it that we know in advance that for each flip, the odds that you get tail is 0.5, and the odds that you get head is also 0.5. No prediction necessary, nor is any analysis of future events. What you call a "prediction" here is only the result of a mathematical/statistical equation which is unavoidable, whose ultimate result is that the closer to infinity is the number of flips, the closer to a perfect 50/50 will be the heads and tails flips. --Childhood's End 14:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you have lost of the original point, which is that it is easier to predict the long-term average than any particular event, i.e. inability to predict the weather at some time in the future does not imply an inability to predict the climate. And we can repeat the same argument with an unfair coin with initially unknown bias, where I build my model (e.g. 30% heads) by observation first. Given enough flips, I will still be able to predict the long term ratio of future flips very exactly, but will still fail to achieve more than (in this example) 70% correctness for any given individual flip.--Stephan Schulz 14:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't an argument about inclusion of the matter in the article, I'm just discussing. Stephan's example might be more meaningful if instead of a regular coin, we had one that was slowly experiencing a change to its center of mass over a period of years that would slowly make it more and more likely to come up heads. Predicting what the new probability of a heads outcome after a year of change would be closer to what we're talking about. Individual flips would be all over the place, but if you plotted them over months you would see the signal for gradual change in probability begin to emerge from the noise. As it progressed you'd be able to assertain the slope and try to determine whether it looked like reality was on target to meet up with your projections a year from now. If not, incorporate this new data and predict again. Mishlai 16:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Your understanding of odds and mathematics is better than Stephan's in that you obviously understood the weakness of Stephan's old example, but it still comes up to my first point, which is that climate predictions are essentially random-based rather than science-based, and are not experimentally falsifiable. One day it will be discovered that climatology is a protoscience, and the UN's control over the world will diminish. --Childhood's End 17:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't follow actually. The weather is chaotic enough to seem random, as are annual conditions that result. This is analogous to a coin toss. Climate on the other hand, changes in a more orderly fashion. In my version of Stephen's example, climate is the slowly changing weight balance of the coin. It isn't random at all, but it's effects are obscured by the randomness of the weather - the tosses - until a trend has gone on long enough for the "signal" to emerge from the "noise". This is why back in 1990 the IPCC was saying (paraphrase) we're not sure that we see global warming, but we're pretty sure these physical phenomenon will eventually cause it. Now that the trend has gone on longer, it is "clear", because we can "see" it, and the magnitude of change is in line with our predictios. This is encouraging (scientifically), and is a strong indication that we are not barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. Mishlai 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The weather is not alalogous to a coin toss. A coin toss has 2 and only 2 known possible results, which allows a statistical formula to "explain" what will inevitably happen in the future. No science involved, it's in everyone's pocket calculator. So contrary to popular belief, Stephan's example has no relevance. Your version is more interesting and closer to what climate predictions are, but your coin toss is still not analogous to weather unless the changes to its mass are chaotic over time. Then, at best, observations would allow for predictions that would always be subject to some uncertainty, just like for the stock markets, and they would still remain experimentally unfalsifiable. But from what I read from you, you may be interested in reading Appolo's Arrow : The Science of Prediction and the Future of Everything by math PhD David Orrell. --Childhood's End 18:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess we can agree to disagree about the state and quality of climate models. Do you at least agree that "We cannot predict the weather, therefore we cannot predict the climate" is fallacious reasoning? --Stephan Schulz 18:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Math PhD David Orrell and turbulence specialist Hendrik Tennekes, both specialists in modeling and the first also in complex systems, would give equal faith in weather and climate predictions, for scientific reasons, although it may seem fallacious at first sight. As for myself, I believe that weather observations allow the discovery of trends, which give reasonable future expectations, but I dont believe that these observed trends can guarantee enough about the future since what they are based on is chaotic and can change the trends at any moment, like it did every 500 years or so in the past. 30 years ago, we were talking about global cooling, and 30 years since is too short to point to a new "certain" trend. By the way, Orrell is not a climate skeptic. --Childhood's End 19:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) This might be a better analogy. I have a friend with a pHD in math who has done some modeling work to predict changes in traffic patterns, given the projected growth of the city. Inputs are things like speed limits, traffic light configurations, new housing developments, new shopping centers, people moving into or out of the city, etc. Clearly traffic is chaotic, and yet by continously refining his model, he is able to reasonably predict the effects of different courses of action. This helps the city make judgements on matters like road construction and repair, zoning, traffic laws, etc. that will result in saving the taxpayers both commute time and tax money. It is undoubtedly an estimate but like climate models, it is possible to see how well the model predicts known responses to known changes, improving the model if it was wrong, or improving our confidence in its powers of prediction if it was not. After a lot of iterations of tweaking, the model has significant value.

Like our climate example, traffic is chaotic. It is not chaotic, random, or difficult to predict that putting a shopping center up at the end of the road will increase traffic on the road. This doesn't remove the randomness, but adjusts the baseline about which randomness operates. This is the kind of thing we're talking about, and I think that this is my last best attempt to clarify. I'd ask you to take a gander at my longer post regarding models at the bottom of this section if you haven't already.

As far as global cooling, there was never anything resembling a scientific consensus on that, only a couple of scientists. They argued cooling, others argued warming from greenhouse gases, and the rest of the scientific community said that they couldn't be sure either way. This "we used to believe there would be global cooling" thing is just another widely propagated myth.

We're a long, long way away from discussing the article right now. Mishlai 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're discussing the reliability of climate models arent we? But I agree it is getting long and I will only follow on your comment regarding global cooling being a widely propagated myth... You may want to read this article published in Science in 1975[40]. You will notice that lots of serious people like the NAS or the NOAA were mostly in the global cooling bandwagon... Threats of worldwide famine were the fashion of the day. Abstract : "A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." --Childhood's End 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That article was not published in Science (journal), but in the science section of Newsweek. It is reasonable infamous by now. It does quote e.g. the NAS report out of context - that made no predictions, but warned about the risks if the climate chages (either way). --Stephan Schulz 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That article is from Newsweek (scroll down), not Science (the peer-reviewed journal), which precisely illustrates my point. Peer-review articles do not read like pop-sci. Though the article is alarmists in tone, the scientist quotes about what to expect are actually pretty wishy-washy. There's lots of gloom and doom about what would happen if there were major climactic change, but here are some of the quotes about the predictive science:
  • "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions."
  • "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climate change is at least as fragmentary as our data"
  • "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
I'm sure you can see the difference between this and a joint statement dated 2005 by the science academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, China, Brazil and the United States that "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
Not to mention support from virtually every other corner of the scientific community, as described in Scientific opinion on climate change
The scientific community never shrieked "global cooling"; there were a few papers, and the idea caught fire in the media. Global cooling was, quite literally, asserted as being our likely future by only a handful of scientists. We cannot judge science by what the media gets hysterical about. Assertions that the media-driven Global Cooling scare in the 70s somehow casts doubt upon the state of climate science in 2007 is just (very effective) rhetoric. Mishlai 23:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Brian, you are confusing things. Models are tools, not the products of climatology. Also, past warming is not shown by models but by recorded data. Future warming is a different issue since it is predicated by models. You can argue that a forecasting model is incomplete or lacks something, but you can never test it by scientific method since its products (scenarios) will only happen in the future. --Childhood's End 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
--Stephan Schulz, If you don't even know what I mean by "run in reverse" you may give up all hope on being taken serious. Any accurate scientific prediction can be run forward or backwards and have a predictable outcome. The climate models vary by around 400% on a good day. This isn't science any more, it’s guessing. Also when you run them in reverse, you find they do not work out to the actual climate history. Much like the Tectonic plates, or the motion of planets in space, or anything of actual scientific value, that is un-molested by political agendas. The constant reduction of Co2 in the earth's history combined with the in-out-in-out-in-out-in-out-in-out of ice ages and warm periods without human activity seams to be ignored in these "climate models" and thus, the results of the models that predict huge temperature jumps in the next 100 years, when run in reverse, do not match up with in any way/shape/form, the measured climate of the earth... all 100'ish years of actual measurement that is... therefor not in any way accuratly reproducible.--Zeeboid 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Your entire argument is unfounded. The nonlinear coupled partial differential equations used in climate models cannot be "run in reverse". Raymond Arritt 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, On Track, i'm moving the climate modles back to their section, if you have an explanation of your opinion of "entire arguement is unfounded" Raymond Arritt, I would welcome your opinion in that section, as i've gatt'a hear this!--Zeeboid 19:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(reindent): That's why I asked what "running backwards" should mean. I suspect Zeeboid talks about applying todays climate models to previous times. That works well within the known limitations of the models. They generally assume relatively small pertubations of the current state, and only model forcings that change within the time frame we are interested in. No climate model, as far as I know, deals with plate tectonics reconfiguring continents, or with large-scale orbital forcings, or with the slow transition of the sun towards a red giant. It's like modelling a falling body. As long as you deal with a small distance, you can assume constant gravity, and get excellent results. But if you move far enough away, your model will suffer. And if the body hits the ground, your model totally breaks. --Stephan Schulz 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

climate models that go forward 100 years don't accuratly "past predict" the last 20 years, let alone the last 1000.--Zeeboid 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS? --Stephan Schulz 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well,perhaps you can point out how the famous Hansen prediction, from 18 years ago now failed to predict the next ten years of observed data in your eyes, [41], and how the addition of more recent data futher fails to validate it. [42] Looks to me like the actual temps not only fall between his curves of estimates of max and min, but pretty close to his most likely estimate. Gzuckier 20:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My goodness this is hostile. First, the incomplete nature of our climate models is a limitation that is acknowledge by climatologists. It isn't nearly as bad as is often made out, but I do think that model limitations is an appropriate section of the controversy article. Just keep the model criticism level-headed. Calling a model the same thing as a guess is just rehtoric. Let me try to address a few things:

  • Running Backwards

If by "running backwards" you mean "predict the past", then yes, the models do that. That's one of the ways that climatologists test their models for accuracy. Showing the effects of things like the historical eruption of Mt. Pinatubo is an important trial for climate models. This is standard practice, and if the results do not match history within reason, then this is an indication that something is wrong - perhaps the effects of aerosols have been over or underestimated, etc. I don't think they actually "run backwards" so much as start at a date in the past and run forward towards the future, "predicting" what we already know and giving us a guage of the model's accuracy. True test are predictions of the future, and models have done respectably well there too. If by "run backwards" you mean predict the climate of 4 million years ago, we can't do that because we lack data on the matter, and because the longer you run a model (for more years of prediction), the larger the errors get since each predicted change is based on the initial conditions from the last predicted change. Near-term climate predictions (decades) are more confident than longer term climate predictions. The models wouldn't be able to meaningfully predict 4 million years in the future either.

  • Hansen's predictions

Hansen actually predicted the future remarkably well with his 1988 scientific understanding - now 19 years out of date. It's frequently cited by denier sources that Hansen over-estimated future warming by 300%, but this is a blatant lie that has been repeated so often that I suspect most people saying it think its true.

Hansen showed a graph with 3 lines for temperature predictions in best, middle, and wost cases when he testified to the Senate in 1988. He made it plainly clear that the middle graph was the one that he thought most likely, and observations since then have been close to that. 10 years later in 1998, Patrick Michaels testified to the Senate. He took Hansen's graph, erased the middle and low scenarios, and then accused Hansen of overestimating climate change based on the High scenario only. It was a thoroughly dishonest assertion, and one that deserves to be put to rest. You can see Hansen's 1988 graph here [43] Criticism of misalignment of the dips in the graphs is meaningless, because Hansen assumed a volcanic eruption in the mid-90s, and instead got one in the early 90s. The climate model doesn't predict volcanic eruptions for you, you have to input that.

Further, it's meaningless to criticize modern models based on the models of 1988. They're far better now. Computers have changed a bit in the 19 years since, as has climate science. We've also collected data with a keen eye towards climate change during those two decades, which is tremendously helpful in making the models more accurate.

  • More on model predictions

Here's a quote from AR4 SPM:

"Since IPCC's first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global averaged temperature increases between about 0.15 and 0.3C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with the observed values of about 0.2C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections"

  • Weather vs Climate

As far as climate vs weather, there isn't any comparison. Climate has to do with the broader long-term changes, and not with the year to year or day to day variations that are the concern of weather forecasters. These are actually easier to predict. It's quite simple to deduce that the earth will warm in response to say, increased solar output. We can estimate the amount of warming that would be expected in the next decade because of it, but no one can tell you what the average temperature of any given year will be because it varies around the average. Certainly no one can tell you how many inches of rain Seattle will get on March 3rd, 2032. We can, however, make predictions about changes to average precipitation that might be expected in the northwest U.S. 30 years from now.

If you'll forgive a bad analogy, it's maybe a bit like making predictions about the thowing of a carpenter's hammer: The individual flips, twists and gyrations are so seemingly chaotic that it would be difficult to predict them. Predicting the hammer's overall arc, distance traveled after so long, etc. with reasonable accuracy would not be that difficult. The hammer's head, because of uneven weight distribution, would orbit around the "average arc". The thrower could probably tell you about how far the hammer will go, but probably could not tell you in any detail how it will flip and twist along the way.

Similarly, predicting weather deals with the all the chaos - the flips and twists of wind and temperature, while predicting climate is concerned with the planet's broader arc.

In conclusion, I still believe that the modelling limitations are worth mentioning. This is one of the key complaints of the denier side. Just recognize that the article will need to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the models to be NPOV, and that unsupported claims will not fly.

Mishlai 05:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Datasets and Methods Are Not Available for Audit

Note: discussion on inadequacies of climate models previously found in this section was moved to above section titled "Inadequacies of Climate Models."

The article also needs a section discussing how Phil Jones at the Climatic Research Unit does not make his data and methods available for audit. Neither does the National Climatic Data Center. The article should point out that this is contrary to normal science which is built around openness and reproducibility. How can other scientists check the work being done when the standards of science are being ignored? The article also should point out that these groups will occasionally change the way data is handled so that warmer years in the past are downgraded to make it look like the 1990s are the warmest years ever. [44] RonCram 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Somehow this discussion has gotten off topic. The discussion of computer models is in the section above. This is about openness and reproducibility. Karl Popper was the most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century. He distinguished between science and pseudo-science. If someone claims to be doing science but does not make his methods and data available so they can be verified/falsified, they are doing pseudo-science. Most of climate science is producing pseudo-science. The keepers of the temperature record will not release their data or methods. And they keep changing the way they do things. Read this link and then come back and comment. [45]RonCram 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, given that scientists spend years of work to get a good dataset worth analysing and publishing, and that publishing on the basis of that data is the lifeblood of getting further funding, scientists are not required nor normally expected to make data and methodology that are the results of their own labors available to their competitors for grant money until they have milked all the publications they can out of it. Much as Coca-Cola is not expected to make their formula available for perusal by Pepsi-Cola, even though that might well improve the quality of soft-drinks overall. Gzuckier 20:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets please keep the discussion on topic. This section is not for the discussion of climate model equations. Thank you. ~ UBeR 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Climatology perhaps also looks like protoscience, not only pseudoscience... --Childhood's End 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Improving the "Funding of Opponents" Section

The first paragraph of this section does not specifically mention any of the individuals or organizations mentioned under "Supporters and Opponents of the Global Warming Theory." I suggest the following as a replacement:

Some global warming skeptics have links to fossil fuel companies. For example, Frederick Seitz is currently on the board of directors for the George C. Marshall Institute, [46] which has received several large contributions from petroleum-related organizations such as ExxonMobil, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Carthage Foundation.[47][48][49] Similarly, Richard Lindzen has received money from various coal and oil companies for consulting, for appearing before the Senate, and for giving a speech which cast doubt on anthropogenic global warming. [50] Many organizations which deny the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, also have close ties to the energy industry.[51][52] Many supporters of anthropogenic global warming claim that these energy-industry ties suggest a conflict of interest. [53][54][55][56][57][58] Partly as a result of such criticism, ExxonMobil announced in February of 2007 that they would discontinue funding for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.[59][60]

I welcome comments and suggestions on this proposed alteration of the first paragraph of the "Funding of Opponents" Section. Dicksonlaprade 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems like an improvement. I'm not sure about the claim that XOM changed their funding "Partly as a result of such criticism" of conflict of interests. I don't see where it was stated in the article, and it seems unlikely to be true. Also, there is a more complete treatment of XOM's funding of skeptics at ExxonMobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics -- you might wish to summarize some of that material. --Nethgirb 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I'll implement them when I alter this section. Dicksonlaprade 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks almost exactly the way it was before the biased/partisan sources were removed. If "NewsMax" is too biased to be included then certainly so are "exxonsecrets" and "mediatransparency". There is not even a question about Mother Jones being partisan and biased...except from people pushing POV. Another thing I have learned about this particular article is that even if the information within the specifically cited page is verifiable, all information from a biased source is invalidated.
You have a point. Here are more reliable sources which provide the same sort of information about Exxon's funding of the CEI: an article from the Guardian [61] and a letter from the Royal Society asking Exxon to stop funding global warming denying organizations [62] (see bottom of page 2). Naturally, I will also need to reword my proposed edit slightly in keeping with the addition of these two new sources. Thanks for your input. Dicksonlaprade 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The standard being applied in the article in a one-sided manner should be applied to the edit you are proposing. Essentially a "tie" or relationship is worthy of mention if and only if there is funding directly between the 2 parties AND the funding is for global warming activities specifically. Not noteworthy are indirect links or groups not spending or receiving funds specifically for global warming projects. Groups with a stated belief or position on AGW not relevant in discussing funding...only the projects purpose or contributions declared purpose. (see GEF discussion above).
Energy industry organizations fund the George C. Marshall Institute. The George C. Marshall Institute vociferously denies the scientific consensus on global warming. Your "six-degrees-of-separation" argument here is distinctly unconvincing. This does not mean that these energy industry organizations DEFINITELY fund think tanks SO THAT they will peddle doubt about climate change: all it means is that there is a plausible explanation here, and one which many critics of the energy industry have used repeatedly. This is enough, I feel, to warrant the inclusion of this explanation, and the evidence which supports it, in this article.
As for your idea that the funding must be specifically LABELLED "for global warming research," I have to disagree. Even if I had access to the paperwork which accompanied every transaction between, e.g., Exxon and the CEI, I still could not be sure that the ostensible purpose given for the funding on that paperwork were genuine--and it doesn't matter. There is no reason why a petroleum company couldn't give CEI, for example, a few hundred thousand for "miscellaneous expenses" in exchange for casting doubt on anthropogenic global warming. Besides, the point here is that critics of AGW opponents ARE ARGUING for a conflict of interest: insofar as this argument is based on reasonable argument and evidence, and insofar as it is an argument which is in widespread use among defenders of the AGW scientific consensus, its inclusion in this article is essential. Dicksonlaprade 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Applying the justifications for content deletions by the pro-GW editors to your proposal we have remaining the following:

Some global warming skeptics have links to fossil fuel companies. For example, Frederick Seitz is currently on the board of directors for the George C. Marshall Institute, [63] which has received several large contributions from petroleum-related organizations such as ExxonMobil, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Carthage Foundation.[64]


[66] Similarly, Richard Lindzen has received money from various coal and oil companies for consulting, for appearing before the Senate, and for giving a speech which cast doubt on anthropogenic global warming. [67] Many organizations which deny the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, also have close ties to the energy industry.[68][69] Many supporters of anthropogenic global warming claim that these energy-industry ties suggest a conflict of interest. [70][71][72][73][74][75] Partly as a result of such criticism, ExxonMobil announced in February of 2007 that they would discontinue funding for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.[76][77]
I did not parse the remaining text and sources to see which are orphaned, so there may be some editing beyond this as a result.
Then again, if you have been following along you will also have noticed that what is good for the pro-GW text is not good for the con-GW give it a crack however you want. You likely could put Hitler's name in there somewhere and if you tie it to con-GW people using a source from the National Enquirer I would bet the editors here would protect it better than their first born. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Tony, don't be bitter. The purpose of this talk page is to improve the quality of this article. Disagreements about how best to do this will naturally arise, and we discuss them. Just because not all of your ideas for this are taken up with a passion by all the other editors does not mean that there is a world-wide Wikipedia conspiracy against your particular view of how best to improve this page.Dicksonlaprade 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For reasons which I cite above, I disagree with several aspects of your edit, though there are others which I like. I will attempt another draft tomorrow on the basis of your and others' suggestions. Thanks all for your input. Dicksonlaprade 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz's revert

Stephan Schulz reverted edits with no explanation. I put my edits back and would like to remind Stephan Schulz of a few things regarding reverts. From the Revert policies and guidelines.

"Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously."

Cannot say if this was done or not, but in light of the following items you can draw your own conclusions.

"Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism."

The edits that were reverted were--Kim D. Petersen 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) not in any manner able to be construed as vandalism.

"If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it."

As I mentioned, there was no summary explanation and if an explanation of the revert was made in the talk page then I missed it as it was NOT its own subject and would have been buried somewhere else.

"If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it."

This is pretty self-explanatory. The revert was done to remove content that, prima facia, opposes the views of ONE side of the discussion on this page. Nothing more than that.

Let us review some more from the Wikipedia policies and guidelines about revert wars (which, basically are

Revert wars are usually considered harmful for the following reasons:
  1. They disrespect the work of the contributor. Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face: "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back"
  2. They cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles
  3. They make the page history less useful, waste space in the database
  4. They make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists
Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods like raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution.--Zeeboid 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To those working around the "3 reverts rule" for WMC explain yourselves here.--Zeeboid 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

People who revert-war to insert spurious tags shouldn't Wikilawyer. Guettarda 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea, Good example, I explained my change, neither of you have.--Zeeboid 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Quoting guidelines, which apply more to your behaviour than others' isn't an "explanation". When you find yourself disagreeing with a large body of Wikipedia editors who have been working on these articles for years, and the scientific community...coming to the conclusion that people are working around the "3 reverts rule" for WMC is not the most parsimonious explanation. Guettarda 20:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally agree with William - your intro is not adhering to WP:NPOV since you are giving WP:Undue_weight. --Kim D. Petersen 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Eh? Just noticed my name - What revert of mine are you talking about here? --Kim D. Petersen 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? I am not the one saying "(restore intro to pre-Ed state. Its not reasonable to pretend an equal balance)" and replace it with my own POV here. As I stated earlier, the edits by this GW Advogacy gruop that calls them selves ADMINS is far from balanced and NPOV. SOMEONE Explain to Us All how the reversion to the current Intro section is more "NPOV" then the alternative. this is the first someone has mentoined WP:NPOV in relation to these changes. Whats the point of a Global warming controversy page if it is worded as if there is no Global warming controversy? Is this not violating the WP:NPOV for this article? If my change was to the Global Warming Page, I would totally agree with you! --Zeeboid 20:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
WMC's edit was well supported by his justification that you cite ("it is not reasonable to pretend an equal balance"). In the version of the intro that you support, the two different viewpoints were given equal weight, when in fact one side is supported by both the vast majority of scientific evidence and scientists' opinions. The present intro (as I write this) makes it clear where the consensus is. If you want to give equal weight to the two sides, you have to justify why the skeptic position somehow is significant enough that there is not a consensus. Otherwise you are violating WP:Undue weight. (Of course we also require evidence that there is a consensus -- but that has already been demonstrated.) --Nethgirb 20:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Evidence with little scrutiny for one side and ridiculous requirements for the other side. If that suffices, then it goes in line with 100% of the other requirements on this article. -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, only those who believe in AGW consider that a consensus has been demonstrated. That's different from topics like evolution, where even part of the people who believe in other theories than evolution nonetheless agree that tere is a scientific consensus on evolution... An article about a controversy such as the one herein should point out that there is a majority opinion, and that supporters believe that there is a consensus, but the article itself should not take a stand on the consensus issue. --Childhood's End 20:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems you forgot the whole "teach the controversy" campaign [78] which pretends that there is some scientific controversy over evolution. There isn't, and there is no signficant scientific controversy over the principal conclusions of GW theory. The fact that something is politically controversial does not prevent an article from giving greater weight to what is supported by evidence, while acknowledging that there is a minority opinion. That there is a consensus is supported by evidence. Now, it's true that the current intro does not state that some skeptics assert there isn't a consensus; I think it would be reasonable to add one sentence mentioning that fact. --Nethgirb 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Three quick items and them I take this grievance elsewhere. FIRST..."not adhering to WP:NPOV since you are giving WP:Undue_weight"--please quantify the weight that should be given? SECOND...From Neutrality Project's Talk page, "All major viewpoints must be described in a fair and equal way, otherwise there is a bias towards the single viewpoint." by Peter Dodge. Notice it says nothing about quantity (as 'undue weight' does). POV issues on this article are not quantity but actual content; unfair characterizations, hypocrisy in which sources are permitted to pass by Connelley/Kim gatekeepers...and so on. The POV issues are QUALITY issues, not QUANTITY. THREE...From what you "editors who have been working on these articles for years" are allowing into the article it is almost as if there really is not controversy at all. Is this correct? -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a controversy. It's just not a serious scientific controversy, because the scientific community largely agrees on this topic. Ed's version was unencyclopedic in style, introduced misplaced terms like "pro-AGW" (I'm certainly not pro-AGW), simplified the positions into carricatures (there are more than two positions), and was not an improvement. --Stephan Schulz 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. This is a scientific topic, so obviously the weight should be given in relation to the weight given in scientific publications. There are some sceptic pubs, but they are not equally balanced. There is always going to be a problem because in order to adequately describe these fringe positions you need to give them undue weight, but we need to keep it reasonable.
  2. Material on the talk page does not trump material on the main policy page. I'd think that was pretty obvious.
  3. My "established editors" comment was made in regard to Zeeboid's bad faith assumption that people were here to help WMC get around the 3RR. S/he seems to be assuming that editors who have been working on these articles for years are nothing but meatpuppets, which is rather improbable and totally fails to assume good faith. Guettarda 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Neither I nor the link I quoted were referring to talk pages. -- Tony of Race to the Right 08:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"bad faith assumption...nothing but meatpuppets...fails to assume good faith" the pages about assume good faith. There is a very important exclusion which applies to most of the editors here. However, without that exception I would simply like to point out that you are addressing ONE instance in a case that is arguable either way and silent with numerous instances from the pro-AGW crowd. -- Tony of Race to the Right 08:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
"Neither I nor the link I quoted were referring to talk pages" - that's funny, you said "Neutrality Project's Talk page" - that isn't a talk page?
"re-read the pages about assume good faith. There is a very important exclusion which applies to most of the editors here" - really? That's a nicely vague statement which says absolutely nothing. I know I am editing in good faith. I know Stephan's and William's editing history well enough to know that they are. I've seen nothing but good faith editing by Kim and Nethgirb. I'm willing to assume good faith on the part of others, within reason. If what you are trying to say here is that you are not editing in good faith, that's fine, I'm sure everyone is willing to ignore you henceforth. Guettarda 00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to say there is no scientific controversy. Sometimes you hear people pretending that AGW skeptics are on a par with flat-earthers or holocaust deniers. This is ludicrous. Are there any flat-earthers who are professors at MIT? Or Harvard? Or Univ of Penn? Or USC? Of course not. There is a real scientific controversy because all of the better science is being done by skeptics. The AGWers will not even play by the rules, refusing to provide their data and methods. The arrogance of claiming the issue is settled is beyond belief. RonCram 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"all of the better science is being done by skeptics" -- OOC, how arrogant do you think you are being? If you think there is not a consensus, provide evidence, not speculation. --Nethgirb 23:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Nethgirb, regarding consensus - it depends on which definition we choose. [79] If we choose definition number 1, there is a consensus because the majority of climate scientists believe in AGW. If we choose definition number 2, there is no consensus because there is no general agreement or harmony. I don't think I'm being arrogant because I'm not doing the research. The skeptics who are doing good science are McIntyre, Giese, Svensmark, Viezer and Shaviv (and I'm sure there are more). They are all doing better science than Jones, Mann, and the rest of the "Hockey Team" who are doing pseudo-science in that they refuse to release their data and methods so their results are not reproducible. Have you even been following the issue of the changes to the dataset discussed on [80] The warmers are setting the bar too low. They are making adjustments to the record that are neither minor (about equal to the previously claimed warming) and are not warranted. If anything, the older temps should be adjusted upward to account for the UHI effect. Instead, they are adjusting the "dust bowl" temps down and the more recent temps upward. This is beyond arrogance. They have started believing their own press. They truly don't think anyone will call them on it.RonCram 16:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Ron, really there obviously is no controversy either scientifically or otherwise. Look at the facts that keep getting inserted by the pro-GW side and the fiction they continuously delete (which they reiterate is the only way to improve the fictions by con-GW). I have 2 hours every day on the bus to read, write, whatever and today I finished re-reading these edits I have been exporting. I feel like Bruce Willis at the end of The Sixth eyes are open and I realize everything is different. Nearly any "scientist" that is not a part of the obviously proven beyond a shadow of doubt consensus is tied to Big Oil and their motivations are obviously not the pursuit of truth. Proven? Well, yes, the IPCC is fact because...well, I don't know yet why it is unchallengable fact, but it just live with it. And stop with those 19,000 signatories, we all know that ONE bad apple spoils the bunch--one duplicated name makes the whole petition invalid. Worse, the petition was not approved by the UN or the IPCC. And any attempt to discredit the pro-GW is clearly a smear campaign (there should be Star Chamber laws for that, or at least people should lose their livelihood for such slander). It is not an issue of differing interpretation or research or methodologies. It is the altruistic and pure people who recognize that GW is absolutely caused entirely (or close to entirely) by disgusting and heartless humans. It is a battle of good vs evil; there is no controversy beyond junk science (which does not count) and smear campaigns of denial (which is not notable). We are trying to balance something on this page that does not deserve to be mentioned in any capacity...the number of words that are granted to the detestable defense of these lying thugs should be met with gratitude to the pure hearted, pure-of-motivation defenders of Ma Earth. To even suggest that those charitable words might be called "weasel words" is like spitting on the person giving you a free meal. We should stop editing this page at all and be thankful for the representation that Nethgirb, Kim, Schulz, Connelley, et al. of the people who have the audacity to disagree with them. They and their group know all, they cornered the market on truth, fact, knowledge, wisdom and discretion in any matter relating to climate, weather, atmosphere, physics, history, prediction projection models and they even can guarantee the temps & sea levels. OK, only at, what, 95% certainty. But if I told you before the Super Bowl that there was a 95% certainty that the Colts would win...and why not. >95% certainty...that is a money line of -2400. That would be an NFL team being favored by 42 points. So, we should leave this page to the experts...the ones who side with the 42 point favorites; to the ones who are the authorities on and never wrong about Wikipedias guidelines. They are never wrong...ever. Zeeboid, Cram, Ed, and the rest who have not been seeing the light, of course what you wrote is POV (and of course, they would N.E.V.E.R make a POV edit). We are not smart enough to ever be otherwise; we do not possess the intellect to be able to possibly do anything NPOV. Read the talk page and read the edits again. You will see that they are not capable of being anything but neutral; and since we do not trumpet their POV we can never be capable of neutrality. We should stop trying to read this stuff and go to something more on the intellectual level that we obviously have--do they have Wikipedia in picture book format? -- Tony of Race to the Right 08:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
B+ for rage and intensity, but it gets stale and repetitive soon, so I have to fail you on content. Sorry. --Stephan Schulz 08:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, what works on the [radio] doesn't always work in print. Raymond Arritt 16:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid, There has been a tendency to simply revert things in this article without discussion. I would agree with you that this is wrong, but it takes two to make a fight. Why not post your edits again here and ask for comment - and see if we can move forward! Mike 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This article's position on the controversy

Should the article agree with the anti-AGW view that "there is no controversy within the scientific community" and that "there is a scientific consensus" on global warming?

An alternative to this would be to say:

  • There is a dispute between pro and anti-AGW advocates about whether ther. is a controvesry within the scientific community on global warming.
    • [Some advocates, and let's list them by name or group] say that there is a scientific consensus, that no scientific papers in the last dozen yearsyears 1993 to 2003 have disagreed with AGW, and that only a handful of scientists disagree with the consensus.
    • [[Other advocates, and let's identify these too] say that there is no scientific consensus, that several scientific papers contradict key elements of the AGW theory (albeit without saying explicitly that AGW is wrong), and that "the science is not settled".

In a science article, the "anti-mainstream" point of view might not merit much mention, lest we give it undue weight. But this is not a science article. We are talking about what everyone is disputing.

Is Wikipedia quite sure what proportion of scientists favor or disagree with AGW theory? Is it 95%, 99%, 99.9% or what? Or should Wikipedia retreat to a neutral position and fairly describe the two opposing viewpoints about the proportion? --Uncle Ed 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As with your May 2006 comments under "Consensus and Majority" on the Talk page for the article "Scientific Consensus," you are tossing out a red herring. Whether the consensus is made up of 99.9% of working climate scientists or "only" 92 or 93% is a moot point. Scientific organizations like the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all come out publicly in support of AGW. Similarly, it is virtually impossible to find articles in peer-reviewed climate-science journals from the past ten years which take issue with AGW--though you are welcome to look for examples which would prove me wrong. The "neutral position" which you talk about in your final paragraph would be one which wishfully ignores these facts. The scientific consensus is both clear and overwhelming. If you have contrary evidence, then please bring it forward. In the meantime, the position of this article should be one which takes account of this clear and overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Dicksonlaprade 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, Ed, your facts appear to be wrong -- no one has claimed "no scientific papers in the last dozen years have disagreed with AGW" --Nethgirb 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Except that Dicksonlaprade said something very much like that right above your comment. --Spiffy sperry 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Which does not contradict my point since what he said is related but not the same. I'm sure you can tell the difference. --Nethgirb 01:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to detail. I should not have said "last dozen years" but "the years between 1993 and 2003" as surveyed by Naomi Oreskes. In that period, she wrote, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." [81] --Uncle Ed 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd say something like that. But, you missed the point. Please note the difference between saying "none of the papers" in Oreskes' random sample of papers disagreed with the consensus, and saying that "no scientific papers", whether in her sample or not, disagreed with the consensus. That is an important distinction. If you think they are the same, no wonder you don't agree with Oreskes' article! --Nethgirb 01:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean to say that her survey included abstract of papers other than scientific ones? --Uncle Ed 01:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
No. (Actually, there was an error in what I wrote above which I have now corrected by crossing out the word "random", but the point is the same.) To quote Oreskes, "Pielke suggests that I claimed that there are no papers in the climate literature that disagree with the consensus. Not so. I simply presented the research result that a sample based on the keywords “global climate change” did not reveal any ..." [82] Is that clear? The sample does not include all scientific papers published in the time interval you stated. So one cannot conclude, and no one has claimed, your "no scientific papers" statement. (But the sample includes a lot, suggesting that anti-consensus papers must be quite rare.) --Nethgirb 03:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Good. What we want to know is: do any substantial number of climate scientists disagree with the IPCC? The anti-AGW advocates suggest up to a quarter of them do. There is a jarring statistical disconnect between that number and the Oreskes results. Over at [List of scientists opposing the global warming consensus] we've identified 23 scientists, though far fewer climatologists, who are on the record with clear, recent statements that can be verified from 'primary' e-sources (something in their own words). To support a claim of much higher numbers of climatologists, the anti-AGW advocates should propose more names of specific individuals, preferably with journal citations and/or links to recent quotations showing their position.
I'm struck by how hard it is for contributors with obvious differences in personal POV to collaborate on this page to describe this controversy. It is clear there is a very hot debate in the public arena about the primary question of AGW; however it seems the population of wikipedians following this page are not doing well at bracketing our own POVs to develop NPOV content for this page. Birdbrainscan 06:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Useful comments, Birdbrainscan. I would say a partial explanation is that the people who have motivation to edit this page tend to be the ones that hold strong opinions on the subject (on either side). --Nethgirb 09:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Temperature in the Intro

The global warming controversy is a debate about the existence and causes of global warming---the observed increase in global surface temperature beginning in the early 20th century---and what steps, if any, society should take in response.

I added a link to global surface temperature, because I thought I might redirect that to something like global average air temperature, but that is an empty page too.

Are we talking about air temperature as measured by thermometers near the ground? Does this include satellite and balloon data? Not arguing, just asking for clarification of the term. --Uncle Ed 13:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Global surface temperature is the average temperature of the air near the ground (although in some cases ocean surface water temperature is preferred over the oceans, as it is more stable and easier to measure). This term does not imply how it was measured. Both satellites and ballons have some difficuly isolating surface temperature from the overall temperature profile of the atmosphere, leading to some debate about the results. But it does not matter very much - they currently all seem to be in rather good agreement. --Stephan Schulz 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You might want to link to Instrumental temperature record. --Nethgirb 13:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This is silly. Must we redlink every random phrase for which there is no article with the objection that if there is no article, it must be unclear?[83] What about basic scientific description , ongoing debate, virtually unanimous support, and passive acceptance - are those also "unclear" because we have no articles explaining plain English? Going down this path is disingenuous at best and disruptive at worst. If a phrase is unclear to anyone, discuss rephrasing on the talk page, don't redlink it to prove a point. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This is just the sort of disruptive nonsense that landed Ed in probation, I'm not surprised he's still at it. If this continues just report it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Ed_Poor. FeloniousMonk 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a reasonable and honest question, and thank you SS for answering. Mishlai 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While we're looking at the sentence, I think it should say "average global surface temperature" or something similar, just to be clear that this a mean value. Mishlai 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
While concern over clarity of phrasing is reasonable, Ed's statement that it is not a clear term, if it's a red link is nonsense. Redlinkling it anyway is disruptive. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I tweaked it a bit: added "globally averaged" in line with your suggestion; added "and lower atmosphere", since that's a fundamental part of the issue as well; removed "observed" because the issue is as much (or more) the projected future increase as the observed past increase. I'm not completely satisfied with it (the sentence is getting a bit long and twisty), so if anyone can clarify or smooth out the wording please dive in. Raymond Arritt 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm soliciting opinions on the "early 20th century" begin point. The clearer trend begins there, but global warming is often discussed as now versus pre-industrial. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mishlai (talkcontribs) 02:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
I split it up into 2 sentences and lifted the definition directly out of Global warming. --Nethgirb 02:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I liked it better as surface and lower atmosphere. Whatever we decide, the Global warming article should probably be consistent. Or, perhaps we should not be defining it in two locations. Earth's surface, oceans, and lower atmosphere? The entire atmosphere is not warming. Mishlai 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree we should be consistent if it is duplicated. It's possibly reasonable to remove the definition altogether. People can click on the link to global warming if they don't know what it is. --Nethgirb 07:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the disruptive red link. I should simply have asked the question and not made the edit. --Uncle Ed 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No harm done. You just didn't think it all the way through. :) KillerChihuahua?!? 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fossil fuel availability

I tried to add a small link to peak oil and found that such heresy was not allowed in WIkipedia, I came across this article. It seems to be written by people with a more open mind on the subject so I've added a short section.

I've not spent a lot of time, because given previous experience of the failing to enforce WP:NPOV on this subject it will be quickly removed never to be heard of again until the historians look back to wonder why the subject was never mentioned in WIkipedia until it became obviouis that fossil fuels were running out and global warming wasn't the real problem.Mike 13:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. I've cut, edited and pasted the link from the last attempt that was made to insert something into global warming (I think there were about a dozen attempts to have something from a sentence to a whole section .... all deleted by extremely unwikipedian like extremists) for a fuller text see: original text .... Mike 13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I've read a lot about peak oil, and I agree the interplay between that idea (not yet widely understood) and climate change (on every front page lately) is a challenge to figure out. The prof who teaches the global warming course at my university also recognizes peak oil, and believes it will help blunt the spike in GHG emissions. (But he's still for Kyoto, keeps his thermostat quite low, bikes to work even in the snow...)
There was a talk at a peak oil discussion group here asking how peak oil and global warming issues interact. One thing the speaker observed is that advocates of one tend not to be part of the other movement. She thought many global warming activists were uneasy with talk of peak oil as suggesting the world could just skip Kyoto or efforts to reduce emissions, and just sit back and let peak oil-induced price increases do all the work.
I'm not sure there is room in this article for a branch on this interesting interplay, because the theme of this page is the controversy over AGW. In that discussion, all over the media and the internet, I've almost never seen mention of peak oil in the context of covering controversy over AGW.
Also, I think a discussion of the intersection of these two topics would be quite interesting -- but perhaps so much so that it would go outside the WP:No original research rule. That is, we don't have an established body of work out there to summarize -- it's waiting to be written. Birdbrainscan 06:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFC/discussion of article Global warming controversy

Controversy or not Reading the article about the existence of a "controversy" seems that there is not any controversy at all and instead the few not supporting human-causation in rising temperatures are outliers.

If this is the case the article seems to be unnecessary entirely. If it is not the case then the article's balance is not to Wikipedia's standards.

Dual philosophies used in enforcement of policies, guidelines and content. Questions seem to persists relating to the validity of sources. On one hand sources that are not in agreement with the "global warming conseneus" viewpoint are removed with the related text. On the other hand sources that are in agreement with the "global warming consensus" viewpoint are replaced.

Questions persists relating to the Wikipedia standards for handling edits. When edits are made that are about one side of the Global Warming Controversy they are deleted or reverted with little, if any explanation. When edits are made about the other side of the Global Warming Controversy there are attempts to "make them better" instead of deletions. 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a controversy - stop sounding like a Christian evangelist and wake up and listen instead of preaching that since everyone else is wrong there is no controversy! Mike 15:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that this trouble can be resolved. We have on the one hand people who would like to see an article that describes the controversy - including the arguments, credible or not, that are being made against anthropogenic global warming. We have on the other hand people who want to make sure this is not done in a fashion that lends undue credibility to those ideas. I believe that there is an article (not written yet) that can satisfy both of these goals.
The controversy itself is obvious fact, and the point of this article, IMO, is to describe it.
I see no difficulty with including Urban Heat Island, for example, in the article. We must be clear, however, about what is "general controversy" as experienced in the media and public eye, and what is genuine scientific doubt. If we characterize this honestly, there is no problem. The article should not mislead the reader into believing that the Urban Heat Island effect has caused most skeptic scientists to question whether the planet is warming at all. It has not. Most of them, including Lindzen who was one of the idea's prominent champions, agree now that the planet is definitely warming, but still disagree as to why. Nor should it convince the reader that this alternate theory may mean that global warming isn't happening, because scientific opinion is quite clear that it does not mean that. The point will be simply to characterize it as one of the points of controversy, and to describe what is being said, and then what is actually known, or whether there is in fact some disagreement among scientists and the nature and scope of that disagreement.
The point here will be to report what the controversy is about -what the main points of it are. The point is not to provide a safe POV fork for alternate theories that lack significant backing. After characterizing what the points of controversy are, it will be necessary to characterize the state of scientific knowledge on them. If there are other, non-credible opinions on the matter, it seems that we might be able to put those in as well, as long as we make it clear to the reader that this is not the sort of source that should be trusted to the same degree that someone with Lindzen's credentials would be. To do otherwise would give undue weight to these ideas, which in some cases are significant minority (solar variation) and in other cases probably qualify for tiny minority (Urban Heat Island as an argument that the planet is not warming) in the present day, but were once legitimate concerns by credible skeptics. Historical context may also be included, as the skeptic positions have evolved as more information has become available. There is also controversy on the alarmist side, which should be treated in the same fashion. The reader should not be misled into thinking that climate sensitivity is 6C just because Flannery thinks it might be; his position is in stark opposition to mainstream scientific views on the matter.
If someone is a total quack with an idea that hasn't actually caused significant controversy, then that would not be included (this is not a forum to generate controversy by listing all fringe ideas).
In short:
  • We discuss the points of controversy
  • We do not evangelize minority theories any more than is appropriate to describe them and the level and quality of support they receive.
  • We characterize, in a balanced (not necessarily equal) fashion, both sides (or every side) on each controversial point.
  • We make clear the difference between "someone said" and science. This will be the most difficult bit, I think, and will require careful thought and fairness from us all.
Does this sound like a good direction for everyone? If we can agree, I'd like to pause on editing the article itself and discuss structure, general content outline, etc. Mishlai 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
There needs to explicitly delineated standards for inclusion/exclusion. It is the vagueries within the policies/guidelines and grey areas that are being used to push POV. 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
The existing wikipedia standards are what will be used. I understand that you want something more specific than that, but I don't think we can come up with a set of guidelines with more wisdom than what wikipedia has already done. Trying to be too specific is an invitation to gaming the rules. It's clear to me that concern about pushing POV exists on both sides, but we're just going to have to collaborate and cooperate if this article is going to morph into anything useful. This article is essentially about the conflict between minority and majority viewpoints. We will need to represent the controversy itself accurately while being careful to give proper weight to the different points of view. Mishlai 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai, I think this is a good direction for this hotly contested article. Our aim, whatever our individual Ps of V, should not be to have this article settle the debate, or to get across to the public the answers we believe or know to be correct. Rather it should be to factually recount who has said what and when, to summarize (briefly!) who the major players are. I think we should identify some think tanks, perhaps describe them as such, in neutral language that does not prejudge the validity of such groups' own POV, but simply summarizes it. This is the job of a journalist or historian.
Amongst ourselves we have a lot of disagreement about the extent of controversy within the scientific community. We are not likely to come to agreement amongst ourselves about that. What I'd like to see us do is to remain civil, discuss in the talk page, and improve the quality of the article in its ability to correctly state what has been happening in the public discussion about these questions. We should pick out good sources where others have taken up both sides, cite them properly, select the most telling quotations, and quote them succinctly. Names and dates are important.
I have to say i'm finding the length of this talk page overwhelming. It's a lot of new debate to read and growing fast lately (and here I am adding three more paragraphs!) Anyway, hello and best wishes to everyone. A special shout out to BozMo for a speedy recovery. Birdbrainscan 12:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, Mishlai --Nethgirb 13:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In reviewing, I particularly like Mishlai's way of summing up where we need to take this. One last thought I have: one criterion for what to include could be positions or claims that have gotten serious traction in the media - who the newspapers and talk shows call upon to represent a view. That's the story, as far as a "public" debate. I'll propose that print and broadcast media get the most weight, versus blogs and web discussion boards; I presume the traditional media still have the wider reach.Birdbrainscan 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


This article has clearly had issues for years regarding POV and dispute resolutions are in order. Please to not remove the bias tags until this article has been through the entire review processes that it has submitted through. 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that it is not this article that is the problem but the Global warming article. I don't support many of the views in this article but I do support their right to have a place in Wikipedia. Unfortunately this view is not supported by the Gestapo who have hold of the Global Warming article. It is time Wikipedia actually stuck to its guns and enforded the WP:NPOV view on the global warming page.Mike 15:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fossil fuel availability (cut from article space)

2004 U.S. government predictions for oil production other than in OPEC and the former Soviet Union

Some experts have questioned the presumption underlying most predictions of global warming, namely that fossil fuels are effectively unlimited within the timescale of global warming predictions. For example, in a controversial paper from Uppsala in Sweden[84]. The authors warn that all the fuel will be burnt before there is enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to realise predictions of melting ice caps and searing temperatures another paper from the Journal de Physique [85] reported that:

a possible "modified medium scenarios", with an energy consumption or population that would not rise as quickly as assumed, but that would call massively on coal after oil becomes expensive, ... leads to a couple degrees increase (in global temperatures)[9]

The the Hubbert peak theory, is a model predicting the output from a natural resource such as an oil, gas or coal field and is used by most oil companies and governments. According to Matthew Simmons, Chairman of Simmons & Company International the peak oil model indicates that global oil production may have peaked in December 2005, [10] however the US government are more cautious and estimate [86] world supply of oil will peak in 2015. As burning oil is a major contributor to Greenhouse warming the peak oil theory predicts that the contribution from burning oil will decline after the point of peak oil production has passed and therefore the contribution of crude oil to global will also decrease.

The model has also been used to predict the size of world coal and gas with similar conclusions. According to Bentley, world gas production will peak anywhere from 2010 to 2020[11]. Since compressed natural gas powered cars are already available in North America, peak oil and peak gas are related for transportation usage. Gregson Vaux has analyzed the expected peak in U.S. coal production (the world’s largest reserves of coal) and predicted peak coal taking place sometime between 2032 and 2060, with earlier dates more likely if coal is used as a partial substitute for plateauing or declining global oil supplies and North American natural gas supplies [87] [88].

I've copied this section over from the main article due to its overall poor quality. There are numerous grammar errors and run-in sentences, it is too long, and, as far as I'm concerned, too prominent. It's not a major part of any discussion I have seen. "Searing temperatures" are not part of any serious prediction, anyways. "Bentley" is mentioned before any it a person, a car, a company? Peak Oil itself is a fairly disputed theory, especially for global resources. The connection between Peak Oil and global warming is extremely esoteric. I know of no serious publications predicting Peak Coal in the forseeable future. News group postings are not a reliable source...and so on.
If you want to introduce this topic, try to write a short piece, demonstrating the actual controversy and keep out unrelated details about the Hubert Peak (which has its own article), please. --Stephan Schulz 16:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I love the way people criticise for not using quotes, then criticise when words "searing" taken directly from an article. Before deleting this again please read the three good articles on the subject: [89] [90]. [91] Mike 16:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Weather vs. climate

"We cannot predict the weather, therefore we cannot predict the climate"

Can we make a list of advocates who employ this argument? Weather and climate are two different things. Connolley can't say whether it will snow 12 days from now in any particular place or region, but he can predict the average amount of annual snowfall with considerable accuracy. --Uncle Ed 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is "considerable accuracy"? Depending on what it is, weather predictions can also be considerably accurate and thus be as (in)accurate as climate predictions. As for your first question, you need to look for specialists in modeling. Hendrik Tennekes is among those who would say something like that. --Childhood's End 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
That sounds rather like arguing, "We cannot predict whether these two molecules will collide with sufficient energy to react, therefore we cannot predict the rate of this chemical reaction." SheffieldSteel 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the controversy about?

In my view the controversy is about five claims, positions or proposals:

    1. The claim that mankind (CO2) is mainly responsible for increasing global surface temperatures. (Asks the questions: Is warming global? Is it possible it is mainly regional? If so, what does that mean? What does the satellite data have to say on this issue? What other forces could be at work? How much is attributable to man?)
    2. The position of the keepers of the temperature record that they do not need to archive and make available their data and methods (making it impossible for other scientists to verify how the UHI is handled and the extent of the reported warming). (Asks the questions: Is the warming real or an artifact of instrument error or UHI? Is the warming real or an artifact of errors in the handling and adjustments of the dataset? Why haven't the data and methods been released?)
    3. The position of the IPCC that (contrary to McIntyre, the Wegman Report and the NAS) current temps are the warmest in 1300 years. (Asks the questions: Why did the IPCC reaffirm this position without a thorough examination of the Hockey stick controversy? Is there evidence the IPCC is driven by politics instead of science?)
    4. The claim that warming will continue at least until 2100 resulting in catastrophic consequences, including extinctions and increasing weather catastrophes. (Asks the questions: Is it reasonable to conclude the current warming climate regime will continue without interruption for nearly 100 years? Have any observations been made or peer-reviewed articles published that indicate a coming change in the climate regime? What does the science say about global warming causing increasing number of hurricanes?)
    5. The steps society should take to prevent, mitigate or adapt to global warming. (Asks the questions: Is the Kyoto Protocol economically viable? Is the Kyoto Protocol politically viable? What other steps have been proposed for either mitigation or adaptation?)

In my view, the article should be organized into an outline that discusses these five issues. Regarding the satellite data, it is possible it fits better under point #2 rather than #1. If I have left out any other main points, let's discuss them. RonCram 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The questions of human responsibility from warming and whether warming is occurring are completely separate and should be treated separately.
  • Is the planet warming globally?
    • Is it regional?
    • Is it instrument error (Urban Heat Island or other)?
    • Do satellites or other methods contradict the surface temperature record?
  • Warming as compared to historical record
    • Hockey Stick controversy
    • Criticism of data, methods, and proxies.
    • What significance does the historical record hold for the debate.
  • Causes of observed warming
    • Human contributions
    • Solar variation
    • Solar variation with Cosmic Ray cloud formation
    • It's just natural.
  • Projections for the future
    • Model limitations (not falsifiable, state of science is limited in some areas)
    • Model accuracy in the past
    • Alternate projections
  • Effects of projections
    • Will increased CO2 cause a greening of the earth?
    • Will warming be mostly good for humanity?

I don't think Kyoto or other policy steps are relevant to this article. We should stick to controversy about the science. Kyoto can be discussed in the Kyoto article. This isn't a forum to advocate nuclear power, solar cells, carbon taxes, giant mirrors, or drought resistant crops as an answer to these problems. Mishlai 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ron and Mislai. The two of you have laid out the key elements of the controversy better than anything I've seen in 5 years, on or off Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 19:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai, your outline is good but leaves out the important question of why data and methods are not archived and made available to other scientists. This is an important aspect of the controversy that will soon be the subject of a least one and possibly multiple lawsuits. It also leaves out the issue that the IPCC is driven by politics rather than the science. Kyoto is certainly part of the controversy. You cannot discuss the controversy of warming without discussing the controversy around proposals to mitigate or adapt to it. I would agree that the section on Kyoto can be kept short by referencing the longer article. RonCram 23:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Need to cite more sources

This article often fails to identify who is saying these things and instead resorts to a "some people say" statement. -Vcelloho 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fossil Fuel, again

I see that Peak Oil is back in fashion. I've removed it again. I believe it is quite simply Not Notable in the context of the global warming debate. I can't think of a single example of any skeptic arging that we can forget the problem because we'll run out of fuel. The sole paper the added text refs is only about oil and gas [92].

Even if you believe this issue is notable - which I don't - then (a) the position that H put it at - above arguments for and against GW - is clearly far too high. And of course (b) most of the added section is on oil, which ignores the much larger coal reserves. He Peak Oil article itself argues for a coal peak around 2150 which is inconsistent with what has been added here. William M. Connolley 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Connolley, you personally do not have a neutral point of view on this subject and I urge you not to get involved. As you know it is the "prime directive" of wikipedia to have a neutral point of view. That does not mean you have to agree, it does not matter whether you believe it is right all that matters is that it is properly sourced and since it is that means you have to accept other points of view even though you personally detest them. Mike 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV also states "...views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." Raymond Arritt 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. NPOV does not mean to include each and every viewpoint with equal weight. Peak oil/coal is an extremely esoteric point. I'm not aware of anyone using this argument in the political debate. There are a few very speculative papers, most not peer-reviewed, about the issue. This might be worth a sentence or two in one of the articles, but not a badly written, sensationalistic paragraph complete with a rather irrelevant graph. --Stephan Schulz 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The idea that you can simply remove any reference to peak oil is rediculous and isn't worth discussing. You might have a point about weight if I didn't have any references, but for a section where I can find three good articles: [93] [94]. [95] it adequately demonstrates the need to cover this subject in some detail. Which of you are going to tell me that an article in New Scientist isn't worth including in Wikipedia - come on get real!
The basis of this discussion is in fact a conflict between those who focus only on the climate model and those who focus on fossil fuels (read the above articles it points the point very well). This is a real controversy in the field of global warming - I'm going to put back the section, if anyone would like to help improve it then I would be happy to work with them. Mike 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually only the articles have to be NPOV; wiki sensibly makes no such requirement for editors, which could never be verified or enforced. Now you've had your rant, why not settle down and actually answer the objections above? What would be nice would be to find someone known as a skeptic - start at List of scientists opposing global warming consensus if you're not familiar with them - and find just *one* of them who has claimed lack of fossil fuels will be a problem William M. Connolley 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Connolley - I have answered your questions time and time and time again. It is useless talking to you - I'm sorry please don't ask any more questions it isn't worth me responding.Mike 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It does seem that those arguing for peak oil are substantially different than global warming skeptics -- e.g. the article you cited says "The only good question is thus the following one : do we choose to decrease voluntarily greenhouse gases emissions, or do we try to follow the path of ascending emissions as long as possible, waiting for non wished events to perform the decrease for us "later on", implicitely accepting, then, that it happens in conditions that we might not control, and which might be very unpleasant ?" This makes sense since both AGW and peak oil can be seen as complementary reasons for reducing fossil fuel use. So, while I could see the argument for a brief mention of this issue, I agree with WMC that it was given far too much prominence. --Nethgirb 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Mike - those are very interesting articles, thank you for posting them. I don't agree that this belongs in controversy, however.
  • The first article does not address peak oil invalidating SRES scenarios
  • The second article -the New Scientist one- is actually quite clear that peak oil would not invalidate SRES scenarios if we replaced oil consumption with coal.
  • The third article was the most relevant. Using some very rough math, concludes that the higher end scenarios would be very unlikely but not impossible. He's a bit loose and free with his assumptions, such as casually discounting that population could grow to 9 billion. A lot of this article, while very interesting, is a shrug and a guess - a best attempt to explore an interesting idea. Fascinating, but not encyclopedic.
As has been pointed out, this isn't a point of controversy - that is, the skeptics are not citing this (and with good reason I'd say). Indeed, I'd not heard of it until I read your posts (thank you, I was fascinated). It isn't peer-reviewed, which from the standpoint of describing a new idea like this is pretty problematic. I oppose a peak oil section in this article.
I'd like to point out something for the casual reader. There are "scenarios", and there are "scenario families". In most treatments of this matter, people use the term scenario to mean "scenario family" - that is B1, B2, A2, A1T, A1B, A1FI
As the third article uses the term, scenario means an individual scenario, of which there are 40, each belonging to one of the listed families. IPCC projections of temperature are described for the individual scenario families. If we were to assume, for purposes of exploration or curiosity, that some of the upper scenarios are invalidated as the 3rd article suggests, that would not imply that we could simply cross off the family estimates for A1FI and A2, for example. It would be necesary to identify which scenarios specifically were assumed invalid, and then apply that to the full per-individual-scenario projections. I don't know if this detailed information is in the WGI report or not, the SPM only addresses scenario family predictions.
Obviously, because the higher emission scenarios would be invalidated 1st, you would expect an assumption of this nature to reduce the high end temperature change projections. On the reverse side, I think most environmentalists would conclude that scenarios in the B1 family are excessively optimistic about environmental policy in the future. The IPCC doesn't take any position on a particular scenario being "more valid" than others. The scenarios are illustrative, and can help policy makers understand how different choices affect outcomes. The 1.1 to 6.4 range is often quoted without the "this depends on what we do" context, which is unfortunate. Mishlai 07:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Global warming" as a term

Although it seems reasonable to suspect that the compound noun "global warming" is a generic term and that the present warming is merely a special case, the use of "global warming" in a generic sense is exceedingly rare. (Actually I haven't been able to find any such uses but am leaving the door open for the possibility.) Accordingly I've removed the generic definition from the intro as it serves only to distract the reader from the topic at hand, which is the controversy or lack thereof with regard to the present warming. Raymond Arritt 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted, sorry

Mike, On principle I would always prefer to build rather than revert but the drop in of a big section is too much to try to fix in an already messy article. Is there (yet) a decent Wikipedia article on fossil fuel availability for us to cite? I think we should write that, source is properly and then link from both this and the Global Warming artile. It is a very interesting topic. Also the paragraph which started "Most reputable scientists agree that fossil fuel stocks are practically finite when considered in the same timescale as global warming..." went on to talk about 2300. Very little mainstream global warming discussion is on this timescale, so "same timescale" is a bit misleading. --BozMo talk 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bozmo -thankyou for your comments - I was up at 2am yesterday and I wasn't in the mood for yet more "reverts". No, there isn't an article on fossil fuel availability, my opinion is that with the hostile edits I've seen here such an article would be folly. Moreover such information should go in current articles until they become too big to be included.
The massive glaring omission from both this article and particularly global warming is that neither of them talk about the IPCC scenarios, which in themselves are controversial because they are inherently self contradictory. As temperature is directly related to scenario it ought to be self evidence that one must provide information on the scenarios in an article talking about the effects of those scenarios (but perhaps some want to keep the public in the dark!). Once the various IPCC scenarios (and probably a view others) are included I'll look to see if I can find any other views which add to the controversy! Mike 10:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Mike, I would be surprised if the IPCC scenarios are self-contradictory in any obvious way. Massive committee works have all sorts of faults but not typically that one: it tends to be in really high level methodology. I haven't read more than summaries though. In terms of mood I've spent much of the last week in intensive care after a totally unexpected collapse and resuscitation (Pulmonary Embolism), so I think I win that one... anyway: it is good to see you are gathering references etc on this topic area. Each time we go through a loop the quality gets better. I think building a complete picture somewhere where there is no question about the direct relevance is the right way to go (and I'd help when around). Good luck with trying to build as a section here: but I don't think that's the right call. I don't see anyone as hostile to the concepts you are working on (and ultimately no one doubts fossil fuels reserves would eventually run out): just in amongst the contraversy etc it is hard to get content on this right. --BozMo talk 11:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
BozMo - Really sorry to hear about the collapse. Please ensure you get better, the world needs reasonable people like you to offset the many idiots around! In retrospect, your deletion of the IPCC scenarios was probably for the best. Isn't it odd that climatologists get so worked up about their climate models but when it comes to equal variability from fossil fuel projections they get cold feet? Even a cursory glancde of the IPCC scenerios shows a heavy political "philosophy" behind them - almost "communist" in places. I can see why climatologists are embarrassed to discuss them!
If you have time, take a look at what I've started under "temperature predictions". I've just been searching for relevant articles and adding bits from everyone. I'm afraid, because of the recent attacks, I've had to write defensively and brace it with substantial quotes.
Re mood, I was considering an article "global depression", drawing together the reports on global dimming and Seasonally affected depression. It will of course go to join my article on wikighosts. On the idea of a page, I've had very bad experience of starting new pages - so I'd rather home the argument in a section and then expend it later - but I'd be happy to help out!Mike 12:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a list of supporters

The section: "Supporters and opponents of the global warming theory" leaves me absolutely cold and provides very little information about the various controversies over global warming.

My instinct is simply to remove this as I can't see the point (except for petty point scoring). The article has a tag that there are too many lists. Unless someone has a good reason for it staying, I'll remove this section. Mike 10:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. As far as I, and I suspect many others, are concerned, this article is on the existing controversy about global warming. Who the participants are is definitly part of this reporting. This is not about potential controversies, which carries a big risk of WP:OR. --Stephan Schulz 10:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, is that a yes of a no to removing the list. Mike 11:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Who the participants are is definitly part of this reporting."--Stephan Schulz 11:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this list inclusive of all participants, if not, how have they been chosen? Mike 12:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope, obviously not inclusive. Included are the most notable participants. Notice that on the consensus side, there is such an overwhelming support that no individual names have been added, just major scientific organizations (+ the UOCS, which I find slightly misplaced).--Stephan Schulz 12:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan - can you tell me how this list have been chosen, where does it come from, does it come from any authority on the subject or is it original research? Mike 12:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
When you ask "where does it come from" you could mean either (1) where has it been verified that each of the people/orgs on the list fall into those categories, or (2) how were these selected as the most notable from their respective full lists. Regarding (1), go to each of the full lists or the individuals' articles for documentation. Regarding (2), who is most notable is open to debate. The article does not state a claim that these are absolutely the most notable individuals. Feel free to discuss here if you feel someone important has been left out.
I think having these lists here is useful as long as they are kept short. I took the liberty of cleaning it up just now. --Nethgirb 13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Nethgirb, I can't comment on your tidy up except that it appears you've mainly reduced the list of opponents. I appreciate what you've done, but now the list is even more one sided. Isn't it covered by the sentence "most scientists agree", so what is the point in adding a list of most scientists and the few crackpots? Mike 13:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it one-sided? On the "pro" side there are 6 entries for supporting organizations plus 3 for former skeptics. On the skeptic side there are 12 entries for individuals and organizations. If anything, that is giving way too much weight to the skeptics, wouldn't you say? --Nethgirb 13:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What should the proper weight be? -- Tony 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm biased because I'm on the pro side in part of the argument, but it does appear to me to be an attempt to belittle those anti argument supporters. I'd be happy to see section with a little intro saying "Most scientific opinion supports, etc." followed by a list of notable detractors who readers might be interested to know are on the anti side. If no one wants to know whose on the list - let's scrap it! Mike 17:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I just don't understand how it belittles the skeptics. Can you explain? Are you suggesting to remove the list of supporters and only list the skeptics? If so, that doesn't seem very balanced though I would be happy to hear why you think it is balanced. (BTW, in general Mike, I think this article is way too long and useless due to its poor organization and writing and I appreciate your goals to cut down on stuff.) --Nethgirb 18:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Why I don't like it is because most people who read an article like this aren't interested in just seeing a list of people - it reminds me of school children saying "look who I've got in my gang" - it looks antagonnistic rather than informative. Now the fact the school head-boy is in one gang, or that one gang is bigger than the other, (probably) isn't particularly interesting except to someone trying to prove their gang is better than the other - that's what I meant by "belittling". Mike 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that the article is about the controversy, it is reasonable to lay out who has what position. Otherwise we end up with constructions like "some scientists say", "many others say", etc. which are explicitly discouraged by WP:AWW. Raymond Arritt 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Strike that. On second thought, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Let's delete the entire "supporters and opponents" section. There already are articles on lists of scientists opposing the consensus, etc. Deleting it would go a little ways toward tightening up this rambling, disorganized article. Raymond Arritt 19:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
First I checked the list and at the very least I suggest deleting the following: Ann Coulter, (no mention in her wikipedia entry of global warming), Cooler Heads Coalition (Organisation closed), Branso (There is nothing in wikipedia to show his skeptism in global warming was noteworthy i.e. did he speak on the subject or did his belief change the debate?)
Second - raymond, thanks - if we move any noteworthy links at the end? Do we have consensus to delete? Mike 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind deleting (or adding, within reason) individual entries. But I do think part of the description of the controversy is who holds which position. For the contrarians this might be a bit iffy, as they do not agree among themselves. If you prefer, we could just list who supports the consensus view, and then include the individual opponents with there individual points. Fine with me, but some people might consider this unfair. --Stephan Schulz 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
As you well know Stephan many more notable people support the pro-warming than anti- so, I'm struggling to see how your comments are helping to build consensus. You obviously want to keep the list but I'm struggling to pick out your reason between the barbed comments against the "other" side. Could I ask you to expand on "I do think part of the description of the controversy is who holds which position" so I can better understand your position.Mike 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) We could put some brief references to this in the section on existence of a consensus. It probably doesn't merit very much more than links to the main articles Scientific opinion on climate change and List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. I'd like to see the list torched, though, what with "listiness" considered one of the seven deadly sins in terms of WP style. Raymond Arritt 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond's proposal sounds OK to me. --Nethgirb 20:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
NimNick has expanded this section somewhat, most notably adding a list of "Scientific organisations that have expressed opposition". However, as far as I can tell, none of them on the list (CEI, Friends of Science, Heartland Institute, etc...) is a scientific organization.
In my judgement there is consensus here to remove the entire section, possibly mentioning it in the "existence of a consensus" section: Mike, Raymond Arritt, and you guys have now convinced me too. Stephan would like to keep the list: I can understand Stephan's reasoning but I think this is outweighed by the fact that this article is currently unmanageably large, each section tends to grow without bound without significant continuous cleanup work, and this particular section duplicates material found elsewhere. Thus, I have taken the liberty of mostly removing the lists, with the slight compromise of leaving links to the articles with the material. --Nethgirb 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It is encyclopaedic knowledge to have a nice list of opponents for readers who want to find them in Wikipedia. --NimNick 12:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That encyclopaedic knowledge is still present, in the form of 2 entire articles on the matter, and links to them from this article. There's no need to maintain 2 versions of this list. Mishlai 12:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lists themselves

For future reference, as they were on the article before removal:

Supporters of the global warming theory

Scientific organisations that have stated support of the current scientific opinion on climate change include:

Opponents of the global warming theory

Scientific organisations that have expressed opposition of the current scientific opinion on climate change include:

Scientists who have expressed opposition include:

Opponents from outside the scientific community include:

Organizations skeptical of global warming include:

Former skeptics include:

Conclusion Just to try and summarise - it seems the final concensus was to reduce the size of this section to a link to the pages "lists of people who support/oppose ...." Mike 14:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Betting on global warming

I can't understand why "Betting on global warming" is a section. I can see it adds to the evidence about the "Debate over the existence of a consensus", because it shows that no one appears to be betting for global warming not to happen.... so basically it isn't a controversy on its own. Or is there some kind of controversy about the way bets on global warming should be handled?

It seems outdated, so if no one objects, I'll remove this section and add to "Debate over the existence of a consensus" Mike 12:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There will be objection because the POV pushers view that section as further evidence of the validity of their POV...despite the false dilemma the entire premise sets forth. Even if you are successful today it will be reverted within a few weeks when they think you felt it was safe enough to leave. -- Tony 15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Tony, perhaps if we treat them with courtesy they'll treat us with courtesy! You haven't told me what you think about removing it? Mike 17:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
What's in this section should be completely removed. I may strongly believe in my professional opinions but still not be ready to bet my personal savings/earnings on it, for the very reason that I can accept that I may be showed to be wrong and that I am not a gambler. I would even say that not to gamble on such things shows personal discipline and modesty. By the way, by opposing the IPCC, those scientists have already gambled their professional reputations/fundings/positions. I think that's enough. --Childhood's End 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Childhoodsend, when you say "completely removed", do you mean not added in "Debate over the existence of a consensus"? Mike 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing of this should appear in the article. It's irrelevant, for the reasons I have stated, and others I may have not. --Childhood's End 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Childhoodsend - I was had a look with a view to condensing to one sentence, but as none of the bets actually were agreed there's no substance. We should leave it a day or two to see if there are any other views and if none appear you are right we should simply delete. Mike 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't care much whether the section stays or not, but I just wanted to point out that according to the reference in the section, there was an agreed bet between Mashnich and Bashkirtsev and James Annan. --Nethgirb 10:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Mike, my objections to the section have been previously stated and efforts to clean up the section were immediately reverted without justification or discussion. It should be deleted. The fallacy of the bets is pitting warming vs. cooling and is not pitting the philosophies that are predominately and in large numbers clashing (contrary to what Wikipedia presents). The bets do not present 'man-caused' vs 'not-man-caused', 'consensus' vs 'no consensus' or any other dilemma. This section describes (as if it is of any encyclopedic value) something akin to two people who think the Colts will go to the Super Bowl--the difference being one thinks the Colts will repeat and the other thinks the Colts will get their but lose. The first guy tells the second to 'put their money where their mouth is' and accept a bet, the second guy has to take the side that the Colts will not make the playoffs. Does the 1st person really have the honest ground to claim the 2nd is not putting his money where his beliefs are? No. Same thing in this section. The bet does not reflect the proper dilemma being offered.
Delete the whole useless and unencyclopedic section. -- User:Mnyakko/aboutme 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Kind of like what happened on a different planet's warming page...Post Dr C edit and Pre Dr C edit. -- User:Mnyakko/aboutme 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion: the consensus appears to be for deletion of this section Having given enough time for all the views that is what I have done! Mike 14:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it. Sorry, there is so much talk on this page that I'd missed this section. The issue of whether sketpics believe what they say is indeed put into relief by this little section, so I think its valuable. To point out the obvious: if you believe in GW, you expect warming to continue. If you believe its natural variation, you have no such reason. Several solar people (from the late unlamented GW on mars no less) purport to predict *cooling* from solar William M. Connolley 15:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with William. Sorry I missed this discussion earlier but the subject is newsworthy, having been discussed in Nature, The Guardian, and Reason magazine. While any single individual's willingness to bet may have little to do with that person's confidence, the general unwillingness to bet against warming is instructive. Finally, it would be inappropriate to delete a reference to an existing bet that is directly relevant to the alleged controversy. The section does need some work though. "Seven unnamed climate change sceptics reportedly were offered wagers but no betting terms were agreed upon." That's inaccurate, the names are available. "No wagers were proposed based on the determination of the cause of warming." Bets are proposed based on objectively testable data, so this sentence isn't meaningful. I expect to post some fixes soon.Brian A Schmidt 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Another deed poll by William M. Connolley, reverting edits without discussion days after agreement was reached. Missing the discussion is one thing, but to wake up and instantly revert without discussion what was agreed upon does not seem to me acceptable/mature behaviour.
I'll repeat : the fact that you do not expect warming to continue does not mean that you are supposed to bet on it. This betting discussion is mostly irrelevant and fallacious, is mostly catch-the-eye rhetoric used by GW activists, and can be considered trolling on these WP pages. Serious gamblers are hardly wise people, and it is not unscientifc to hold certain views but at the same time to admit that they can be proved wrong in the future. --Childhood's End 15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is irrelevant to the issue of whether betting is a notable aspect of the global warming controversy. Compare to the facetious "they believed in global cooling 30 years ago" argument - that argument is also a notable part of the controversy, even though it's completely wrong, so it's appropriately included in this article. As for whether your argument is even right, I've answered it and you disagreed without adding information, so I'll stick with my previous answer.Brian A Schmidt 22:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry the consensus was to delete- if you want to propose to reinstate then I suggest you make that as a new proposal. We can't have people simply turning up days after a discussion and deciding to undo a decision. I have put the text here for discussion, when we come to a consensus it can go back in!

Mike 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry the consensus was to delete- if you want to propose to reinstate then I suggest you make that as a new proposal. We can't have people simply turning up days after a discussion and deciding to undo a decision - nonsense. This is just a misunderstanding of how wiki works. You can't just have a poll which only your buddies contribute to and expect it to be binding on the majority William M. Connolley 10:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
William, simply reverting a decision you don't like isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. It's not a vital section of the article, it would be better for you to respect the decision that has been made and then propose to change it rather than just going for anarchy. May I suggest you put your case to have it reinserted and see whether a new consensus to reinstate in some form is possible.Mike 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I last read the section it has been improved in both writing style and sources, so I now support leaving it in. --Nethgirb 12:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny how GW activists' standards for keeping material in an article can go low when it comes to material that they see as supportive of their view. I thought there was a will to trim this article where possible and if there is one section that could go in that regard, this is unequivocally the one. William M. Connolley obviously believes that WP policies support dictatorship-like reverts so I'll just ignore his latest argument for this talk page's sake. Please let me comment on Brian A Schmidt's argument.
the subject is newsworthy, having been discussed in Nature, The Guardian, and Reason magazine - I think that's a fair point. We must though decide if we include everything that is newsworthy or if we try to sort out the most relevant material.
the general unwillingness to bet against warming is instructive - this is certainly instructive in the sense that skeptics are humble enough to admit that they may be wrong (which is intellectually wiser than to believe and claim that you cannot be wrong) but that's not what this section is intended to show.
Finally, it would be inappropriate to delete a reference to an existing bet that is directly relevant to the alleged controversy. - Again, besides being newsworthy, such a bet tells us very little regarding either the controversy or the arguments held by both sides. And who knows why they agreed to this bet.. it may have been made for fun, for money, for pride, or for news appearances.
By the way, the controversy focuses on anthropogenic vs natural warming, not on whether the Earth is warming or not (as it is said in the intro of the article itself). The relevance of the gambling discussion is so low that it should not be kept. --Childhood's End 14:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand the skeptics. They used to say there was no warming so as to justify their do-nothing political position. Forced to abandon that stance, skeptics have now manufactured a different justification for doing nothing - "yes it's warmed but it won't continue for long." Lindzen, Gray, Monckton, Carter and the cosmologists that Annan bet all predict that temps will either drop or are as likely drop as increase, so the bet and bet offers are directly relevant to the alleged controversy.Brian A Schmidt 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm done arguing about this irrelevant section. If you feel this gambling news story is all that it takes for a GW believer to prove that skeptics are wrong, I guess you're not alone in this situation and that it should be kept for that reason. And on the other hand, it shows humility and wisdom for the skeptics side, so I guess I should not overly object. --Childhood's End 17:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Strangely enough i find that the 2 russians position are strenghtened immensely by accepting the bet. So i guess it cuts both ways. --Kim D. Petersen 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Please keep mind it doesn't fit proper "Wikiquette" to revert an edit that was already discussed, prior to your own discussion to merit your edit. ~ UBeR 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - didn't see this poll. Seems a valid section, I have put it back in as my "vote". Vsmith 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Following the discussion I wondered whether the section could be reduced in size - but I started yawning at the first sentence. I couldn't see who had bet against who, who had won and there was absolutely no comment. It really needs to be scrapped or if it has to go back it needs a drastic rewrite. Given that the article is too long already I can't see the point of removing it particularly and I can see why the consensus was to remove it - if people want it back it needs a drastic rewrite! Mike 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered, leave it alone William M. Connolley 19:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Childhood's End explained it well enough. The section doesn't warrant its inclusion in this article. ~ UBeR 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It made Nature, which is more than much of this gumpf has (unlike, for example, global warming in the solar system, which apparently is worth an entire article, some say) William M. Connolley 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a relevant and interesting aspect of the controversy. And the section is not very long anyway. I'm all for trimming down the size of the article, but why not instead work on one of the sections that's really too long, maybe like "Debate over the existence of a consensus"? --Nethgirb 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I enjoyed the section - encyclopedic or not - but the use of "consensus" at the end of the section, seemed a bit too strong. The question as to whether or not there is a consensus is discussed earlier in the article and the jury is out it seems. Using the word in quotes or prefixed by "IPCC" might be a good idea.--Timtak 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is global warming beneficial or detrimental? - Too short

My gut instinct seeing the puny nature of this section is that it is far too short and doesn't relate to my everyday experiences at all. E.g. our heating bills should be reducing shortly because of global warming - we even moved house to the North partly in the expectation that global warming will make this a more desireable area to live in a few decades - so there clearly are benefits. Do others agree this ought to be boosted! Mike 12:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a fairly recent topic. Up until very few years ago the main line of defense for the "sceptics" was "it's not warming, it's all UHI, look at the satellite data". Now, that this position has become completely untenable, some have moved to "yes, but it's good for us". There is not too much published material out there (yet?). If you find good sources, by all means expand it. But have an eye on NPOV. As far as I can tell, the majority opinion is that there will be winners and loosers, but, since agriculture and settlement patterns are adapted to the current state, a change will on average be negative. You might get a lower heating bill, but 14 million Bangladeshis will be less pleased if their land is flooded.--Stephan Schulz 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Any idea where one would start looking for an authoritative source on winners and loosers which isn't strongly biased to one point of view? Mike 13:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The IPCC WG2 reports (and, if you wish, the papers they reference). --Stephan Schulz 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I followed your advice, I've skimed the IPCC report - a lot of information on how to assess the "damage", but next to nothing on what the damage will be (and it was strangely focussing mainly on damage!) I presume the IPCC as a group of scientists probably doesn't go into this kind of speculation - what we need instead is something from a political commentator who does! Mike 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
He asked for unbiased...of course, it is not human nature to recognize bias when it favors one's own POV. -- Tony 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Tony, let's see if we can work together to improve the article! The IPCC are only scientists, as far as I'm aware science is neutral on all issues so there isn't any scientific dogma on what is "good" or "bad", so clearly the IPCC is just one of a range of opinions to include. Mike 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Tony, your big mistake is the assumption that the IPCC is one end of the spectrum. It isn't. It is the currently best scientific opinion. There is as much on the other side of the spectrum than on yours - Venus-like runaway greenhouse (feared by Stephen Hawking, no less), 30 meters of sea-level rise, permanent hurricanes, The Day after Tomorrow-like freezing of Europe, US$ 350 billion in anual hurricane damages by 2025. But I'm aware of your scepticism. That's why I suggested the original papers - if you are able to even read them. If you think all of the scientific literature is biased, I suggest consulting the I Ching or a copy of Nostradamus. However, these do not count as reliable sources yet.--Stephan Schulz 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, can you stop being argumentative! Have you got sources for all those assertions and if so where are they - lets get them in the article Mike 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I thought I would do a search to find a neutral discussion comparing the benefits and harm of global warming. What I was looking for was an article with both sides - I assumed most scientific papers on global warming would include a section on "benefits" so I did a search for global warming and "benefits" and I struggled to find even one "respectable" scientific paper mentioning any benefit (even the obvious one I have of sitting here without the heating in February - watching my windmill go round!) The following are links & quotes I have found but so far not many give the pros/cons from a NPOV!

Neutral: [100] Links:[101] Commentary: [102][103][104] Benefit: [105][106] [107] [108] [109] Harmsubscription!

A funny quote

A thought provoking quote:

A good quote (in a very biased report) is:

Finally (after some 100 articles) a quote from a global warming evangelistsupporter (sorry got a little fed up with reading so much nonsense on both sides) that mentions the benefits:

Mike 10:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote, the full IPCC third report itself (not the summary for policymakers) lists a series of possible benefits that can be expected from the Earth's warming. It although comes to the conclusion that the possible damages will outweigh the possible benefits. But that's still interesting that even the Kyoto-driven IPCC expects some benefits from the Earth's warming. --Childhood's End 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Childhoodsend - it would be useful to have a copy of that list here if its not too long - I notice someone has already added some benefits and harm. Mike 15:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Funding for opponents / pressure on scientists

Both these sections come across as petty point scoring by one or other of the parties and must leave any sensible person reading this article stone cold.

Big companies fund scientists in all manner of fields, governments put pressure on scientists .... it isn't news. If these sections are to remain, then there needs to be a lot more background. Why are the big companies/government funding, what result is it having. As far as I can tell these two sections are simply "oh look someone's paying someone to do something" .... "you know what that means .... I can't tell you because we don't have any evidence, and I can't find anyone willing to say it in print .... but nod, wink ... there's no smoke without fire". Unless someone can find some evidence of wrongdoing, or even some quote saying there is something special then this funding/pressure isn't novel and isn't worth keeping. I vote to scrap these two sections and do something more useful with the spaceMike 13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree...but I guarantee that the actively GW pushing crowd will either revert such changes now or will wait a few weeks and revert it then. 100% of the warming pages (including those about other planets) read more like IPCC worshiping and position papers. In fact, this whole article is so strong in showing the invalidity of the controversy's other side that I support it being deleted as unnecessary. -- Tony 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Tony, as someone who is firmly convinced of the scientific evidence, I may be biased, but I would like to hear your point of view. Can you tell me how the article needs improving to properly detail the alternative point of view? As you may be aware, I think the other pro-global warming people here are totally biased and unable to see anyone else's point of view. If you would like to work with me to put together some sections I would be more than happy to help! Mike 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is about, among other things, the controversy over whether human beings are the primary cause of global warming. If you delete these sections, please be thorough and consistent and delete the entire article. Though these sections may be imperfect, they detail arguments by both sides which at least seem plausible and which appear with remarkable frequency. If wording, evidence used, or other issues is a problem, let's address that problem by improving the sections, not by removing them entirely. Dicksonlaprade 17:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Dicksonlaprade ... positive comments (mostly). But obviously it's going to be contentious, is there any way to do this without ending up in a scrap? Mike 18:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
We need more discussion on this topic! Mike 15:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy

Can someone explain why there is a petty editing war on this subject? Mike 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see: "Some global warming studies, including the influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann, have been shown to contain errors, shoddy methods and manipulated data sets and have not been reproduced. [113] [114] " has been replaced by what appears to be a statement with no content - OK it needed changing but this really isn't a fair representation of the views. Mike 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've checked out the second link [115], it clearly says the Hockey stick theory has been demolished or something to that effect. It clearly is an argument used by the anti lobby so in my opinion removing it is against WP:NPOV. I'd like to hear why it was removed and try to find a better way to achieve whatever was the intention Mike 17:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If you don't like "errors" then find some quote (I find it bizarre that you can consider shown-to-contain errors to be content-free). Don't say "demolished" unless its supported by the article in question. As to edit war - what *are* you talking about? William M. Connolley 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
As for Mike's original question, it depends on the use that was being made of the reference. If it was phrased like "McKitrick claims..." then it would be OK to include the reference to verify that yes, that's what McKitrick claims. Certainly words like "shoddy" and "manipulation" don't reflect a dispassionate view of the matter (and arguably describe the McKitrick article itself; e.g., his claim that Figure 3 represents "the data" when it's actually just an illustrative schematic). Raymond Arritt 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "shoddy", etc. should be replaced, could you suggest better wording? Mike 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute between Kyoto supporters and Kyoto opponents over whether "the last decade is the hottest time in 1,000 years". According to the hockey stick graph, temps have been trending gradually down and suddenly shot up in recent decades. According to McKitrick, though, Mann erased the Medieval Warm Period by massaging the data.
Politically, if the hockey stick is warped, then there's no reason to support Kyoto because we all can see that temps go up and down naturally. But if the hockey stick is valid, then it's crucial and urgent to sign Kyoto now!
Should this information be in the present article, or in Politics of global warming? --Uncle Ed 21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be in Temperature record of the past 1000 years -- where, strangely enough, it already is. Raymond Arritt 21:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, a correct version is, without the "massaged" etc. Since we're trying to find words that don't distort what was said it would be nice to try to be more precise. Secondly, the thing that Ed (and so many others) forget is that without the HS you still have all the other reconstructions. Third, even if you throw them all away, you're left with nothing to evaluate past Ts by, so you simply dont know what past variation was. And fourth, there is very little of the attribution that depends on the HS etc. This is all patiently explained elsewhere William M. Connolley 21:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, Dr. C.:

So compelling was 1,000-yr long “hockey stick” graphic, that it quickly became the poster child for anthropogenic global warming. As such, it was prominently displayed as the first figure of the oft-read Summary for Policymakers of 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The “hockey stick” graphic gives the appearance that left to its own devices, nature displays very little in the way of temperature variation, but that during the past century, humans have come along and thrown everything out of kilter. [116]

The present article is not about what climatologists are saying amongst each other but about how the general public is reacting to what they hear about climate in the media. The upshot is that faith in the graph drives political support for the Kyoto Protocol. --Uncle Ed 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • In 1998, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics published a paper in the journal Climate Research, arguing that there really had been a Medieval warm period. The result: Messrs. Soon and Baliunas were treated as heretics and six editors at Climate Research were made to resign. [117]

So the question is whether (1) S&B were wrong and resignations from Climate Research prove this - or whether (2) S&B were right, and the resignations were the result of political pressure. On this point, shall Wikipedia choose #1, #2, or remain neutral? --Uncle Ed 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No. First off, you can't quote WCR as some kind of neutral source - its hopelessly biased. Secondly, you've got the S+B stuff confused: 6 editors resigned because they didn't like the S+B paper - no-one forced them. Talk about politics if you want, but don't write if the hockey stick is warped, then there's no reason to support Kyoto because we all can see that temps go up and down naturally - because its simply wrong, for the reasons I pointed out William M. Connolley 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

William, your claim that the other Hockey Stick reconstructions are all independent of Mann is simply untrue. They all rely on proxies known to be unreliable like the bristlecone pine series. The McKitrick reconstruction that was published after removing Mann's errors show 20th century temperatures to be unexceptional. Those are the facts. RonCram 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You're not very good at reading. I didn't say they are indep. Indeed its true that they share some data, though I disagree with your characterisation of it. McK doesn't have a reconstruction of his own - he has a very early thing McI did, but no longer pushes, and it has never been publsihed in any proper journal as such William M. Connolley 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
William, I am very good at reading and I know how to read an insult when I see one. What is the point of mentioning other reconstructions if they all have the same problems as the Mann study? I am pointing out the other reconstructions are just as worthless as what Mann did. BTW, I did not say McKitrick published the reconstruction in a peer-reviewed journal. I only said he has published it and I know you have seen it online. Neither McKitrick nor McIntyre have withdrawn the reconstruction.RonCram 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. If you're so good at reading, how come you came to falsely insert "independent"? And no, McI has never published the recon, so how could he withdraw it? He has however explicitly stated that he doesn't believe it - is that close enough? William M. Connolley 09:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In science, results that are "not published in a peer-reviewed journal" equate to results that are "not published." Raymond Arritt 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ed, I think it is better to phrase the question - should Wikipedia choose the NAS and Wegman Report that supported McIntyre and McKitrick on every disputed point of science? Or should Wikipedia choose the AR4 SPM which assumes Mann was correct without ever reexamining the subject? Perhaps Wikipedia should stay within the confines of an encyclopedia and just report the published results of each group. RonCram 22:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The answer to Ed's question is clearly (1), as can be seen from even the most cursory examination of the literature. See the article on Sallie Baliunas for some details. The editors weren't made to resign, they chose to resign as can plainly be seen from their public statements on the matter. (I doubt anyone could "make" Hans von Storch, for example, do anything he didn't really want to do.) The managing editor of the journal's parent company ended up apologizing for having published the article. Raymond Arritt 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Can people please just stick to the point It matters not at all whether anyone here believes of disbelieves the Crocket stick graph, all that matters is that the view of those "Assertions by opponents of the global warming" is accurately portrayed. As far as this article is concerned, the only truth is whether or not it is an assertion given by the oponents of global warming - anything else is irrelevant to this discussion Lets just have some some proposals for wording and stop this nonsense!Mike 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. A few points (okay, a lot of them):
  • Obviously the hockey stick controversy needs to be described in the article.
  • The hockey stick study by Mann came after the Kyoto protocol was written up, so the original motivation for Kyoto was not based on this.
  • The hockey stick graph was used by Kyoto activists to drum up support for the climate treaty.
  • The graph was prominently highlighted by the IPCC TAR, and the U.S. NAS found this to be inappropriate, given its graph's recent (at the time) and flawed nature.
  • There were flaws in the statistics of the Mann reconstruction, as found by McIntrick & McIntyre, as well as the NAS and others.
  • These flaws did not significantly alter the results. Fixing the problem with the statistical method yields essentially the same graph. Using all of the data yields the same graph. Using different methods yields the same graph. Multiple studies by different scientists yield the same graph. (Same="substantially similar" as I use it here, for brevity)
  • There are difficulties using proxies, but it is possible to quantify this uncertainty, as must be done with essentially all indirect observation of the past.
  • There were also flaws in the McIntrick & McIntyre paper, as found by several subsequent peer-reviewed publications.
  • It is generally accepted that there was a medieval warming period. The question at hand is whether it was or was not warmer than present.
  • Even the latest assessment report gives a confidence of only "likely" that the present is warmer than the MWP. This is an acknowledgement of the uncertainties inherent in our ability to reconstruct past temperatures.
  • Opponents of global warming theory widely proclaimed that the "hockey stick is broken", and that the theory of global warming must be wrong as a result.
  • The theory of anthropogenic global warming does not depend on this graph or any other historical temperature reconstruction, but upon analysis of direct measurements taken in the 20th century. Historical trends provide context for, and not proof of, what we observe today.
  • The Wegman report was also critical of the error's in Mann's reconstruction, and highlighted the need to involve statisticians in these reconstructions, but did not address their signficance - i.e. that fixing the errors does not significantly change the results.
  • Today's scientific opinion is that the basic shape of the hockey stick is correct, though we cannot be certain enough of past temperatures to conclude that we are definitely warmer now than during the MWP.
  • Present temperatures are rising more rapidly than during the MWP, and accelerating rather than tapering off to a peak, leading scientists to project that temperature levels last seen in the MWP will be exceeded in the 21st century if we have not exceeded them already. Committed change is estimated at 0.6C, and rate of change expected in the early part of this century is 0.2C per decade.

This article should let the reader know what the controversy was about, and in general terms who said what. It should also provide context for that information to ensure that readers are not misled, that items that would not make it into the main article as scientific content are not given undue weight here. In short, this is not a forum for safely evangelizing the significant minority or tiny minority positions on the topic. That would be a POV fork. Undue weight still applies.

I would be comfortable with an entry that got most of those points in there in a neutral fashion. It probably doesn't need to be that long. It shouldn't read as "McIntyre & McKintrick study = no global warming" either, though it can certainly say that people claim(ed) that. Mishlai 02:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy has its own article, by the way. No sense in reproducing the whole thing here. Mishlai 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mishlai - well done, I really couldn't tell whether you were pro./anti!

I picked out the following as seeming to describe the conflict:

Is this a fair summary of the argument? Can it be the basis of a small section - with a link to the article?Mike 09:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No: its generally accepted that there was a European warm period. Globally this is unclear. And AGW depends on rather more than T from 20th C William M. Connolley 09:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
William Connolley can you stick to the point and stop just telling us your views on global warming (this is not the place to argue about global warming, it is the place to discuss how to improve the article). Is this a fair summary of the controversy or is it not? If it isn't then please suggest an alternative if it is then please just say so. Mike 10:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think William was trying to be antagonistic; I think he was answering your question (with a no) and pointing out 2 problems. --Nethgirb 10:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are trying to say you want to change the text, then please will you propose and alternative. If you are trying to say you don't think the hockey stick controversy should be in the article please say so. I'm a little unclear what you are trying to say? Mike 10:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not trying to address those points. I do think discussing the hockey stick briefly is OK (only briefly since as User:Mishlai point out there is already another article). In my comment above I was just trying to avoid some conflict here by pointing out that William was, in fact, sticking to the point. Specifically I think WMC would suggest changing "It is generally accepted that there was a medieval warming period" to append the qualifier " Europe", and changing your last bullet so that it does not imply that the only evidence for AGW is direct 20th century measurements (other evidence being, e.g., basic physics of CO2, climate models, etc.). Hopefully I have interpreted WMC correctly. --Nethgirb 11:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai laid out the points better than anyone else. But there's a conflict between "there was a Medieval Warm Period" and "1999 was the hottest year in the last millenium", according to some sources. And the hockey stick graph in the IPCC report shows no Medieval Warm Period.
The main points of conflict over the hockey stick are (1) that Mann's graph shows no warming till the "sudden acceleration" of the 20th century while other sources show periodic ups and downs; (2) Kyoto supporters say present warming is much higher than anything in the proxy-reconstructed past, while other sources say this is false; (3) the politics of global warming relies heavily on the hockey stick as visual evidence supporting the Kyoto Protocol. --Uncle Ed 10:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Uncle Ed, you put that point well. How about the following:

Mike 11:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be careful there, you seem to be implying that "other sources" do not show a sudden acceleration in the latter 20th century which might be more than you intended to say. --Nethgirb 11:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point - How about: " a "sudden acceleration" in the latter 20th century while other sources show this increase alongside periodic ups and downs; "Mike 12:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Haseler, can you please stop ranting about sticking to the point, especially since I am. The graph isn't by Mann its by MBH. There is a whole spectrum of other reconstructions - see the picture - most of which look more like MBH than Moberg; so point (1) is wrong. Also all the recons are calibrated to the obs temps over the 20th C. (2) Phrasing it as "kyoto supporters" is odd. And what "other sources" are you referring to? As I've said above: if you throw away these recons you really don't have any other sources (3) I'm less interested in but would need to be justified William M. Connolley 11:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
William Are you saying it should be: "a graph by MHB ..."; I don't understand your point about the calibration - is there agreement over the historic temperatures, if so why is there a controversy? You are right on "kyoto supporters" - I did suggest changing it! Yes, it would be better to have references can you suggest a few from each side? Mike 12:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be MBH, who were the authors. There is a tendency to personalise this inappropriately. The black line is the instrumental data. All the proxies are calibrated to this (how else) so pretty well agree n the "sudden acc" phase. As to the "other sources" - Ive no idea. William M. Connolley 13:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting us started Mike.
  • Ed - the acceleration shown is not found by the proxy reconstruction of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) - called (MBH98) from here out.
    • The increase seen in from the early 20th century are shown by the Historical temperature record
    • The late 20th century instrument record shows further acceleration - that is not only that temperatures are rising, but still getting faster.
    • As Nethgirb pointed out, I think the summary of Ed's acceleration point that Mike wrote seems to imply that these things are found by MBH98, and could be invalidated by a "broken hockey stick".
  • William - Can you point me to some references for the MWP? I was not aware that the changes might be regional to Europe. Is this still a point of controversy? [Aren't they in Medieval warm period or T-rec-of-past-1000y? William M. Connolley 16:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]
  • Mike - I wouldn't agree that the politics rely heavily upon the visual impact of the hockey stick.
    • Certainly it was used as a political tool by those who urged taking action on global warming.
    • The visual impact doesn't change substantially when you fix the problem that McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) found. - called (MM05) from here out.
  • "Because past temperatures can only be estimated indirectly, there is debate over whether present warming is much higher than anything before modern methods of temperature measurements;"
    • "(delete much) higher than during the Medeival Warming Period" - more careful wording for accuracy; we think that 125,000 years ago, 4 million years ago, and 55 million years ago temperatures were hotter than now. We may cross that 125,000 years ago threshold during the 21st century.
  • William and Nethgirb's 'not just temperature measurements' point is true. I'm not sure that it contradicts with what I said in any way - that it depends upon "analysis of" 20th century instrument records.
    • Without the instrument record, we would still understand that there is a greenhouse effect, and that burning carbon-fuels generates CO2.
    • We would be able to assert that this would have some warming effect on the planet, but we would be lost to quantify it without the instrument record. This is my point really, that AGW depends heavily upon that information, but does not depend upon the proxy reconstructions of MBH98. Sound correct to everyone?
    • My point, I guess, is that if we had a flat instrument record, we would not have the assertions of AGW that we have today, because the science would not support that. Changing the historical reconstruction to show a MWP with higher temperatures than present does not have any affect on the science of AGW. It is this difference that I'm trying to highlight. I think I just repeated myself.
Pardon me for not providing a specific text proposal, I'm just not quite ready to write it. Mishlai 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy II

I've read the comments and where possible taken account of what has been said - I'm not sure but does this reflect what people are saying:

Currently in: Assertions by opponents of the global warming theory, we have

Which was:-

And from what has been said it seems it ought to be something like:

Mike 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if you look at the graph there are a couple of outliers but the rest agree more closely with MBH; so "other sources show" is misleading. "sudden acc" is not a happy phrase William M. Connolley 17:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
William I won't look at the graph because my opinion on the Hockey stick doesn't really matter. As written MBH is a source (MBH.... shows) which is being compared with "other sources", it might say "other authors", "other graphs", "other results", but "other sources" is an overall term covering them all. I'd agree that "sudden acceleration" isn't a good phrase, how about "significant rise", or "sudden rise" or "dramatic rise" or "increasing rise" (might be difficult to justify), "continuing rise", Mike 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The MBH graph included 20th century data, but it is misleading to say that MBH 'showed' anything in the 20th century, particularly in the context of this controversy, which is about the pre-1850 or so temperature reconstructions. When one says that a scientific paper "showed that", it means (in this context) that the paper broke new ground in this area and showed us something that we did not already know, or reinforced it. The reader should not conclude that what we know of the 20th century is wrong because of minor errors in the pre-instrument temperature estimates.
From the science standpoint, this particular controversy is much ado about nothing. Mishlai 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. But still it rumbles on :-(. Mike, you have to look at the graph if you're going to describe it. Where else are you getting your "other sources show..." from? Saying other sources show different is misleading; saying "apart from a couple of outliers, other sources agree with MBH" might be better William M. Connolley 19:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
William, Mishlai - howmany angels does it take to dance on a pin? A source is a source, it is an origin, it is where something comes from, it is what journalists use everyday to describe the lies told by politicians. Show isn't a scientific term, it is a term for what flashers do, for what show-girls do. A flasher isn't proving anything by "showing" his tackle - this is such an everyday word, if you are going to reject words when used in their normal English language meaning we haven't a hope of making progress. I couldn't care less what is said here - what I do find highly objectionable is this argument for the sake of argument - lets move on! Mike 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"A source is a source". Not quite. In the context of Wikipedia, "source" often is shorthand for a reliable source following Wikipedia's standards. As for "show" not being a scientific term, there are many thousands of scientific articles that do use that word. Raymond Arritt 19:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, it is time to put up or shut up. Stop saying what you don't like, and try to find consensus. Please will you read the various comments, then suggest something which will achieve better consensus if you are able. If you cannot suggest something better then what we have is the best compromise and we should simply move on Mike 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, here's my version:
Writing style needs to be cleaned up, but you get the drift I hope: no vague terms like "used by many", support using verifiable citations, WP:NPOV by balancing charges and countercharges, and so on. Raymond Arritt 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Raymond, I like what you have added but in doing so you have taken away an explaination of the controversy. It now lacks what I thought was the main points that historic temperatures are said by some to be higher and that some people have a graph where the end rise isn't so prominent.Mike 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A couple of points in response. First, I'm not aware of a published reconstruction that shows higher temperatures in the past millenium than in the 1990s. Second, I think the main GWC article would be better if we give details elsewhere -- we already have articles on both the HS and on the historical temperature record. We've been trending toward a situation where all of the details are ending up in all the articles instead of following Wikipedia's summary format. Raymond Arritt 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy Mike. I think you've gotten the idea that I'm nitpicking just to be difficult, which is not the case, or perhaps just being too critical of your hard work, which I did not intend. Writing a statement that everyone can agree on will require some careful word-smithing and a lot of revisions. We are, I assume, just writing a quick statement with a link to the main article, yes?

Mishlai 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The comment about the Hockey Stick should point out that when Mann's errors are removed, 20th century temperatures are seen to be unexceptional. That is, today's temperatures are no different than what would be expected through natural climate variation. See Figure 8 on page 15 of McKitrick's paper. [120]RonCram 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what M&M claim. Several other scientists have disagreed in peer-reviewed papers. The IPCC also disagrees. We can document M&M's claim, but we cannot claim it it absolutely. --Stephan Schulz 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Further, the NAS review, while critical of MBH98's statistical methods, does not agree with MM05's assessment of how this affects the results. Your figure is on page 14, not 15. Mishlai 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - sorry if I was grumpy at the lack of progress! I've tried to take Raymonds, article and add in the point by RonCram and try to explain (as I understand it) that there are two graphs for historical temperature which differ by the amount of "swing" in the historic period (is this right?):

I presume the intention is that this doesn't go back in the section "assertions by opponents" as a bullet point but gets placed as a new section in section 4 "temperature measurements/Hockey stick controversy". Mike 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And if so, does it have a "main:Hockey stick... link at the beginning of the section? Mike 23:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. Mishlai 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Not acceptable as written: McK is not peer reviewed, and in direct contradiction to what his senior partner McI says. So McK is acceptable as a skeptic viewpoint but not as a general summary of opinion. Also (to say this yet again) Alternative graphs show more historical ups and downs which lessen the visual impact of the rise is either wrong or misleading depending on how you mean it: the reality is a variety of reconstructions; more of which agree with MBH than not. How about just the first 2 sentences, and leave the rest to the HSC page. BTW, I strongly recommend this charming edit comment :-) William M. Connolley 23:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I wrote this before some of these posts, but there was an edit conflict. Pardon anything I haven't addressed.

Mishlai 23:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a very difficult subject to cover in a limited space. I think it is important to note that MBH tried to overturn a majority held view (one cynic said Mann tried to photoshop the paleoclimate record, funny stuff) and the attempt has been very controversial. Another key point is that Wegman was able to replicate M+M's claim they could produce a Hockey Stick from red noise using MBH's shoddy methods (okay, "shoddy" is my term - but it fits. Perhaps "intentionally dishonest" would be more accurate). RonCram 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ron, if you check the GRL paper[122] (which is the only one that really counts), you can see that the two diagrams in Fig. 1 are actually drawn to very different scales. If there is a systematic error there, it is an order of magnitude smaller than the signal (which e.g. Wahl and Amman have been able to reconstruct with various other algorithms). --Stephan Schulz 00:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
William, I've not yet had time to fully review Wegmman and MM. Where do M & M disagree with each other? Mishlai 00:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
William, I agree that we should not present McK as a summary of opinion, but it my view there is no final summary of opinion on this controversy. We can report the conclusion of Wegman and the NAS but there is no final opinion. It is also my view we have to present McK's view because he is central to the debate. BTW, I agree with you regarding the edit comment you linked to above. Made me laugh. RonCram 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

McK is *not* central to the debate: he is quite unimportant; if anyone matters its McI: just look at who runs CA; or even read the McK document I joined the project in the late summer of 2003 and we published a paper9 in October 2003... and of course fig 3 in that is not from '95 but from '90... By contrast McI insists that none of the reconstructions can be considered reliable, on the grounds (I think) that he doesn't believe the proxies. This has the important consequence that McI *doesn't* assert that the MWP is warmer than now: McI's party line (as I understand it) is simply that we don't know. McK seems to have broken that line (possibly because he couldn't resist it, possibly because he is clueless, who knows) and actually asserted that he believes his own "corrected" reconstruction (or has he? The source used by our resident skeptics is but I can't find a killer quote in there, only implications). See section "Are you saying the 15th century was warmer than the present?" wot says No, we are saying that the hockey stick graph used by IPCC provides no statistically significant information about how the current climate compares to that of the 15th century (and earlier) to forestall the inevitable, I'll point out that they continue with And notwithstanding that, to the extent readers consider the results informative, if a correct PC method and the unedited version of the Gaspé series are used, the graph used by the IPCC to measure the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere shows values in the 15th century exceed those at the end of the 20th century. which amounts to having their cake and eating it; but the initial "No", I think, must stand. You might wonder who "we" is in that context. The page header says "CA by McI"; is this the royal we? Who knows? I've mailed McI to see if he cares to clarify this point William M. Connolley 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course McK is central to the debate. He is one of the authors of the papers that broke the Hockey Stick. You are very close to correct on the issue otherwise. Neither McK nor McI have done their own reconstructions from scratch because (I think) they are not in a position to feel confident the available proxies are reliable (close to the same thing as not believing them). The reconstruction McK published was simply the Mann reconstruction with the obvious errors removed. Using Mann's proxies (the ones that survived a minimum amount of scrutiny), when the methods and data are corrected - the MWP shows to be warmer than the 20th century. All that McK will say is that if you trust Mann's proxies, then Mann's data shows the 20th century to unexceptional. McI did not put his name on the document with the reconstruction (even though I believe he worked on it) but McI does feature a link to the document and speaks highly of the piece overall. There has been no break between McK or McI on the issue as far as I know. RonCram 06:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so we don't lose the diplomatic progress here... are we back to this?

Mishlai 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done Mishlai, the only problem with the paragraph as written is that it doesn't tell a normal person anything about what the controversy is. It tells me that it is disputed (but I would know that because it is in the article) - it tells me it is about temperature (but I can guess that from the title global warming), I don't want to discourage you, but unless people start thinking about what a reader needs to read to understand the dispute and stop bickering about the dispute itself it is impossible to make progress. The amount of effort that has been needed to resolve a single sentence is out of all proportion to the problem. If people have been behaving like this in the past I am not at all surprised that there is a great deal of ill fealing. It may be a fine line between being enthusiastically putting a case and simply bullying others to accept a POV but I think that line has clearly been crossed. Those on the "pro-" lobby may like to reflect that whereas I had no doubts about the scientific evidence for warming and took the suggested implication as "Likely" (until fossil fuels run out), I'm now seriously doubting whether global warming will cause any harm at all - I can't trust the pro- lobby, when I look for evidence about the implications there is none.
Have the oil companies decided that they cannot defeat global warming pundits by evidence so instead they have created "agent provacators" to be so evangelistic about global warming that it undermines the whole case by their absurd overplaying of the problem? There's no doubt the main culprits in this dispute are the "pro-" lobby, I do believe most are acting in good faith, but I'm not at all surprised that many people are so sceptical about global warming. Mike 13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Though I can't really speak for anyone else, I think I can characterize the behavior of the pro-side in the most general of terms. They have evidence on their side, so much that it is difficult to believe that people still dispute it. They find that this hard evidence is often out debated by well crafted talking points, such as this Mars nonsense, or a statistical dispute that doesn't change the end result on a graph that doesn't matter anyway, or this global cooling accusation, or whatever. All of it baseless from a science standpoint, but the casual listener hears these arguments and thinks "Yeah! That's true, there was a global cooling scare, maybe I can't believe these scientists after all." even though the comparison is between apples and volkswagons. These bits are spinning, and spinning hard. If you represent the global cooling bit, as an example, accurately - laying out the full details - then suddenly its so insignificant that you can hardly believe anyone bothered to bring it up, unless they either didn't have the facts or were only interested in winning a debate, facts be damned.
"They have evidence on their side" .... never have something more false been spoken. This article is about the controversy. If the pro lobby have better evidence for a controversy then I'll eat my hard disk. This article has nothing to do with the pros and cons of global warming, it is ONLY to do with the controversy. If you can't see that then you really shouldn't be trying to edit this document. All that is necessary to prove a controversy is that there are two notable views that differ. Show me the two views and you have as much evidence as is needed. Whether they are right or wrong isn't of concern here - it isn't evidence! - the place for such debate is on the global warming page. With respect, anyone using that argument that their "position" is right isn't fit to edit this page and should use their obvious talents where they have some understanding of the evidential base of the article! Mike 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And so you get a digging of heels, so to speak, a refusal to allow the science to be spun. A refusal to allow rhetoric to overcome facts. If you want to see an over enthusiastic case, then check out Grist, or any other pub that accepts any and all pro-GW arguments or "facts" without scrutiny. That is not what you have here. If you've read The Weather Makers, Revenge of Gaia or Hell and High Water, you'll find that there is an environmental case being made - convincingly - that is put out far more strongly than what the mainstream view is, and I'll not allow that view to be overrepresented or presented in a factual manner without good sourcing either. Does some of the pro-GW behavior go too far? Sure it does. We all have our moments of failed neutrality, I'm sure. Tony's comments over in the Martian global warming talk page drew me out last night, and I got a little snippier than I normally would. We're all people, and people can become impatient at times.
As an editor trying hard to be NPOV, and succeeding I hope - maybe you disagree - I find the POV slant on the anti-GW side to be pronounced, and on the pro-side to be occassional and slight. Nitpicky perhaps, but not eggregious. Sometimes a little wording wiggle (or a lot of it) can make the problem dissolve. Our 'show' dispute is a good example of me having no problem with your message, but with a possible unintended meaning. I think the 'respected' dispute can be solved by replacing it with 'notable', and so on. But let's get back to the article.
I agree that the summary needs to describe what the dispute is. Let's keep working it. How's this?
This is time consuming work for all of us. Thanks again, for your efforts and contributions. Mishlai 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai, it still doesn't actually say what the controversy was about. It is meaningless to anyone unless they already know! It must say "once side said .... " "the other side said ....", I understood one side to say that the historical date had more perturbations than the other as the first point and that because it was estimated the relative size of the recent rises appears to be less significant. If those editing this can't understand the simple concept that someone coming to these pages must understand the controversy then they simply don't belong on these pages and should find a subject they do understand how to edit.
Let me re-iterate the point of this article is to explain to someone who does not know what the controversy is. It is not explaining to someone to say "it may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis" .... that statement is true of virtually every scientific controversy there has ever been and so adds nothing at all to the text. Take away that and all you have is a description of a hockey stick, with absolutely no controversy It's like having an article on WWII and forgetting to mention the Americans, talking about Israel and forgetting to mention the jews, the text is so obviously biased to one side it is a complete sham! Mike 21:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Mike here that the article has to explain what the controversy is about. The article needs to state that the controversy involves the fact McIntyre and McKitrick accused the authors of the Hockey Stick (MBH) to have made errors, knowingly used faulty data and methods and hid the fact their work did not pass a crucial test. McKitrick argued that if these errors were removed from Mann's dataset, 20th century temperatures were seen to be unexceptional (no different than what would be expected from normal climate variability). On the other side, Mann admitted making mistakes and published a corrigendum but argued that the errors he made did not change the results. Certain authors friendly to Mann published supporting Mann. The debate became such an important issue the Congress decided third party scientists needed to assess the science behind the debate. The Wegman panel (a group of three statisticians) looked at the statistical arguments and sided completely with McIntyre and McKitrick and had very negative comments about the quality of work performed by MBH. The National Academy of Sciences was more polite to Mann but sided with McIntyre and McKitrick on every disputed point of science. Those are the facts. RonCram 11:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
RonCram, As a reader what I need to know in very simple terms is the basis of this controversy and what it meant. From what you are saying the basis seems to be: "if these errors were removed from Mann's dataset, 20th century temperatures were seen to be unexceptional (no different than what would be expected from normal climate variability)." Now this still doesn't say how it would remove the exceptionality of the recent rise. Was it because the historic temperatures were higher, or because the variability of the past is higher/lower and therefore the recent rise is/is not dramaticly different. Who was involved is far less important than explaining to the reader the basis of the controversy. There's no problem saying "recent scientific consensus is that (about five words) see: global warming
Or to put it another way, I as a scientist still don't really know what the controversy was about ... how on earth would a reader have a clue? Mike 14:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link with several good quotes: [123] Mike 16:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Civility check

Let's all avoid personal remarks like:

  • came to falsely insert
  • find it bizarre that you can
  • if you're so good at reading
  • know you have seen it
  • missing the point
  • not very good at reading
  • ranting
  • stick to the point
  • stop just telling us your views
  • totally biased
  • your claim is simply untrue

I would prefer that we use comments like:

  • (Blank) needs to be described in the article
  • According to (blank) ...
  • Can you tell me how the article needs improving?
  • How about the following?
  • I agree that (blank) should be replaced, could you suggest better wording?
  • I disagree with (blank).
  • I disagree with your insertion
  • I think it is better to phrase the question ...
  • I would be comfortable with an entry that ...
  • I'd like to hear why it was removed ...
  • I'd like to try to find a better way to ...
  • I'm a little unclear what you are trying to say?
  • If wording, evidence used, or other issues is a problem, let's address that problem.
  • Is this a fair summary of (blank)?
  • It shouldn't read as (blank)
  • My point was ...
  • Please suggest an alternative
  • This article should let the reader know

A hot fudge sundae to the first 3 contributors who can point out which personal remark *I* made, but who are tactful enough not to mention it on here! :-) --Uncle Ed 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Or mention it at all? Does that get me cherries as well :)? More seriously personally I am comfortable with comments about my contributions or edits and don't mind if someone accuses me of ranting, or says that any comment I make is biased, or that I have broken a policy etc. What I object to, and I think the WP:NPA actually forbids is personal comments about me (e.g. you are biased because...). Now I'd be happy if we were all as gentle as you suggest we should be but I can live with direct criticism of my actions or statements. --BozMo talk 13:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
See also WP:SPADE. Raymond Arritt 14:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would expect, of all people here, Connolley to be above all of that. None of those quotes should be from him since he is a member of the Harmonious_editing_club which has as its first 4 guidelines: "Always aim to end edit wars by helping editors reach a compromise", "Never revert more than once — always take it to the talk page", "Avoid triggering edit wars — discuss major and/or controversial changes on the talk page beforehand", "Request input from the wider community when necessary (e.g., at Peer review, Requests for comment, Requests for page protection, Village pump, etc.)". Also, I was not sure what part of WP:SPADE Arritt (since there was again only a link and no quote) was referring to so I'm guessing it is the "While we must remain civil, calling a spade a spade is part of a reliable editor's job" part. In that light, I would like to ask editors to review a semi-related page's recent edits. Before and After with the reason being, "(rv; its not great but its better than the alternative...)" and the justification on the talk pages being, " " (nothing). I'm just sayin'. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Funding accusations

According to the article only those who disagree with AGW get funding. And there also is the perception presented in an undisputed manner that "skeptics...are lobbyists more than researchers".

So, there is no money whatsoever being used to fund research for those who have a stated position or lobbying function agreeing with AGW? No person agreeing with AGW is a part of a group or organization which received money in any fashion from those also pushing the AGW viewpoint? -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tony there are probably scientists and research(?) that is/was funded by Greenpeace/Sierra Club/<insert favorite lobby org here> - you could try to find out by seeing which scientists that are usually being quoted by these - and seek for a WP:RS source to document the connection and dependency. Personally i'd find this kind of bias interesting. --Kim D. Petersen 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Tony raises one of the major problems of this article. First, the funding accusation is an ad hominem sophism which should not deserve so much importance in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not a blog or a magazine. But since it's there, at least, there should be a comparable section regarding criticisms raised regarding the issue of fundings for pro-AGW scientists, or, more importantly, the threat of lost fundings/positions for scientists opposing the AGW theory. I could find a few sources on this. --Childhood's End 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, when reading the article I assumed the "funding for political opponents" (anti) was balanced by the "pressure on scientists" (pro).I can't see any problem with adding sources for funding of pro, or pressure on anti - but these two sections are already fairly long. I can see how they are part of the controversy so clearly they need to stay, but if anything (given the tag "too much like a list" or whatever) I would be inclinded to reduce their length not add more to them. Mike 20:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see the whole funding section deleted altogether, or drastically trimmed down. I tried to delete the Exxon stuff at one point but it got put back and I didn't argue it further. My experience is that most of the skeptics are not motivated by money (there are a few who probably are, not naming names in light of WP:BLP). But unfortunately the topic is prominent enough in the public eye that it should be mentioned. Raymond Arritt 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think the funding bit should come out. I am sure industry money follows opinions but I am not sure it changes them. It is a bit gossipy to mention it. --BozMo talk 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There's obviously an agreement that the article focuses too much on the ad hominem argument regarding funding accusations. I'll try to trim it down. Comments welcome, of course. By the way, I took the liberty of changing the name of this talk subsection. --Childhood's End 14:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning funding for research where we have evidence that a particular outcome of that research was desired. Exxon is a case where this is true -- they specifically implemented a program to counter the consensus, so I think that's notable. The AEI offering $10,000 to write an essay disputing 4AR is probably another. --Nethgirb 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thomas Sowell said that AEI offered the same amount for essays on both sides, and asserted that The Guardian misconstrued their offer.
  • Some sources (I forgot which, gotta hit Google again) assert that governments give over $1 billion per year to fund pro-AGW research, but none at all for "research seeking to discover whether global warming has a natural cause".

Conseratives argue that:

  1. Money drives results of research
  2. 99.9% of the research money funds pro-AGW research
  3. Therefore, government funding causes a pro-AGW bias in global warming research.

Ironically, it is the pro-AGW side which trumpets premise #1 the loudest, but they seem to apply it only to anti-AGW research. As if money only motivates "those evil deniers, linked to capitalists" but not "those sneaky warmers, linked to socialism and global governance".

Anyway, I'm not trying to promote a view here. I'm only saying that the view that scientific support for AGW is utterly objective and thus completely reliable has its opponents. How many words should we devote to the anti-AGW view, in an article about the AGW controversy?

The main point of the pro-AGW camp is that there's a scientific consensus. If someone suggests that "the science is not settled", and that pro-AGW advocacy is influencing research or assessments, than it must be mentioned to some degree. Not given "undue weight" of course, but not dismissed out of hand, any more than Holocaust denial is. --Uncle Ed 12:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm. You (or "Conservatives", although I don't see what is conservative about ignoring reality) confuse a-priori and a-posteriori. If you hand out 10 grants to analyse the same problem, and the scientific method works and 9 of the 10 studies arrive at the same given result, there is no undue funding of one side. This is the expected outcome. If you had ever written a grant application, you would no that you do not apply for money "to prove global warming" (or, indeed, to fund "research seeking to discover whether global warming has a natural cause"), but for money to analyse a certain specific aspect, i.e. the influence of clouds on heat exchange, or the stratification of ocean temperatures, or the C12/C13 signal in atmospheric CO2. Look e.g. at the work by Solanki (frequently misquoted by the anti-side). His work is funded by the German gouvernment via the Max Planck Gesellschaft (and, in all likelyhood via extra DFG grants). He looked at the activity of the sun and found it variable, currently high, but unlikely to be the primary cause of current global warming. Is that "funding pro-AGW-research"? --Stephan Schulz 13:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Last I checked, Bush was still president. Is Ed seriously contending that the Bush administration is steering funds toward "pro-AGW research"? A problem with this approach is that the accusation can be made, but refuting it is much tougher -- it's hard to prove a negative, as Ed is doubtless aware. Raymond Arritt 14:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, just as a sidenote... As you all know, when a President is elected, he brings with him his executive team, but he does not and cannot rebuild from scratch the whole governmental apparatus. And for any politician, it's always easier to create and fund programs than to close them or shut down their funding. --Childhood's End 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit off topic here. First, I was probably wrong to suggest in my comment above that we should mention funding issues when we have evidence that a particular research outcome was desired. I should have said: that's what gives an argument merit. But, since this article is about controversy not truth, the rule for inclusion should probably be whether the argument (right or wrong) has been made by notable sources. Senator Inhofe and the Union of Concerned Scientists are probably notable, for example. I suggest we require more than one notable source in the interest of keeping only common arguments in the article. Sound good? --Nethgirb 22:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We need more discussion on this topic! Mike 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Diet

Practically every sentence of this article is contentious, which makes it hard to edit. Also, it is too long. One way to fix both problems is to have fewer sentences.

I therefore propose that we enter a phase of diet in which we have no new material added, instead focusing on removing duplicative and unnecessary material, summarizing overly wordy sections, adding citations, fixing inaccurate statements, reorganization, etc. Editors who add nontrivial amounts of material get their contributions moved to this talk page for serious discussion before any new material is accepted. Maybe when it's under 30 KB we can proceed as normal. --Nethgirb 10:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I support this although the article gets a lot of drop ins from passing editors so we may struggle to impose it. --BozMo talk 11:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts were to go through it section by section in the talk page and reach for consensus the way we're doing with the hockey stick controversy. I'm not opposed to the diet idea. Mishlai 12:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How about a comprehensize list of disputed points. After all, this is an article about the most contentious controversial issue on the planet right now.
I suggest listing the following about each point:
  1. What is disputed? Like "1999 was the hottest year in the last millenium"
  2. Who disputes it? Like, Mann says it's true, Singer says it's false
Maybe I'll start a table somewhere with 3 columns for each row: (1) disputed point; (2) supporters; (3) opponents. --Uncle Ed 13:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea! - Perhaps you could put it at the top of the page so it doesn't get lost!

But can you start it with: "What does the reader need to know to understand the controversy?"

This is not so easy to categorize. MBH say "likely". The IPCC says "likely". The NAS says "plausible". I don't know if Singer has voiced an opinion. M&M say "No" or "we don't know", depending on whom you asked where and in which context. --Stephan Schulz 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that performing what you suggest on the talk page will help us write a good article, but that putting a table in the article will be problematic. I agree with what Stephen said on this, and I think our approach to the Hockey Stick Controversy has been good. It's also been a little easier, because we get to put a lot of it off to the main article. Mishlai 13:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile the patient's diet is being started by a forced binge by User:NimNick who is a puzzling recent SPA I haven't really understood as yet. --BozMo talk 13:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai, I intend the outlines only to facilitate discussion amongst us contributors. The readers should see a finished product. --Uncle Ed 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I say that is a most civilised and positive discussion! Mike 14:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The degree of the human contribution

From a recent change:

There is little if no public debate on the existence of anthropogenic global warming among climate scientists -- almost all of the debate is occuring in the popular media and on a policy level.

The three possible positions, for those who are "sure" about what causes warming are:

  1. It's all natural
  2. It's a combination of natural and anthropogenic
  3. It's all anthropogenic

As far as I know, there has yet to be a single scientist outside of position #2. I can't even think of a pundit who's claimed #1.

The question is not "Is any of the warming human-caused?" but rather "How much of the warming is human-caused?" --Uncle Ed 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Ed - I think the controversy can be split into twoseven parts.

  1. Mainly historical: is whether the evidence shows there is warming. If we don't record the controversy now when we still know what it is, in a few years everyone will have forgotten!
  2. The cause - which I'm fairly sure will show it was due mainly to burning fossil fuels, but again the two sides need to be recorded accurately and not biased as if everyone believed in one side.
  3. Next is controversy is what is the implications of warming (is melting ice in Greenland good - because it improves grazing for the inuit or bad because there's less ice?).
  4. What is the size of the warming anticipated warming (not just its existence)
  5. What is the necessary change to human behaviour necessary to reduce warming.
  6. Is this carbon reduction change politically possible (From direct experience I am quite certain it is not!)
  7. What will be the final outcome of global warming, will it be
    1. Everyone living happily with each other having agreed to reduce CO2 emissions - (do pigs fly?)
    2. Runnaway global warming (there seem to be a number of these scenarios for our doomsday)
    3. That at the end of the day global warming reduction is a "nice to have" which no one really takes seriously and in anycase global warming isn't that bad, so we will continue using fossil fuels until all fossil fuel runs out - then we would all go to war to punish each other for burning all the fuel - except we'd have no fuel to fill our tanks, planes, Humpties - so instead we'll all sit on Wikipedia blaming each other for not cutting fuel consumption a bit earlier (I'm biased on this point!) Mike 15:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Local and regional effects. (e.g. is called the Artic conveyer - wrongly known as gulf stream.Mike 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Several of these are more in the nature of recognized uncertainties ("known unknowns", per Donald Rumsfeld) rather than controversies. Raymond Arritt 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For a climate scientist that may be a valid point. But from the point of view of anyone trying to determine policy it's a controversy. A policy maker must decide the relative importance of global warming, the fact it exists isn't very helpful because it isn't actionable. A statement of the form "unless we reduce fossil fuel consumption by 50% within 50 years the world will end up like Venus" ... is clearly something that politicians can act on! But this clearly is a controversial statement. Some maintain that we can live with global warming, others that any warming is too much and should be stopped (which is obviously unsustainable - since we have warmed without major problems). Mike 12:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Complaints of media bias

Some scientists have complained of media bias. Here's an article mentioning Roger Pielke:

  • Pielke said Friday that the models used in the latest IPCC report have no “predictive skill” when it comes to regional climate projections. “To rely on the numbers they predict on a regional scale I think is overstating the capabilities of these models,” said Pielke, now a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado. “I don’t think it’s supported by scientific literature.” But the report’s authors - some 600 of them from 40 countries - disagree with Pielke.

Here's Pielke's response:

  • On my quote (which should be “there is no peer reviewed support in the scientific literature for the claim of skillful regional multi-decadal regional forecasts”, Jim Erickson did not follow up on this conclusion with other climate scientists that I recommended to him. Rather he chose to present me as an outlier from the mainstream of climate science on this issue. This is journalism with a politically biased slant. [124]

I've read a lot of these in recent years. How shall we mention this in the current article? --Uncle Ed 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The instrumental temperature record

Did we say "no scientists" dispute the temperature record, or "hardly any"? Here's Pielke again:

  • Pielke, 59, says his doubts about the climate record began during his stint as Colorado's climatologist when he realized how inaccurate the state's thermometer network was. Placing a thermometer close to a building or near an air-conditioner vent can compromise readings, Pielke said. When the winds blow from Denver, a Front Range thermometer is influenced by urban effects, Pielke said, and by agricultural activities when it blows from the north. Multiply that by tens of thousands of thermometers around the world and the temperature record is suspect, he contends. (Denver Post), 12-26-06

I'm not saying we should change the Global warming article to reflect the views of the minority. That would be POV-pushing.

I'm just saying that the Global warming controversy article should list any scientists who have expressed doubts about the "consensus view" that most global modern warming is anthropogenic. And Pielke is one of at least a handful who have linked "observed warming" (via land-based thermometers) with the Urban heat island effect. --Uncle Ed 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty locating a quote Ed, because Pielke confines most of his discussions to politics and policy. Having read a fair bit of his blog over the last several weeks, I'm pretty confident that Pielke is not a skeptic on the basics of climate change science. He's expressed a good deal of praise for the IPCC SPM, actually. I know you're going to want something more solid than my impression, and I'm looking, but I just wanted to jump in and express my concern that Pielke's views have been seriously misrepresented by that article. Mishlai 22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
From his recent testimony to congress:[125] "Human caused climate change is real..."
"Nothing in this testimony should be interpreted as contradicting the assessment of climate change science provided by Working Group I of the Inergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes inclimate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions."
He goes on to to discuss difficulties, policy, etc. That article is doing some serious cherry-picking. Mishlai 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That article is doing some serious quote cherry-picking. Mishlai 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You have the wrong Pielke :-). You want Sr, not Jr. Or rather Ed does William M. Connolley 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai, you are confusing the two Pielkes. Roger Sr. is a retired professor of climatology and former state climatologist. Roger Jr. is interested in science as it relates policy (or vice versa). I think both Jr and Sr are convinced that mankind is having an affect on climate. My understanding is that Roger Sr thinks changes in land use (an anthropogenic climate forcing, aka Urban Heat Island effect) plays a bigger role than the IPCC thinks it does. Roger Sr also thinks some temperature readings have been compromised by having a parking lot built next to a weather station and that kind of thing (think of it as instrument error). RonCram 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for the clarification. Mishlai 23:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess "Pielke, 59" should have been a clue Mishlai 23:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

More evidence the Warmers are fudging the temperature record

Regular visitors to this Talk page know I have expressed concern about the fact the pro-AGWers (the "Warmers") do not practice good science. Scientists are supposed to archive their data and methods and make it easy for other scientists to review their work. The Warmers do not do this. It seems as though every time someone does some kind of a review or audit, the Warmers get caught with their hands in the cookie jar fudging data and purposely biasing their methods. McIntyre and McKitrick caught Mann et al and broke their Hockey Stick. Now it seems Jean S and McIntyre have caught Hansen. Take a look at this. [126] —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonCram (talkcontribs)

Thanks for giving us your opinion, but what we need on this page are suggestions about how to improve the article. Can you think of a way to describe the idea you just outlined in a neutral and properly sourced manner?
Hint: perhaps you recall a partisan, advocate or other source who asserts' that M&M "broke" the hockey stick. --Uncle Ed 00:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
also worth a look - [127] sbandrews 13:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
SBandrews - is that a proposal to add a section, to change text or what? If it is, may I suggest you ensure you have most sides of the controversy before proposing a section! Mike 14:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
no, I don't want to change anything - the page I pointed out above goes over the theory surrounding the hockey stick being broken, and finds that it is not broken. I put it here because I was interested to see what response it would get, it's an interesting debate, regards sbandrews 15:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai, thanks for signing for me. I hate it when I forget. Ed, take a look at this one pager by Dr. Gerrit van der Lingen. [128] RonCram 04:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have posted on this issue before, but I thought it would make sense to bring several of these issues about fudging data and changing the temperature record together in one place. This is only a sampling but it does show why the skeptics are so concerned with the bad science being done by the Warmers:

  • Phil Jones of Climatic Research Unit (the group that provides the data set for the UN) published an article in 1990 attempting to show that UHI did not have a big effect on temperatures. If he holds to this view, then he would not need to adjust older temps upward to make them comparable to newer temperature records. Of course, Phil Jones will not provide his data and methods so that his work can be audited. This is pseudo-science, not science. [129]
  • Based on earlier datasets, Hansen argued that increased CO2 did not correlate well with temperature changes (CO2 began to increase markedly after WW2 and temps began to cool in 1945). After making changes to the dataset (and more years of temperature records), Hansen claims the correlation is good.[130]
  • Comparing changes in the data set by Phil Jones to changes in the data set by Jim Hansen, McIntyre concludes that Hansen is changing things more. [131]
  • Adjusting for uncertainties in the instrument record, you would think the major adjustments would be for UHI and for a bias showing too much warmth due to changes near the weather stations. Some might adjust newer temps down OR older temps up (my preference). Somehow NOAA's National Climatic Data Center has adjusted older temps down AND newer temps up. [132]RonCram 12:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, RC has discovered CA, and will now spam us with endless junk. RC, try to think about how you might want to improve the article: this isn't a newsgroup William M. Connolley 13:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well said William (about trying to improve the article). If I may suggest, RonCram could you turn your contribution into a proposal for change with a clear explanation of how it would help a normal reader to understand the two sides of the issue. Mike 14:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I am trying to convince everyone that the fact Mann, Hansen and Jones have been caught fudging the data is a large part of the controversy. So far, everyone seems to try to ignore this part of the debate. It cannot be ignored. These guys are refusing to provide access to their data and methods because they have been doing unjustified adjustments in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion. In some cases, they want to "get rid of the WMP" and in others they want to prove the 90s were hotter than the 30s. Personally, I am not convinced the 90s were hotter than the dust bowl years of the 30s. My suggestion to improve the article is to have a section on charges by skeptics that the Warmers have fudged the data. All four of the examples I cite should be in the article, although the wording should probably be improved.RonCram 17:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well then, do it -- instead of treating the Talk page as a discussion board for your personal views. Raymond Arritt 17:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Geez, I don't get you guys. If I make changes without discussing them first on the Talk pages, you get all upset. If I discuss it on the Talk page before making the changes, you say "Try to think about how you might want to improve the article" (as if I wasn't discussing that already) or "Well then, do it -- instead of treating the Talk page as a discussion board." Is this your way of typing something on the Talk page but studiously avoiding any of the issues? RonCram 17:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Good call Roncram. However the hockey stick controversy already has it's own page, and nothing you've said here adds to that IMO. Your point about researchers releasing data could make a good section though, unless someone can point out where it has been covered already, regards sbandrews 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
All of your points are from blog postings, and all from the same blog. They represent the views of one person - McI. None have been published. They idea that the instrumental records get updated occaisionally is just obvious: for some reason McI is trying to make it sinister. None of your text above is suitable for inclusion as is: why not try to write it in a way that would be suitable? I'm no convinced any of this is notable: you need to find people who refer to it, hopefully someone outside the charmed circle of usual skeptics William M. Connolley 18:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Sbandrews, I realize information on Mann (see below) will fit well on Hockey stick controversy but the Hansen and Jones stuff has nothing whatever to do with the Hockey Stick. And all of it belongs on this page because this page is supposed to be about ALL of the controversy. William, of course it is all notable. There is a pattern of behavior among these scientists. Your advice to "find people who refer to it, hopefully someone outside the charmed circle of usual skeptics" seems a little off point. The Warmers have this mindset that they are saving the planet and so any amount of disingenuousness is fully justified. The only Warmer I know of who has been willing to point out how some of these have fudged data is Von Storch. If you know of others, please let me know.RonCram 18:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Simply asserting notability won't do; simply asserting pattern-of-behaviour ditto. And... you get things wrong so often. You've got McI wrong (again) below: he is cleverer than you give him credit for William M. Connolley 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that simple assertion is not enough to meet Wikipedia policy, but the assertions are still true. And as I have explained below, I understand McI correctly. It is you who misunderstand. RonCram 02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you realize that even among the dissenting scientists there is widespread acceptance of the planet's present warming?

McIntyre agrees with McKitrick about corrected Mann reconstruction

McIntyre wrote a paper, “More on Hockey Sticks: the Case of Jones et al [1998]” for presentation at the U.S. Climate Change Workshop in November 2005. [133] In this paper McIntyre argues that when Mann’s errors are removed, 20th century temps are seen to be unexceptional. McIntyre did not sign the paper written by McKitrick claiming the corrected Mann reconstruction showed 20th century temps were unexceptional. William Connelly (on this page and other Wikipedia Talk pages) has claimed this showed there was some disagreement between McIntyre and McKitrick. Not true. McIntyre also shows unjustified data modification in Briffa’s work and the unreliability of the Polar Urals. RonCram 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you have mischaracterised the paper. What McI says is: The Bottom Line: Jones et al. [1998] cannot robustly assert that the mid-20th century is warmer than the MWP which is different. To spell this out: McI is *not* saying the MWP is warmer than present: he is saying a semi-opposite: that the conclusion that the present is warmer is not robust. I hope you can understand this distinction. McI is, of course, very skeptical about the MBH etc reconstructions: but he doesn't propose his own William M. Connolley 18:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you didn't read the whole paper. On page 7, McIntyre describes the corrections he made and the results: "Simply by removing the 3 invalid cores and backing out the unwarranted modification to the Tornetrask MXD adjustment, the Jones 1998 conclusion of late 20th century climatic uniqueness is overturned. In other words, the conclusions depend on placing three undatable cores out of sequence into the 11th century and arbitrarily repositioning the 20th century Tornetrask MXD series." [134] McIntyre agrees with McKitrick about the corrected Mann reconstruction.RonCram 18:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I didn't read the whole thing, but as it happens I read that bit. So what? You've just restated what I said. McI doesn't believe in the reconstruction: but he doesn't have his own. Find me McI stating clearly that the MWP *was* warmer then now William M. Connolley 19:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
William, I never claimed McI said the WMP was warmer than now. I do not believe McK ever said that either. McK said that when Mann's reconstruction was corrected it showed that 20th century temps were unexceptional. McI says much the same thing about Jones reconstruction, that when it is corrected "the Jones 1998 conclusion of late 20th century climatic uniqueness is overturned." Just look at the figure above the quote and you can see that temps in the WMP are about the same as the 20th century.RonCram 19:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No: McI doesn't say "corrects" because that would imply that the new version is correct. The figure is merely what you get if you make McI's changes: he doesn't call it a true reconstruction William M. Connolley 19:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
William, have you ever heard the statement "There are none so blind as those who will not see?" Your refusal to acknowledge the obvious can only be seen as intentional. McI names two errors - (1) the three invalid cores and (2) the unwarranted modification to the Tornetrask MXD adjustment. When these two errors are removed, what do you call the new version of the reconstruction? I call it a corrected version. McI published the corrected graph and claimed the new graph showed "the Jones 1998 conclusion of late 20th century climatic uniqueness is overturned." RonCram 23:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
But from McI's point of view, a "corrected" reconstruction based upon flawed proxies is still not correct. McI is not supposing that by correcting the graph that he now has a good view of the present as compared to the past. From his standpoint, we just don't know with any accuracy. From our standpoint, when temperatures are expected to rise at 0.2C/decade for the next couple decades, and to continue to rise beyond that, the question of whether present temperatures are already exceptional or just going to be exceptional soon is academic. Mishlai 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai, you are correct to a point. Neither McK nor McI have claimed that all the proxies that survived their analysis are reliable. Rather they are saying that if you, as the reader, put value on the work of Mann and Jones - then the surviving proxies show that current temperatures are not out of line with natural climate variation and 20th century temps are unexceptional. That is the key point, even if you accept the proxies of Mann and Jones, their claims fail. There is a secondary point I wish to make: If you, as the reader, are willing to accept the claims of Mann and Jones that current temps are exceptional prior to learning about their errors - but then want to continue to accept their conclusions, even though they are unfounded, what does that say about your ability to be objective in analyzing the data? Regarding your point that temps are expected to rise 0.2C/decade, do you not realize that nearly a decade has passed with no increase in temps? 1998 is still the warmest year on record and 2008 is right around the corner. RonCram 17:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1998 was an outlier - an abnormally hot El Nino year. Take a looksie at the 5 year average on this graph See how the multi-year average continues to rise? 1998 was just a warm spike on the graph. Now count up from that 5-year average to where we'll be in 20 years - about 0.4C higher - let's see that would be... oh, the chart doesn't go that high. Somebody get me a bigger chart. 1998 doesn't look so impressive now, does it?
2007 - is projected to be another strong El Nino year and to break the 1998 record. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. If it does, 2008, 2009, and so on are likely to be cooler. This will not mean that the planet stopped warming in '07.
The larger point is that whether it's broken this year or not, the 1998 record will not stand indefinitely because temperature is still marching onwards and upwards. The 2007 record, if made, will not stand either. Ditto for MWP: even if you assume that we have not already exceeded that level, it is clear that we will. As I said, 0.2C per decade puts us over the top of that chart in 20 years, and while there is significant uncertainty in the 100 year projections, confidence in these short term predictions is higher.
As far as my ability to be objective, don't think I haven't considered these things. McI & McK's findings have been criticized by multiple peer-reviewed papers since then, and the NAS found that MBH98's results were not significantly altered by fixing the statistical errors. The other papers agreed. Wegman didn't address that question. I'm not going to discount global scientific opinion based on a single, demonstrably flawed and irrelevant criticism. That wouldn't be objective. Mishlai 18:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mishlai, you say:"... the NAS found that MBH98's results were not significantly altered by fixing the statistical errors." This is misleading. The NAS found that Mann's conclusions were unfounded. The most that could be said was that current temps are higher than at any time in 400 years (or was it 600 years?) Prior to that, the uncertainties were too high to make any claims at all. By the way, more information is coming out about how the temperature record has been modified and adjusted by Mann and Jones. It seems apparent now that temperatures were warmer in the 30s than in the 90s. And that certainly makes sense because the dust bowl years of the 30s were very hot. Regarding your faith in the upward march of temperatures, have you ever considered the possibility of a change in climate regime? From 1945 to 1975, we had a sustained period of cooling. From 1976 to 1998, a sustained period of warming. From 1976 on up, rising temperatures correlated well with rising CO2. However, rising CO2 did not correlate well with falling temperatures from 1945 to 1975. Have you ever wondered why that is? Is it possible it could happen again? RonCram 13:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's from aerosols, RonCram, and if you read from all sides as fervently and you read ClimateAudit, you wouldn't have to ask me that. Mishlai 13:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai, please provide me with a source that says aerosols dropped suddenly in 1975. RonCram 13:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
They didn't. Why should they? See the graph at Attribution of recent climate change William M. Connolley 13:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
William, a pretty dramatic climate regime shift happened round about 1975/76. I asked Mishlai if he wondered why rising CO2 correlated well with rising temps from 1976 to 1998 but rising CO2 did not correlate well with the cooling period from 1945 to 1975. Mishlai indicated the cooling trend was from aerosols. If that is so, then the aerosols had to drop off pretty suddenly around 1975. I do not know of any evidence for that position and am glad to see you agree.RonCram 17:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It would help if you look at the graph. Warming/cooling goes with the balance of radiative forcing. Sulphates ended up overwhelmed by GHGs. As the pic shows. Go have a look and a think William M. Connolley 18:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In case you're wondering, I agree with Connolley. Aerosols do not have to drop dramatically at 1975, they just have to become less significant as compared to other forces. Mishlai 18:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

William and Mishlai, the statement "Warming/cooling goes with the balance of radiative forcing" is overly simplistic. You are leaving out the most important aspect of all, natural climate variability - including ocean-atmosphere interactions. I asked Mishlai for a source that would credit a sharp reduction of aerosols in 1975/76 for a reason. Not only because I do not think the evidence supports such a claim but also because I can cite a peer-reviewed article that credits natural climate variability for the regime shift in 1975. Bratcher and Giese note the regime shift in 1945 and the shift in 1975/76 and predict a return to pre-1976 conditions by around 2006. [135] I point this out because a belief we will see uninterrupted rising temperatures from now until 2100 is ridiculous in the extreme. The planet will continue to have regime shifts every thirty years or so. This is a fact the IPCC (and true believers in the IPCC) has failed to grasp.RonCram 18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ron, you asked why the change in ~1975. You have your opinion; you've been given the "official" explanation. If your point is "std theory can't explain it without regime shifts" you're wrong. If you (personally) don't believe that temperatures are going to rise, indeed that they will cool, then there are people out there ready to take your money for a bet. If there is some other point to this, I've missed it William M. Connolley 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not "my" opinion, it is in the literature. Your assertion that I am wrong doesn't prove anything. Anyone can make assertions. I've already told you I would be willing to bet Phil Jones, as long as he is willing to release all his data and methods. :) Did you happen to mention it to him? RonCram 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and Unencyclopedic Lists tags?

Can we remove these tags? The article doesn't appear to me to be anything but as neutral as anything about a controversy, and well listed. What are the issues? If there are problems, I can try to clean up what is perceived as such; but I don't really see what the issues are. Sln3412 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not responsible for the tags but I do think the list of supporters and opponents is against Wikipedia policy and should be removed or modified. Go to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and click "Wikipedia is not a directory" in the Table of Contents. I think the editors are working through the neutrality issues and trying to make the article better. RonCram 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, those lists were removed a while back -- it's pretty much just another "see also" section now, and in fact maybe it should be moved so that it's a subsection of "see also" --Nethgirb 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I was responsible for the original list cleanup template. Its current version looks fine. However, the "Miscellaneous" section could probably use a cleanup. ~ UBeR 04:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I've done some slicing and dicing of that part. A title of "Miscellaneous" is not very informative, so I retitled it "Assertions by supporters and opponents" and moved the bits not related to the pro/con statements to a more appropriate section. I've also added some references, tried to reduce usage of the word "theory", and so on. Raymond Arritt 05:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I had seen those earlier, I think it's much better and more concise. Sln3412 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Climate scientist" definiton / weasel words

In order to avoid weasel wording, do we know what we mean by "climate scientist" and do we use it with consistency? I've noticed 5 occurences of that phrase in the article, yet it shocks me every time how uncertain I am of what it should tell me. "Climate scientist" would suggest to me "someone who specializes in climatology", but climatology cannot be wholly possessed by a single person can it?

So, is a "climate scientist" someone involved in developing the climate models? That would mean that instead of a climate scientist, we would be talking about either a mathematician, a modeler, a statistician or a computer scientist of some sort. Or are we talking about a geologist? Astrophysician? Meteorologist? We should then use the proper qualifier. Or are we pretending that a "climate scientist" is someone who specializes in all climatology-relevant fields if even such a person exists? The phrase "climate scientist" certainly makes it sound like that, and that seems at worst false, at best weasel wording. --Childhood's End 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why I prefer something like "scientist in the field of climatology" or some such in the generic, and "geologist" or "cloud cover research scientist" or something in the more specific. Then the question also becomes, if a chemist is doing climate research, are they a chemist or a climate scientist? As to specific people, what do they do/publish etc? As to everyone involved, as a group, can they be called climatolgists if their work is related at all to climate? I have no idea how to solve this one.... Sln3412 00:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that a "scientist in the field of climatology" is a "climatologist". So if we use "climate scientist" in reference to someone who is a "climatologist", we should be consistent and always use "climatologist". But the actual use of "climate scientist" seems to be broader, although unclear, and seems to include more scientists than only "climatologists". If a chemist does "climate research" (define "climate research"?), he remains a chemist (his research will likely be focused on chemical aspects anyway). I'll see how this discussion goes, but as of now it seems that this page should be tagged as weasel-worded unless proper qualifiers are used for scientists to who reference is made. --Childhood's End 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Climate scientist has different connotations to climatologist. A climate modeller is probably not a climatologist. Climate scientist is fine; note that 2/5 of the uses of CS in this article are direct quotes William M. Connolley 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A search for the term "climate science" on Google Scholar returns over 5000 hits, so the term is sufficiently well defined to be used in the scientific literature. This contrasts with, say, the term "solar system warming", which returns zero (0) hits. Raymond Arritt 15:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I'm not sure of how relevant is the "solar system warming" discussion here. Nor am I of how relevant are the 5000 Google hits. Google hits are not necessarily encyclopedic entries held to rules about weasel wording. Did you check if these 5000 hits used "climate scientist" with consistency and with a clear meaning?
As for WMC's remark, I agree that we cannot change the quotes. That leaves 3 occurences. Can we change them so that we can use the right qualifiers? By the way, you seem to contradict yourself... At best, what you may mean by "Climate scientist has different connotations to climatologist. A climate modeller is probably not a climatologist. Climate scientist is fine" is as unclear as is "climate scientist" and seems to make this issue even more legitimate. If you know what is a "climate scientist", please help us expand our knowledge. Would it be alright to change the occurences for "climatologist"? --Childhood's End 16:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
As I've already said, A CM is probably not a climatologist, so the obvious answer is No William M. Connolley 16:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem to avoid the main question : how do you define "climate scientist" ? --Childhood's End 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The shoe box I use is Atmospheric Scientist is either a Meteorologist (short term) or a Climatologist (long term). I would accept anyone with a peer reviewed publication on Climate (longer term weather studies, e.g. successive seasons as opposed to the weather) as a Climatologist, however this is a very low bar (on this basis I would probably qualify as at least four specialties I don't have). If you set the bar any higher you would exclude newly qualified specialists who should be given the title but obviously aren't notable. --BozMo talk 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Not just connotations with Scientology putting you all off the term? --BozMo talk 19:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you missed the point, which is about "climate scientist". WMC up here at least tells us that a "climate scientist" is not the same thing than a "climatologist". Having a peer-reviewed publication that touches climate does not mean that you are a "climate scientist" if we define "climate scientist" as someone who is knowledgeable in all climate-related fields of research. And a chemist may publish a paper regarding climate issues, if his paper is focused on chemistry (what it would likely be), he remains a chemist and not a "climate scientist". It seems more and more to me that "climate scientist" is a weasel sentence that is misleading regarding qualifications. --Childhood's End 19:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a weasel-worded tag to the article while this discussion was clarified, which I hoped it would be. Vsmith has removed the tag on the grounds that a climate scientist is a scientist who studies some aspect of climate, nothing weasely about it.

I must disagree and hope to get further thoughts about this. According to Vsmith's definition of "climate scientist", anybody can be a climate scientist and so I am. Where I live, I've noticed that since 20 years, winters really start later than they used to (January instead of November or December), and they also end later (April or even May instead of March). This is only a part of my "study of some aspect of climate".

According to WP's article on weasel words, "Generally, weasel terms are statements that are misleading because they lack the normal substantiations of their truthfulness, as well as the background information against which these statements are made. Weasel terms are the equivalent of spin in the political sphere in British English."

Wikipedia has a policy on weasel words. Its introductory statement says that "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources, lending them the force of authority without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable."

It seems to me that "climate scientist" is dangerously used to grant authority to any scientist supporting the IPCC to speak about any topic that can be related to climate. Yet, we know that a modeller has no more authority than anyone else regarding astrophysics, and that a chemist has little authority regarding geology, and so forth.

Even if the climate community has developped the practice of using "climate scientist" when it refers to anyone who participated or scientifically supports the IPCC, an encyclopedia cannot endorse a catchphrase if it misleads readers with regard to the authority of the scientists or if its main effect is political spin. A chemist is a chemist is a chemist.

Unless "climate scientist" is proplerly defined and that we can agree that this definition matches with the usage that is made of that catchphrase, this article can obviously seem to be weasel-worded to 99% of readers.

I'll put the tag again. It can easily be removed only by either:
i- providing a definition of "climate scientist" that most people can agree with
ii- changing the occurences of "climate scientist" (save the quotes) for the proper qualifiers (chemist, geologist, modeller, etc.)
--Childhood's End 14:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vsmith - this is tendentious. CS does not apply to IPCC - Lindzen is a CS. Even if the climate community has developped the practice of using "climate scientist" when it refers to anyone who participated or scientifically supports the IPCC - it hasn't. Your statement is nonsense. if we define "climate scientist" as someone who is knowledgeable in all climate-related fields of research - of course we don't. No-one fits that defn. CS is a readily understood (by everyone except you, it seems) generic term; and in 2/5 of the cases on this page its used by the press, sugesting general use William M. Connolley 15:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You still support my point rather than proving it wrong, which is that "climate scientist" cannot be properly defined and is mostly spin or false authority. Why is Lindzen a "climate scientist" ? Because he is a climatologist? Could we change the occurences for "climatologist"? --Childhood's End 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
L is a climate scientist because... he is a scientist who studies climate. There, that was easy. But not all climate scientists are climatologists (as I said above). James Annan is probably not a climatologist. So obviously, no, we can't replace CS by C. You seem to misunderstand the use of CS. If CS were restricted to IPCC folk, then There is little debate on the existence of anthropogenic global warming among climate scientists would make no sense. L is part of the "little" William M. Connolley 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
So, we must determine case by case if a person is a "climate scientist" or not? And who is to make this determination? Yourself? You have yet to provide a definition that we can all work with. --Childhood's End 15:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear. "A scientist who studies climate" sounds like an acceptable definition to me. Mishlai 15:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
So, only to confirm that I get it right, because an ecologist studies climate within a specific ecosystem, he is a "climate scientist", right? --Childhood's End 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Normally, an ecologist would only be intererested in a description of the climate, not the underlying processes. He does not study "climate", but "a climate". I don't become a literary critic if I rant about the latest David Weber novel. --Stephan Schulz 18:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok so an ecologist is not a climate scientist because he does not study "all the climate". So, name a kind of scientist who is able to study "all" the climate, and this will settle this whole issue. --Childhood's End 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Mu. --Stephan Schulz 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for coming to reason. --Childhood's End 18:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Mu. --Stephan Schulz 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Now is that "Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions" or "none" or "without" or "unask the question" or "no thing"? Incidently, I wonder if anyone here has stopped beating their wife.Sln3412 00:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The first, with "Your question cannot be answered..." extended to "Your comment warants no reply...". --Stephan Schulz 00:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some ecologists would be climate scientists. Some wouldn't. I see no need for a precise definition of CS. William M. Connolley 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no need for a precise definition of CS. This confirms that you agree that "climate scientist" is weasel-wording. --Childhood's End 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No, your reply confirms that you have once again failed to understand the obvious William M. Connolley 18:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The only thing that's obvious is that you do not know what "climate scientist" means, and that you indenfify a person as a "climate scientist" case by case, according to your own personal views. --Childhood's End 18:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"I see no need for a precise definition of CS" — Because it can be misleading, as has already been pointed out, and can contribute to POV-pushing. ~ UBeR 20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A climate scientist is a scientist who studies some aspect of climate. What is so difficlt about that statement? That climate scientist could be a meteorologist, a climatologist, a climate modeler, a geoscientist who focuses on the atmosphere/earth interaction, a chemist who studies the chemistry of the atmosphere, a physist who studies the physics of the atmospheric gases and radiations ... Now, If anyone discussed as a climate scientist can be further ident ified into one of the sub-disciplines or supporting disciplins all the better. However, the term climate scientist is non-controversial and well understood by anyone in the field of climate study. I'll agree that someone else may not understand the broad meaning of the term (maybe a lawyer - who just wnats to be picky), but the concept is really quite simple. An Earth scientist is quite obvioulsy a scientist working in one of the subfields - or a chemist or physisist working to solve some problem in an Earth science field. It is a broad, inclusive term - as is climate scientist. Nothing misleading here at all - nor to pov-pushing. Now please cease the tenditious lawerly quibbling. Vsmith 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion? I asked the following just a few lines above : So, only to confirm that I get it right, because an ecologist studies climate within a specific ecosystem, he is a "climate scientist", right? William Connolley replied this : Some ecologists would be climate scientists. Some wouldn't. I see no need for a precise definition of CS..
If you have a better answer to this question, I'm all willing to stop this "quibbling". Until then, "climate scientist" remains quite unclear. By the way, chemistry, physics or geology are not "sub-disciplines" of "climate science" (still undefined) or of climatology. Just ask a chemist or a physicist see whether he agrees... --Childhood's End 17:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted your pointless weaselling again. Changing Hansen to the far more general "physicist" is silly - CS is more precise. Annan, as I said, probably isn't a climatologist, so making him one is wrong William M. Connolley 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
James Annan's page says he is a climatologist. Should we change it? --Childhood's End 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
And just to show how unreliable you are, James E. Hansen's education is described as : He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated to the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966.
To pretend that in his case, "physicist" is not precise is absolute non-sense. --Childhood's End 18:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
{Edit conflict) C'mon William I think even though you know the guy well you have to give way on that. Annan is referred to widely as a Climatologist including in the first sentence of versions of James Annan saved by you... it will do as a description. There may be more accurate descriptions of him but he certainly is a climatologist too. --BozMo talk 18:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
When William M. Connolley involves himself in original research, this is somehow accepted as OK. ("On talk pages: Talk page discussions should be about the article. Arguments about truth or falsity of cited claims should not go on talk pages because they are by defintion OR and in any case rarely convince anyone of anything. This applies particularly to articles related to pseudosciences and politics.") Please be wary, because he often makes statements to which he has no evidence to support himself with. Many sources label Dr. Annan as a climatologist. You cannot deny this. So, I ask, please stop changing it. ~ UBeR 19:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. I hadn't noticed JA was a climatologist n his wiki page. I didn't write that (notice careful choice of "saved" above). I've corrected it to the description his blog uses. Who says "JA is referred to widely as a Climatologist"? And wiki pages have been known to be wrong. I'm not saying that JA *isnt* a climatologist... but that CS is a better description. Hansen, of course, trained as a physicist (and in astronomy, but isn't one) but has been specifically involved in climate for ages. He is now a climate scientist, which is probably a subset of physics William M. Connolley 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also... has anyone noticed that the wiki climatologist page is only a redirect? And the guardian, the BBC and Pielke all think he is a CS William M. Connolley 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The obvious is that we, including yourself, all still fail to find a non-weasely definition for "climate scientist". The attempt to define it as "a scientist who studies some aspect of climate" makes no sense, as per the discussion above. Besides, mass media are known for mass use of weasel words. Encyclopedic entries are not. --Childhood's End 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with what's in "scientists involved in climate-related fields"? If a scientist is involved in a field related to climate, isn't that what defines a "climate scientist" rather than a drug researcher or an environmental activist or a mechanic?

Now we need to know what climate-related fields are.... Meteorology, climate & atmospheric sciences? Um, ecologists? Botanists?

Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease and Climatology as a Profession

"Certain scientists who once might have called themselves, say, meteorologists or oceanographers, were now designated "climate scientists." There was still no specific professional organization or other institutional framework to support "climate science" as an independent discipline, but that did not much matter in the new order of holistic interdisciplinary work."

Like I said, this is going to be an interesting one. Wu. Sln3412 00:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Whew - what a harangue! I would just like to chime in on this last quotation that Sln3412 found. First, keep in mind that many universities do not create a department for a specialization such as climatology. Profs have to be hired by a department, and students graduate with a degree in a subject named for their department. James Hansen took degrees in physics, but he applies this to atmospheric physics in service of climate science. I took an undergrad course on climatology recently - it was listed in our Geography department because there is no "department of climatology" here, and Geography is the prof's home department. So a degree in Physical Geography might fit in with being a well. So anyway... after all this long back and forth, I fail to grasp why anyone should even care whether we say "climatologist" or "climate scientist." Yeesh. We all need to get lives. Birdbrainscan 02:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that William Connolley disagrees with you. He clearly said that climate scientist does not mean climatologist. As you said, James Hansen applies his physics knowledge to climate science - but he remains a physicist. Obviously, there seems to be a lot of people who can qualify to be "climate scientists" since anyone with a degree in any science who comes to touch anything regarding climate during the course of a research seems to become a "climate scientist". It is nothing but weasel wording, but since it seems to fit everyone, I'm giving up. So much for WP policies. --Childhood's End 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Solar system warming

I created a page specificly for this theory, and put the a link to it in Assertions by opponents section, where the theory is spoken of. However, I could not find a way to fit it in there to where it looks and feels like it belongs. I'm guessing it needs rewording, if it is to fit in there. Well, do as you like; but I think it should be left, if at all posible. SadanYagci 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your page is just about empty. Fill it in a bit (if you can - there is nothing to fill it in with, but you can try) then come back William M. Connolley 21:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

SEPP List of petitions

Looking at the article for places to shorten, I found this to be a good candidate. All of the petitions referenced are 1998 or older, which makes them pretty irrelevant to the present level of consensus. In 1998 there was a great deal more question than there is now. Alternately, the four of them could be summarized with a few sentences. Mishlai 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but they're still mentioned from time to time in the popular press, and so should be covered. Raymond Arritt 02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai's suggeestion of summarizing seems good to me --Nethgirb 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, a carefully worded summary would be worth a try. But I fear that any such summary will be met with continuing demands for justification, and we'll eventually end up back where we started. Raymond Arritt 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why link under "Science"?

There is a section for politics links, and a section for science links. No way is prisonplanet any kind of source for science. I move we cut this link out as just WP:SOAPBOX Birdbrainscan 05:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Having heard no objection or any reply for the past four days, I intend to go ahead and remove the link to prisonplanet from the list of "Science" links. I just took another look at the site, and while the linked page does indeed collect a half-dozen links to headlines about planets, the page itself has little to offer other than rhetoric. The rest of prisonplanet spends little time on questions of science at all. Birdbrainscan 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - It is past time for a genuine NPOV

It is high time to change this page to something that actually talks about the CONTROVERSY and does not simply push the GW alarmists POV. The Global warming page does that very well already. I am putting in my time to try to give a genuine NPOV - debate the changes here with me and others. DO NOT SIMPLY KEEP REVERTING ALL MY CHANGES - IT IS NOT WIKIPEDIC. ~ Rameses 05:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to change some of the wording I suggest you actually provide evidence that your new wording is correct, e.g. saying "Now that the existence of global warming is accepted by the majority of scientists..." instead of "virtually all scientists". If you check Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎ you'll see that nearly all of these skeptics admit the Earth has warmed. --Nethgirb 07:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we can avoid some of these disagreements over wording if we focus on a new outline first. The Intro should provide an overview of the topic and then each of the major points of the controversy should be discussed, including specific criticisms by the scientists and links to reliable sources. I am working on a proposed outline in a sandbox I created, but still have alot of work to do on it. If you would like to join me, you can do so here.[136] Once we have something worth discussing, we can present it here for further discussion. I am aware that my skeptical POV of AGW may creep into my wording on occasion. But if, as we are doing the outline, we stick just to the facts of the controversy - we can postpone disagreements on wording until we have a solid working outline. At that point, the disagreements over wording may clear up to a degree. At least, that is my hope.RonCram 16:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for making it better; and all for doing so off the page in a way that avoids fighting. Thanks for the pointer William M. Connolley 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's a nice endeavour Ron. I'll try to participate. --Childhood's End 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
A good idea in principle, as the current page is a mess. Your present draft shifts the focus mainly toward the scientific controversy (such as it is) rather than the political one. There could be separate pages for the scientific and political angles but I think they're best considered together. Raymond Arritt 02:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Politics of global warming? ~ UBeR 02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yoikes, I didn't even know about that one. A brief look shows it need serious help. Raymond Arritt 03:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, yes the current article is a mess. I think the article should focus on the scientific controversy but should mention the international politics (I am thinking the article should mention that China and India will not agree to Kyoto because of their developing economies) and have some information on carbon trading since that is somewhat controversial. I have not seen the wiki article UBeR mentioned and really do not have any desire to get into US politics. Nor do I think the article should be US-centric. I hope everyone will stop by and pitch in on the effort. RonCram 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ron, there is no serious scientific controversy. The controversy is all in the public sphere. For all the cherry-picking, there are extremely few scientific papers diagreeing with details of the IPCC position. There are essentially none that I'm aware of that question the basic results. And China and India have both signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. --Stephan Schulz 14:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Not such a big commitment to sign a treaty that you're exempt from complying with... they'll agree as long as they're exempted. --Childhood's End 14:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, you are only kidding yourself if you think there is no serious scientific controversy. I am trying to develop an article that will present more aspects of the scientific controversy. When we have the number of skeptical professors and researchers associated with Ivy League and other top universities (Lindzen, Giegengack, Soon, Baliunas, Motl, etc.), you realize there are reasons why these people are skeptical. The current version of this article does not give those reasons now. But I am not trying to create a page that is unduely slanted. If you know of scientific responses to the literature I have cited on the Sandbox page, you are welcome to add the citations. RonCram 19:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ron, I checked out your page. By far the most links you have there go to ClimateAudit and other non-reviewed sources. If you have any particular scientific publication in mind, please point it out. As for you list: I grant you Lindzen. But he has not published (as in "scientifically published") much on the topic except his iris hypothesis, which has not found much support in the scientific community. We have discussed Giegengack before. It's doubtful that he even is a sceptic - he mostly seems to rant against oversimplification. Anyways, he is a geologist, and the only even remotely relevant publication I can find is a paper on sunspot cycles from 1993. Soon and Baliunas are astrophysicists. AFAIK, on climate change they have published one (1) paper, and that one was so bad that the authors they cited actively rebelled against it. It was pushed through review by well-known sceptic de Freitas and led to a major outcry about the quality control at the journal. When new editor-in-chief Hans von Storch (sometimes mistaked by the sceptics for one of them) was not allowed to comment on the issue in strong enough words, he resigned, taking half the editorial board with him. Motl is a string theorists. I have not found any relevant publication by him - his opinion on the issue is about as good as mine. So where is this supposedly "scientific debate" taking place? --Stephan Schulz 20:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, Giegengack identifies himself as a skeptic, as do the others. To claim he is not a skeptic when he claims he is - well, that is just ridiculous. It appears Soon has published at least four articles on climate. [137] Baliunas appears to have a much larger publishing record. [138] Both Soon and Baliunas are recognized as accomplished researchers or they would not be employed by Harvard-Smithsonian. There are good reasons for their skepticism. You are correct about Motl, he is a physicist. But you seem to ignore the fact climate scientists often appeal to physics for support for AGW. Motl, as a Harvard professor of physics, does not buy it and his blog is one place the scientific debate is going on. [139] ClimateAudit is a unique website in which real science is being done. [140] It is not a peer-reviewed journal, but the peer-review of McIntyre's posts (and posts by a few others like Willis Eschenbach, Gerald Browning, Warwick Hughes etc.) is going on all the time. Judith Curry, Steve Bloom and others (climate modelers and climatologists) make comments about the studies being posted. Warwick Hughes also has a website with a great deal on the science debate. [141] Warwick Hughes was the guy who asked Phil Jones for his data and was told "Why should I when you are just going to try to find problems with it?" Hughes has done a lot of work matching data sets with grid cells. What he has learned does not reflect well on Phil Jones. But the Sandbox page also lists a good deal of peer-reviewed literature as well - articles by Bratcher and Giese, Pielke Sr., Barrett, Warren and Wiscomb, Vallina and Simo, Knappenberger and others. Several of these authors may not identify themselves as skeptics but their research provides reasons for open minded people to question the claims of AGW. As such, their research has become part of the debate. I would like to say that RealClimate is also a place where the debate is going on, but that is wishful thinking. Posts by skeptics are just censored so the debate is short-circuited. I have not even discussed Svensmark or Pilkey or several others. The debate is real. Again, I invite you to participate in the debate and provide whatever refutation or answers you can find. I expect you would know more than me about your position so please participate or the article will look POV. RonCram 00:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your last sentence carries the implied challenge "I'm going to be pushing my POV, so you'd better participate to defend your own POV." See WP:POVFORK. As a result I am no longer convinced that you are acting in good faith, and withdraw whatever support I originally expressed for your alternative. Raymond Arritt 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Raymond Arritt that statement is [deleted - WMC]. The way this article has shaped out and the way the discussions have been are quite ovbious.
  1. The article as it sits is far from NPOV.
  2. There are many people who have taken to this "Global Warming fettish" who keep reverting the article to its current NPOV state.
  3. Many of the POV pushing that RonCram is claiming do nothing but bring the article clooser to the NPOV. As it has been stated time and time and time and time again... a "Global warming controversy" page that does nothing but attempt to dispute the Global warming controversy at every turn is far from a "Global warming controversy" page.
From what I can tell, any Pro-GW information should be on the GW page, and the Controversy stuff should be on the Global warming controversy page. The reverts by the GW Activists here are keeping this from being a NPOV article.--Zeeboid 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't get the impression there was any kind of implied challenge. Earlier the comment was made "I am aware that my skeptical POV of AGW may creep into my wording on occasion." and that in the interests of fairness, somebody with a non-skeptical POV should work on it too, to make it better.
I'm just thinking it seems so far that the biggest issue here is that it seems like an edit war of sorts about opinion or conclusions rather than anything else, but with so much controversy, there's too much going on. But maybe it's something else, check WP:DTSS
On the other hand, if this is about controversy, the information should be here -- and left to the reader to decide if they think somebody is reliable or not, or if there's a controversy or not. Just the facts, not the opinions. I don't know if anyone's really able to do that, but I think that outline is at least a good first step. You don't have to agree with any of the information in it or not as long as it follows the rest of the rules. The controversy may be thin but it's there; what's the problem? Sln3412 22:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


This is regarding the following paragraph:

In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate." As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds.[142] One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter.

The source given is to Why it specifically links to Benny Peiser first, I do not know, especially when considering the blog site links to this page as the default for their "Who are the sixty" page. Nevermind that this blog is written by journalist, lawyers, and public relations people--a lot of what they're saying is poorly sourced (or not at all). For example, linking to this site. They, of course, get their information from these sites (and of course back to the blog), which, all so conveniently, do not function.

They write, "We will report daily on their credentials and their connections (or their lack of connections) to the oil or tobacco industries" (I don't quite see the connection between tobacco and climatology, but okay). We write, "many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds." Most of the site's criticism is on the people who are members of NRSP, who they criticize solely for the lack of saying who their sponsors are due to confidentiality agreements. That's not very uncommon. A lot of the people on who they report on, they say, are people in the fields in meteorology, hydrology, geosciences, etc., who, by Connolley's definition, could very well be climatologists/climate scientists. A majority of these people still work in departments of Earth and atmospheric sciences of universities or other organizations. ~ UBeR 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the link to DeSmogBlog, so I'll take the heat. (I didn't write the sentence.) I don't see how the sentence or adding the link are "misleading." This article is supposed to cover the controversy. The paragraph you cite simply talks about what "critics pointed out." Surely an external link to a page that looks into who the sixty signatories are constitutes part of the controversy surrounding this letter. We don't have to endorse the view of DeSmogBlog, just describe it.
For this section to pass as NPOV, it needs to state the facts: the event of the letter, and the existence of a critical response to the letter. We link to the original letter, and to the response to that letter. You seem to want to argue the DeSmogBlog review is unfair or misleading. I doubt we can settle that debate here - it will have to be enough to mention the letter and the blog.
Complaining that DeSmogBlog is written by "journalists, lawyers and public relations people" is a red herring - do you expect a peer-reviewed article in Nature on the question of who the 60 signatories are? It's a proper subject for a journalist - or even a wikipedia contributor. Finding out who someone is and what they have (or have not) published is not rocket science. The blog "journalists" did this by searching on ISI Web of Science. I've done similar searches for some wiki bio pages using Google Scholar. The published record speaks for itself.Birdbrainscan 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and as for which page within their site to link to, I have no preference. The default page is as good as any.Birdbrainscan 02:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
A reviewed article in Nature is an acceptable source. Blogs are not, especially if they're openly biaised. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources :
A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. --Childhood's End 03:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
So you're proposing we get rid of,,,, and the rest? Don't you want the skeptics to get a fair hearing? Raymond Arritt 05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Those are organizations and official Web sites of them, not blogs, save the last two, which, at least, cite their sources. WP:RS should be read. ~ UBeR 06:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, they are "published sources that have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking", to quote you. WP:RS suggests that they may sometimes be suitable in articles about the organizations themselves. However, Blogs like Desmogblog or RealClimate are not on the same level as Slashdot or some arbitrary private blogger site. Interestingly, I tried adding ClimateAudit to the previous sentence, but could't bring myself to do it. They do cite sources, but in a manner that to me appears very much like cherry-picking to support mostly unsupportable positions. Anyways, this is not a debate we can adequately cover using only peer-reviewed journals (as there is no debate over the core issues in the peer-reviewed literature). --Stephan Schulz 09:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont know much about the others, but desmogblog is a mix of communal reinforcement/propaganda/ and IPCC advertising, call it what you want. The rule is no blogs as sources, and this rule exists for a good reason. --Childhood's End 14:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
"The rule" (and we have WP:IAR for a reason) actually also says "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking." - which certainly covers RealClimate. The main authors of ClimateAudit, on the other hand, are well outside their field of expertise, if they talk about global warming in general. I don't really know enough about Desmogblog, although it certainly is not a classical blog.--Stephan Schulz 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Public relations is far beyond the scope of "professional researcher writing within their field of expertise." ~ 19:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

DeSmogBlog is a public relations website for the AGW community. It is not run by a climate researcher or scientist and nothing it says can be considered coming from a scientist. RealClimate is a public relations website as well but it does gets contributions from climate researchers that are sometimes appropriate for inclusion. ClimateAudit is led by McIntyre, who has published on climate repeatedly. Several of the other regulars have published as well. Almost any thread on ClimateAudit can be suitable for Wikipedia.RonCram 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"The AGW community"? When I'm talking about secret decoder rings, I am joking...
RealClimate exactly matches the Blog exception: Well-known, professional scientists talking about their area of expertise, of which they have a publication record. Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know, McIntyre has published only criticism of the Hockey Stick, and no other material in the area of climate science. And ClimateAudit very much seems to be a one-man show (as far as the articles are concerned). --Stephan Schulz 01:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I just survived my first edit conflict - hi Stephan! Here's the post I typed while he was typing the above paragraph... - :Let me try again to make this clear: in this section, I have not linked to DeSmogBlog as an authority for some factual claim about climate. Rather, I have linked to them as an example of the point the section is making, that some people questioned who the sixty scientists were. That's the point of the paragraph! As I tried to explain the first time, they are part of the story, just as the letter to Harper is part of the story that we are recounting in this section. Again: stop looking for peer-reviewed journal articles on who signed the letter to Harper! The letter is noteworthy - it got a fair amount of attention. The letter was not a peer-reviewed journal article either, but we cover it because it is an event in the controversy. This page is about the debate, including the parties to the debate; other pages are there to go into the substance of the science. I'm not asking for peer-reviewed journal papers to prove the letter was sent. Can you see my point? We are talking about people, not molecules: who are the parties to the debate, and what are they saying? In that sense, I'd have no problem with seeing this page include more coverage of Sen. Inhofe, RealClimate, AEI, Marshall Institute, Fraser Institute, et al. But it would have to be description of their make-up, their role in the debate, what scientists they cite and how, as well as where they fit on the political spectrum.Birdbrainscan 01:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point. The blog is unreliable, and is almost at the same level as original research by unprofessional and unrelated people. Not everything that constitutes as a reliable source has to be a peer-reviewed journal. ~ UBeR 01:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're also missing my point - please read what I'm saying above: I am not using DeSmogBlog as a source for some fact about climate; I am naming them as a party to the debate. Do you say they are not a party to the debate? Just because you disagree with them does not mean we should not mention their view. This article certainly mentions plenty of anti-AGW websites, which we can hardly say are peer-reviewed science either. So, one more time: we are discussing WHO is in the debate and what their positions are; this page is not here to settle the debate (certainly not by appeal to either DeSmogBlog nor ClimateAudit as scientific authorities on either side!). I accept mentioning and linking to ClimateAudit, much as I disagree with them, because they are a significant player in the public (not scientific) debate. The same has to go for DeSmogBlog. I think this is a fair approach. Can you accept this?Birdbrainscan 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If WP pages were to include all parties to the debate only because they said something, pages would be flooded with web stuff and personal pages from anywhere. Citing a blog because it criticized this or that, only for the sake of saying that this or that has been criticized, is not good enough a reason to include the critic in an encyclopedic article. If that would be the rule, there's a lot of sutff goind on on the internet that is skeptical of GW and that would be granted a mention in these articles, and that should be avoided. This being said, the rule must be applied with the same weight and consistency on both sides of the debate. --Childhood's End 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

DeSmogBlog is a PR website. It is not involved in the scientific debate. ClimateAudit is involved in the scientific debate. You can watch as the science is being done, tested and reviewed by scientists who favor AGW. In fact, if you feel you have something worthwhile to point out - you can be involved in reviewing McI's (and others) work on the site. Every time McIntyre has been involved in a scientific debate, he has won. The scientific reputations of Drs. Mann and Jones have suffered tremendously because of the auditing done by McIntyre. This is not a public relations victory, it was a scientific victory. Mann had to publish a Corrigendum because of McI. Birdbrainscan, I just read the post about why you linked to DeSmogBlog. It seems to me that it would be okay to link to the site as long as the site is not presented as an authority on science.RonCram 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Changing climate of skepticism

Regarding this subsection, I think that:
- The title is quite unencyclopedic
- This section focuses on the wrong debate (although it's true that you do not find nowadays many skeptics denying that the Earth is warming, it seems to me that the debate is mostly held as to whether the warming is or is not anthropogenic.
--Childhood's End 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I unfortunately agree that the title of this subsection is unencyclopedic. It'd be kind of sad to see it go, because it's a very witty, clever title, but it's a title that's more befitting a newspaper article than an encyclopedia article. How about "The changing nature of the skepticism"? That sounds dry enough for an encyclopedia article title.
I'm not sure I understand your second point. Are you saying that the subsection should have more historical quotes, to illustrate that the skepticism used to be more about whether or not warming is occurring? If that's what you're saying, then I think you may have a point.
However, the first 2/3 of the subsection seems a little too much like original research to me. Only the third quote does a good job of illustrating other people's observations about how the nature of the skepticism has changed. What I think the subsection could use is more quotes along the lines of the third quote. MrRedact 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I may more closely understand your second point now. You're saying that the subsection should talk more about how the current skepticism mainly involves a belief that the warming isn't anthropogenic, instead of focusing on how the skepticism involves arguing more for adapting to the warming instead of trying to slow it down. However, I think those two ideas are closely related. If someone believes that human behaviour is responsible for the warming, then they're likely to view the solution as being changing our behaviour to slow down the warming. If someone doesn't believe that human behavior can affect climate, then they're not going to think that we can do anything to slow down the warming, so the best we can do is to just adapt to it. I don't see how the two focuses are very different, since the ideas are closely tied together. MrRedact 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I seem to be mentally slow today for some reason. After still more reflection, I believe I finally see your point. A reader who is new to all of this isn't going to automatically associate a policy of adaptation with a belief that the warming isn't anthropogenic. Indeed, from the third quote, it sounds like some people don't deny that the warming is anthropogenic, but still see adaption as a preferable strategy to trying to slow the warming. You have a point. MrRedact 22:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems a bit like an editorial. ~ UBeR 05:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand the objections. The subtitle doesn't seem that out of line to me, seems a bit nit-picky but change it if you will (it should reflect the content of the subection though). As to the section 'focusing on the wrong debate', the substance of the subsection is part and parcel of the larger "global warming controversy" which the page is all about (especially section 4 where it is included). This section (4) is not about the science of global warming per se but about controversial issues that revolve around it. Adaptation over mitigation is one of those and it's a big one and since the "controversy" has been initiated and maintained by the skeptics which the page covers I think it should stay. Perhaps links could be provided at the end to the more detailed articles Mitigation of global warming and Adaptation to global warming - though I don't think that the info should just be shunted over to those articles as they are probably less likely to be seen by the general public. 06:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
@MrRedact : Sorry I returned late to this discussion that I started. Your last post is right on it - that's what I meant. Also, I agree with the title that you suggested. Finally, more sources seem to me mandatory in this section. --Childhood's End 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the section title exhibits some refreshing creativity and I don't see how it is unencyclopedic. I do think MrRedact and UBeR are right that the section needs to be supported more by external sources saying the nature/climate of skepticism has changed (which it seems to have done). Also it might be more appropriate to move this subsection to the "History" section. --Nethgirb 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that's it's a refreshingly creative section title. Stylisticly, though, I know that at least the World Books that I grew up with didn't use clever, witty titles like that. But I think it'd be nice to keep the heading, and it doesn't violate the Manual of Style page on headings, or go against the list of things that are unencyclopedic, so maybe a heading like that is OK on Wikipedia. There's certainly a lot of other stuff in Wikipedia that you'd never find in World Book. MrRedact 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess that title is also compliant with NPOV rules...? --Childhood's End 18:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I hate to admit it, because I enjoy the cleverness of the title, but I can see how one could reasonably argue that it's an NPOV issue. If the only place within climate-related articles that a clever, witty title is used is in a section on global warming skepticism, it could be taken as suggesting that global warming skepticism itself is amusing, and not to be taken too seriously. MrRedact 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the title. The body, of course, still needs major work. MrRedact 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Added more info on this aspect of the controversy. Note: the link to the LA Times article is dead, I have it saved from an old bookmark. Perhaps someone with a subscription can get it from their archives? 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The basic idea of the section is good but the material in its present form is unacceptable -- WP:NPOV, WP:SYNT, you name it. There have been critical analyses of the evolution of climate-change skepticism so there's plenty of basis for a short section on the matter -- I recall a quotes like "the skeptics have taken global warming from impossible to inevitable with no stop in between". Instead of the present synthesis, the section needs to find existing articles that discuss the matter and build from there. Raymond Arritt 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Following the title change, I'd still suggest the following for this section:
  • Switching the focus of the debate to anthropogenic vs natural warming (what's in there right now does not seem really in accordance with the actual main debate);
  • Reducing size (not that there is not much to say but mostly for that this article is already too long and this is not the most important aspect) and adding proper sources.
--Childhood's End 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The whole section needs a rewrite :-\ ~ UBeR 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Added a bit more on the Bush Administration's jumping on the adaptation bandwagon (though I used the more neutral "joined"). As to the length, I compared it to the length of other sections in the article and it does not seem to me to be out of line at all. 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the section is salvageable; it isn't elegant and it doesn't flow, but it does touch on the main issues and it seems to cover both sides reasonably.Birdbrainscan 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title of this section back from "The changing nature of some of the skepticism" to "The changing nature of the skepticism" because besides being unwieldy, (and though of course there are other areas of debate here) far and away the largest area of controversy/skepticism has been whether global warming/climate change is happening at all, and it is precisely this overarching skepticism that is changing. 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the title needs to reflect exactly the point that much of the skepticism is NOT changing at all to admitting anthropogenic warming.Brian A Schmidt 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it's interesting that it sure looks like they are changing their stance. Real Climate wrote in their year end summation for 2006 [143] "Most dizzying turn-around of a climate skeptic: Fred Singer 'global warming is not happening' (1998,2000, 2002,2005) to global warming is 'unstoppable' ([144])" Here's the link to Singer's and Avery's paper [145]. They admit here that the earth IS warming but are still reluctant to say that it's due to human activities. It seems obvious to me that what's really going on is that Exxon et al are trying to delay any real action on climate change until it's too late thereby keeping the profit machine going as long as possible. IOW, let future generations deal with it, we want our money now! 18:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And about the skepticism not changing admitting AGW, read these comments from former skeptic Ronald Bailey (one time author of Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death): "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable" [146]. Fact is, there are lots of former skeptics coming out of the closet [147]. I also think that is right that the issue of if GW is happening at all has been the central skepticism. 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New Info

I don't know where I should edit this in, or if it's needed at all. It seems some people pay quite a bit of attention to this article so if it's needed I just wanted to throw it out there. Eos4life 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Std.nonsense I fear, and badly garbled. Try for more info William M. Connolley 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that write-up as well, and it's pretty blatant "GW a myth, scientists say" (emphasis added). Scientists in general? Yipes.
Anyway I expect this Channel 4 program will generate a lot of back and forth in the UK media. We might want to identify the program ( Channel 4's own page is at ) and perhaps sum up the reactions to it.
I recall talk of people in the U.S. working on a counter-documentary in response to Gore's. I haven't heard when or if that one is coming outBirdbrainscan 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If it turns into a Really Big Deal it should be included. If it's just another show on global warming (whether pro or con), not. Those of you on the other side of the big ditch can judge. Raymond Arritt 02:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm so the IPCC adds names of even the skeptics? How nice. ~ UBeR 05:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah:
... R. Lindzen, USA; ... H. Sundquist, Sweden;
Gzuckier 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This documentary lists a good number of skeptical scientists that are not named on Wikipedia's Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. They are probably not listed because we could not locate a quote that would meet the rigorous demands of some of our fellow editors here... or perhaps they were never discussed. It just goes to show there are many more skeptics than the mainstream group would like people to know about. RonCram 18:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I Agree, RonCram. There is a group of editors here who are limiting the Controversy in the Global Warming Controversy section. The link provided by Eos4life and Biasly called "nonsense" by William M. Connolley (much like any other information about how man is not causing Global Warming). The same "Scientists in general" title that is listed with many pieces of Pro-Human-Caused-GW information out there.
This link has as more of a need to be in a Global warming controversy page then stuff from Also remember... some of those "Editors" have claimed the Skeptical number of scientists to be only "23."--Zeeboid 15:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

General cleanup

The writing style in this article has grown more and more awkward. I'm going to attempt to straighten it out here and there. Needless to say, if anyone disagrees with my edits then join in with your own. But please try not to make the writing style any more tortuous than it already is. Raymond Arritt 03:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If the writing is neutral, I'm fine with any changes. It's a really messy article. ~ UBeR 05:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. Would you like to take pruning shears to the "changing nature of skepticism" section? It's very wordy, and has some POV/OR problems. Raymond Arritt 07:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Rameses would like to add:

There have been cases where scientists have been wrongly listed by the IPCC as supporting its summary. Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, one of the world’s leading experts on malaria, explained publicly how he had to threaten legal action against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to have his name removed from the list of ‘2,000 of the world’s leading scientists’ who apparently backed its summary published February 2007. The problem? Professor Reiter didn’t back it, instead arguing that it was a ‘sham’. "The IPCC ‘make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed, but it’s not true’, he said." [148] [149] [150] [151]

Having seen the film, Reiter does indeed make some ambiguous claims. But its not at all clear that he is talking about the SPM or the WGI report. Given his specialism, the WGII or III reports are more likely (even granting there is some basis to his claim). So we cannot say "summary" here, cos that means SPM. Also, as Stephan pointed out, "There have been cases where scientists have been wrongly listed" is wrong, in Reiters case, because even he says he was removed. Reiter claims others, vagule, but names no names. None of this is reliable enough to be included William M. Connolley 10:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, he was listed (erroneously, of course). But anything to make the fallacious appeal ad populum more appealing, I suppose. ~ UBeR 17:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Not in a released report, at most on draftsPossibly not on a released report, but on a draft - to which, of course, he did contribute. Denying him credit without his explicit request would be against all principles of scientific attribution. Similarly, if he wants to disassociate himself from the result, that is his right. However, note that there is only one source - the tv program -, while all the ones that Rameses cites are just reporting about (or even commenting on!) this one program. Given what we know about the tendency of the film maker to misrepresent positions to push his agenda[152], the fact that at least one interviewed scientist says he was massively misrepresented[153][154], and that even the broadcasting station calls the piece "essentially a polemic"[155], I think it is a safe bet that the case was presented in as bad a light as possible. We simply don't know how hard it was for Reiter to get off the list of contributors. Maybe his first letter was "take me off or I'll initiate legal proceedings". Also note that it's still month until the WG2/WG3 reports are in (and Reiter would most likely not be a contributor to WG1, as William pointed out)[Struck out as irrelevant, as it seems Reiter contributed to an older assessment report]. --Stephan Schulz 21:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont see any evidence that he was listed on anything to do with WGI or AR4. If Uber has any evidence to back this up, then I think he should present it. Even an exact quote of R's word from the film would do, but from my memory he was rather vague about which doc it was William M. Connolley 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I found a reference to what is likely the same incidence here (see item 8). It looks like we are talking about one of the earlier reports (as such, it is at least possible that Reiter was listed as an author on a released report). However, from John Houghton's perspective, it sounds a lot different. --Stephan Schulz 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Data Withholding in Climate Science

At present the article does not discuss a very large issue in this controversy, data withholding by climate scientists. Mann withheld code and has tried to stonewall on a number of data sharing issues. The source code was one of the most difficult, but eventually Mann turned over the code. The actions of Phil Jones are also very much an issue and may result in a lawsuit (although recently Pat Frank of Stanford has been arguing to just reconstruct the temperature record in a full and open manner in order to shame Jones into releasing his data and methods). I have put together a few links for you to peruse to get a better handle on the issues and the amount of discussion and controversy that has been generated so far. Please take a look. The first three involve Mann. Then one on Jones and several others on the issue at large.

Mann on Source Code [156]
Title to MBH98 Source Code [157]
MBH98 Source Code Status Report [158]
East Anglia (Phil Jones) Refusal Letter [159]
Nature’s list [160]
An Open Letter to Science [161]
A Reply from Science [162]
Reply to Science regarding information request [163]
Mass General Hospital on Data Withholding [164]
Scientific Misconduct [165]
Replication Policy [166]
More on NSF Data Archiving Policies [167]
Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science [168]

I am attempting to create a new outline for this article that will include this issue along with several others. Please take a look at User:RonCram/AGWControversySandbox and help me make the outline better. Once it gets to a certain level, we can bring it back here for further discussion. Thanks! RonCram 18:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is a wide issue, I'm sure you can find sources other than a single blog William M. Connolley 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure there's any "there" there. The list is primarily about two studies out of thousands - MBH and Jones - and MBH is resolved (I don't the the status for Jones). The rest is pretty vague (see the Reply from Science). Any discussion of this should include discussion of whether researchers have any legal or ethical obligation to share their data (it'll vary according to situation, journal, and funding) and whether maintaining publicly available data is any more of a problem in this field than in any other academic field. There needs to be some proof of "controversy" here, so far it's pretty thin. Brian A Schmidt 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, lest it be considered pseudoscience by the real scientists. Also see philosopher Karl Popper. ~ UBeR 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
These are proofs being challenged, not disproofs being cited. Reading Popper is an excellent idea, I encourage it.Brian A Schmidt 04:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of NPOV maybe some that doubt the validity of these sorts of things it could go find them. Or debunk them. Sln3412 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly the tedious sort of POV war that makes this article one of the worst scum buckets on Wikipedia. If there's a beef with a particular scientist, then put it on his own page, not here. Deliberately extrapolating from one guy's lack of open information to a "very large issue in this controversy, data withholding by climate scientists" is rather silly, unless you can provide a larger sample of examples (and even then, this article needs drastic cutting, not expanding).Loxlie 04:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Loxlie, you obviously haven't read the links I provided. There is more than one or two scientists involved. Read the section below on "More on Data Withholding in Climate Science." RonCram 23:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No I most certainly haven't. But has anyone read all the 205 references provided on this page? Have you? That's really my only point - this article (and certainly the talk pages) has become entirely unusable, and the only good solution is a complete rewrite, but that's obviously not going to happen - or if it does its not going to be kept. At the moment its a prime example of Wiki not working at all, which is really sad. Not a very helpful contribution perhaps, but there you go. Ho hum. Loxlie 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Being Laughed At

They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright brothers. Yes, well, they also laughed at the Marx Brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right. -- Michael Shermer

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. --Arthur C. Clarke

To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted by an unkind establishment. One must also be right. --Bill Clinton

Sln3412 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite nice, but this isn't a discussion forum for irrelevant quotes. ~ UBeR 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for saying 'quite nice'. (really) I don't think it's irrelevant though; it's a comment that either time bears out the skeptics being incorrect more than correct, or that the minority might be correct this time. Sln3412 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

More on Data Withholding in Climate Science

In an effort to explain some of the issues involved in this controversy, I have written an article Scientific data archiving which provides the policies of NSF, science journals and some of the issues around data archiving and replication. I have tried to make the article of general interest by not limiting the discussion strictly to climate science.

On the issue of climate research affecting public policy and therefore demanding greater scrutiny, JohnA has written: ‘’But the costs resulting from mistakes in climate studies, could measured in billions of dollars. Isn’t it time that climate scientists started demanding from their peers that all data sources, source codes, notes and methodologies be archived for open review prior to publication? It’s no longer a $5 mistake when climate reconstructions go wrong…’’

This isn't a great start. JohnA is an anonymous blogger. But hopefully it gets better... William M. Connolley 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In a post above, William had suggested that more sources were required before the controversy regarding data archiving and sharing should be mentioned in this article. Of course, many other sources are available and some are listed below. However, it should be expected that Steve McIntyre would dominate this list. The website he runs is called “ClimateAudit” for a reason. Audits are not possible without data archiving and sharing.

Others who have entered the fray include:

  • Roger Pielke, Jr. [169]
  • Ron Errico – “On the Lack of Accountability in Meteorological Research” writes: Too frequently, published papers contain fundamental errors… How can a piece of work be adequately evaluated or duplicated if what was really done or meant is not adequately stated?... My paramount recommendation is that our community acknowledges that a major problem in fact exists and requires ardent attention. Unless this is acknowledged, the community will likely not even consider significant changes. Isuspect that too many scientists, especially those with the authority to demand changes, will prefer the status quo.

The group below all signed a letter to Science Magazine on the issue:

  • Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
  • Sir Colin Berry, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
  • Freeman Dyson, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, USA
  • Chris de Freitas, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
  • Mick Fuller, University of Plymouth, UK
  • Lord Taverne, House of Lords, UK [170]

Also above, Brian wondered about the status on the Jones request. At least two scientists have requested information, Steve McIntyre and Willis Eschenbach. They are requesting the data and methods used in compiling the temperature record kept at CRU and for his 1990 study on UHI. (Jones claims the data from Russian weather stations is homogeneous and most scientists have a difficult time believing that). When Warwick Hughes first requested the temperature data, Jones replied : ‘’Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.’’ [171] Several scientists are arguing for a lawsuit against Jones and CRU under the FOI Act to force Jones to provide his data and methods. Pat Frank of Stanford is arguing that McIntyre and others should reconstruct the global temperature record from available data in an open and auditable way. Frank believes the differences between the McIntyre series and the Jones series will shame Jones into releasing his data and methods. [172] [173][174]

Anyone can write an open letter to Science. But they didn't publish it. Who is WE? William M. Connolley 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
William, the "we" is Phil Jones and the staff at CRU. Or else Jones like to refer to himself in the plural - the royal "we." :) RonCram 06:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No, who is Willis E? William M. Connolley 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Willis Eschenbach [175] is one of the scientists who contributes regularly to but I am not sure if he is a researcher or associate prof. RonCram 15:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
One brief comm to Nature doesn't make you a scientist. I'm curiious as to why you think he is any kind of prof? William M. Connolley 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think he may have an academic position only because of his posts, although I thought the same of Margo and was wrong there. I have not asked him about his employment. What makes you think he is not? RonCram 17:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I would have expected you to care enough to find out before asserting he was. He has only 1 paper and that has no affiliation William M. Connolley 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian also expressed his opinion that the controversy was mainly about Mann and Jones. This is far from accurate. The links provided above discuss requests for information on Osborn and Briffa 2006, Esper et al [2002] and Thompson et al 1989 (Dunde); 1997 (Guliya). [176] None of these requests were satisfactorily met. Here are some additional links:

You're still pretty stuck on CA. You've added... RP quoting CA; and something by Ron Errico - any text available? I still think you need some evidence that this issue has gained any kind of notability outside of CA William M. Connolley 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I added Ron Errico because RP JR quoted him. I also added the letter to Science mag signed by a number of scientists siding with McIntyre. Surely that shows this is getting some traction. BTW, did you happen to read the article I wrote at Scientific data archiving? It includes some references, including Gary King of Harvard (who also quotes McIntyre on the issue). King addresses the need for data archiving in many fields. Also, you can compare the policies of Science and Nature listed in the article to the actual practices of these journals. Once you understand the issues, any thinking person will be as outraged at these practices as McIntyre is. RonCram 06:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
William, I also found an interesting quote by Ulrich Pöschl-
The spectacular recent cases of scientific fraud (e.g. Nature 2003:422, 92–3; Nature 2002:419, 419–21; Science 2003:299, 31; Science 2002:298, 961) are only the tip of the iceberg. Many scientific papers fail to provide sufficiently accurate and detailed information to ensure that fellow researchers can efficiently repeat the experiments or calculations and directly follow the line of arguments leading to the presented conclusions.[192]RonCram 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

SDA is currently embarassingly naive. Neither Science nor Nature enforce such policies. Like I say, had the letter been *published* it might have been a bit different. But your evidence is still 95% from CA, who are obsessed with this issue. I agree that there *is* an issue here; I disagree that its any notable part of the GWC William M. Connolley 11:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I know neither the journals nor NSF enforce the policies (at least not in climate science). That is the gist of the controversy!! Now you are starting to get it. They pretend they have policies to make certain good science is being practiced but it is all a charade. Neither the journals nor the NSF have had the balls to force researchers to turn over their data and methods. Shoot, it took an act of Congress to get the source code from Michael Mann! This isn't science, it is pseudoscience. The lack of enforcement by the journals has come back to bite them in the Hwang affair (the cloning scandal) and will almost definitely come back to bite them in climate science. I just hope McIntyre, Warwick Hughes, Bender et all will construct their own version of global temps. I think once that is completed, the world will see what a scam has been pulled by Jones and Hansen. But that is just my personal opinion.RonCram 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No, its the gist of lack of controversy. Its the way things are: people would like to improve but lack the time. A truely open source temperature record would be fun but and it would be nice to see it funded - but at the expense of the Iraq war, not at the expense of other climate science William M. Connolley 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
How can you say it is the gist of lack of controversy? Did you read any of the links? Did you read the web page by Gary King on data sharing and replication?[193] King is the Harvard prof who has been at the forefront of this controversy for a while. He links to a number of important docs and debates in several scientific fields. [194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201] Note the dates of these documents. This is not a debate that started this year. Nor is the debate unfairly targeting climate science. A key point in the controversy is that climate science is lagging other disciplines in the enforcement area. Regarding your claim that McIntyre is not important, King links to McI's essays on the subject showing that King sees McI as a leader in climate science data sharing and replication. RonCram 17:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The GK suggestion is naive. The policies are unworkable, which is why they aren't enforced. But why are we exchanging our own opinions? There is an issue here, but its not a very popular one, yet, however much McI would love to push it to the top William M. Connolley 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
William, here's one key point to consider. The majority do not get to pick what they can be criticized for. The fact is that climate science is being criticized for not abiding by the policies in place, for not enforcing the policies in place and for withholding data after publication so others cannot audit the data, evaluate the methods or attempt to replicate. This is more than a controversy, it is a scandal. It has been scandalous in other fields and climate science is lagging in reforming its practices. It belongs in the article.RonCram 23:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A Bet on Global Warming

Does anyone know where I can place bets of a few hundred pounds on Global warming not happening? 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. But you need to be non-anonymous William M. Connolley 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll take you up on that That's easy, the globe is warming on average. When can you send me the check? Sln3412 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd bet with any global warming fanatic - but given their propensity to be very conservative with the truth, why should anyone believe they'd actually pay up! Mike 18:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to bet Phil Jones that over the next five years temps will not exceed the record set in 1998. There's just one condition: Jones has to make his data and methods public so we can make certain it is an honest bet. I am willing to bet only because I think Bratcher and Giese are right about the PDO. RonCram 06:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley's "Ownership" Behaviour

Mr. Connolley,
I seriously suggest you read the article on "ownership" of Wikipedia articles.
You do NOT own the articles here. This is a collaborative effort, and some submissions may happen that you don't agree with. That is too bad, but that's how Wikipedia works.
You act like every edit has to be approved by you personally, and if some submission is made that doesn't agree with your viewpoint that it is in your right to delete them.
You should know better as an admin, and if not, I would recommend going through the official guidelines once more.
Please refrain from reverting any submission you don't agree with, without discussing those changes first. Otherwise I will have to file a complaint against your inappropriate behaviour.

I thought Mr Connolley used his dictator-like authority only in the "Global Warming" entry. Then I look at this article and find his fingerprints all over another set of brass knuckles. He certainly oversteps his authority as an administrator and I applaud your beratement of him.
On the other hand, aren't we fortunate that he also keeps a lot of nonsense from creeping into the article. If this is WP:OWN I'm all for it. DMorpheus 12:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure we can find quotes like that from Stalin, Castro and Mao Zedong, but I didn't think I would see it from you :-(

Global Temperature

--Frescard 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Frescard i've removed it again. The reason given is WP:Undue_weight - this item is not part of the controversy. It may in time become so - but as the paper is still quite new - we'll have to await the reactions. --Kim D. Petersen 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't really see how WP:Undue_weight would apply here. In the guideline themselves the Flat Earth theory is used as an example for a subject that should only be touched briefly in an article about the Earth. (Not "left out altogether", but "briefly mentioned"!!!) If there is room for Flat Earth theories in the Earth article then there should definitely be room here to mention the global temperature critique.
The main author (Ross McKitrick) has an extensive Wikipedia page, so he's obviously not a nobody. His critique has been argued over by both sides (, Source Watch & Tim Lambert), so that too doesn't seem to be that obscure.
His book (which reiterates the same critique) won the runner-up Donner Prize for best Canadian public policy book, and has, for example, been reviewed in Science Daily. Even Source Watch found it necessary to write an article about it (surprisingly not a very positive one).
While this critique may not be the most discussed one, it is nevertheless out there, and is a topic people are aware of. It is one based on scientific principles, done by people with relevant backgrounds, and attacks the very foundation of global warming theories.
Considering this, I don't see how this can be brushed off as "too marginal". --Frescard 04:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's just one article out of thousands published every year. It got some splash in the press because of McKitrick's notability as a skeptic, but has had virtually no scientific impact so far. The article is quite new, but if in time it becomes a major reference in the field we can add it in. Raymond Arritt 04:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the pick and choose of what sources to accept and which to not. ~ UBeR 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Shall we add a link to every article published in the field? If not, then it's necessary to pick and choose. Raymond Arritt 05:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Raymond Arritt: "It got some splash in the press".
That's all it takes to qualify for Wikipedia. WP is not a scientific textbook, so your standard of "major reference" is not applicable. If it's being talked about, it goes into WP. Thank you for supporting my argument... --Frescard 05:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And who picks and chooses? Why you do of course. Only problem is, this easily fits in to the category of original research. Who is to say that we can allow an article from source known to have taken false information off the Internet and publish while still not allowing for legitimate and respected sources? It demeans the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelize your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it. ~ UBeR 05:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such. - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate_sources Raul654 06:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree with this - it is the lack of substantial debate that makes me think that this shouldn't be included. This page is for the actual controversy, and the actual debate. Be it based on real science or whatever. The paper is simply to new - time will tell if it will actually impact the debate. (either on the scientific side - or on the more "political" one). Arguing that it has been a bleep so far in the News is not enough (imho) to say whether or not it will become an active part in the debate. (sorry if i'm rambling - haven't slept in 24 hours :-) (i therefore agree with UBeR - that it would be WP:OR to preempt the debate). --Kim D. Petersen 08:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed on the grounds of WP:Undue_weight in the first place. This is such a tiny fringe theory it doesn't deserve a place. And the reason its fringe is obvious: its nonsense. If anyone here really believed it, we no-one would be worrying about how much warming there was, because it wouldn't mean anything. But just to be clear: my objection to it is not the nonsensicality: its the lack of notability. [Late sig: William M. Connolley 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)]
Frescard would have it because It is one based on scientific principles, done by people with relevant backgrounds, and attacks the very foundation of global warming theories - in other words, F wants us to judge it, precisely what UbER doesn't want done. And of course I would disagree: it isn't based on science; the people don't have relevant backgrounds. Only the last point is true and is, of course, the real reason for wanting it in. [Late sig William M. Connolley 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)]

Thank you for reminding me that it is a hopeless undertaking to try to debate with religious fanatics on WP. That way I won't have to waste my time here anymore.
I've tried it before, and I should've learned my lesson. But I guess I thought that a science-based issue as GW would be a bit more open to debate. But it seems, after all, that this is not so much about science anymore (and the controversy that comes with any science), as it is about partisanship and religious fanaticism.
Just to make this clear - I had approached this subject with an open mind, and I had found that some issues didn't quite make sense.
I tried to document those issues for other people in the same situation, but I was censored from day one.
I'm sure, in your mind, I was already categorized as a fervent GW denier, who has an agenda, and who has to be fought tooth and nail.
Unfortunately, the situation is not quite as simple...
I had not see the Al Gore movie until recently, since I figured I didn't need to be convinced. I was already firmly in the environmentalist camp...
I probably already live more environmentally conscious than 99% of the people: I have a tiny old car that I use twice a month; otherwise I use my bike - summer or winter. My apartment is chronically underheated, with all energy-efficient lightbulbs, etc. I recycle or reuse every single bit of garbage that comes into our house. During the winter I have a composting box in the basement, and for the summer there's one outside. I never use shopping bags, but have my own fabric ones. 90% of the food I buy is unprocessed and comes directly, and without extra packaging, from the producer (baker, butcher, farmer's market). I am on a waiting list for a community garden, so I can grow my own vegetables. I get my clothes from the Salvation Army or from countries with strict labor laws. I recently moved out of the U.S., since every law there seems to be written for the convenience of law-enforcement or the welfare of corporations.
So, I figured, I didn't have much to learn from AIT, and that's why I hadn't seen it until now. When I finally did I was shocked by the blatant propaganda and scaremongering it contained. And shortly thereafter I came across the Swindle movie, and somehow found that the statements in there seemed a lot more rational and believable.
That's when I started researching the issue myself.
And that's when I noticed that on every blog, on every discussion forum, and, obviously, on every WP page, that whenever somebody brought up any criticism, he was categorically screamed down, censored, ridiculed and pigeon-holed. IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE!
The GW proponents can't even admit that there are people who disagree with them, that some people might be skeptical of some of their claims, without classifying them instinctively as right-wing industry pawns.
On WP they use the same back-handed rhetoric, brute-force edits, and buddy-team tactics as any other group of fanatics here.
There is NO discussion, there is NO rationality, there is NO scientific debate. There is ONLY DOGMA...
If you are able to turn me around in a few weeks, from being firmly and convinced in the pro-environment camp, to a very skeptical GW doubter (who now starts to question all the other environmental claims as well) then good luck convincing any real right-wingers or fence-sitters...
--Frescard 15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to turn anyone around, and I haven't seen an inconvenient truth (actually I have no time for Al Gore) but I did see the great GW swindle and it was transparently twee, even to my limited knowledge of the subject. Please bear the following in mind that Global Warming and climatology is an incredibly complicated science but one in which for some reason layman have a really strong tendency to believe they can spot a flaw. This is partly a form of denialism but also partly in my view a legitimate suspicion with which scientifically trained generalists (like me) view any narrow group of scientists claiming special expertise. The Y2K computer scientists (my view) who ripped us all off, the GM food experts (my view again) who are adamant what they are doing is totally safe even though the terms of reference of every study miss the big picture risks and the GW experts are all fair game for challenge. However, please when you challenge don't take them for complete idiots who could have got a decimal point in the wrong place or missed the back wheel off a bicycle. Take the time to give the science the respect which something 10 PhDs deep deserves and look for systematic bias which is of concern. And just try to assume good faith that the editors working here are trying to get a balanced and fair article and might just be removing material wearily because in the process of years of review it has already been discussed at length and decided better left out. --BozMo talk 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Frescard: if you like the Swindle prog so much, why do you think they faked their graphs? You complain about a lack of sci debate: actaully WP isn't here as a debating forum. But I don't see you putting any science forward William M. Connolley 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably because they had incompetent graphics people. ~ UBeR 22:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said - I know better than to argue with religious fanatics.
Naive me actually assumed this was a scientific subject when I approached it... --Frescard 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Raul654. You make a compelling argument to remove your friend's blog. ~ UBeR 18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ S. Res. 98 25 July , 1997
  2. ^ Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts, George W. Bush letter 13 March, 2001
  3. ^ Economic Affairs - Second Report House of Lords, Session 2005-06
  4. ^ STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change. Summary of Conclusions
  5. ^ Constant dollars were figured using the end year of the projects which understates the inflationary adjustments since funding is usually disbursed either entirely at the beginning or in lump sums front loaded. This understating is exaggerated for longer projects. Using the ending dates when computing constant dollars for Trenberth's climate research funding totaled $6,804,862 compared with $7,955,621 when using the starting dates which would be more accurate starting dates.
  6. ^ [202]
  7. ^ [203]
  8. ^ [204]
  9. ^ Energy and climate change : discussing two opposite evolutions Article published in Journal de Physique - proceedings, volume 121, January 2005
  10. ^
  11. ^ Global oil & gas depletion: an overview, R.W. Bentley, Energy Policy, 30, 189–205, 2002 [205]
  12. ^ [206]
  13. ^ Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world Aug 19 2005 article in The Guardian
  14. ^ [207]