Talk:Global warming controversy/Archive 8

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


Consensus Citation missing

The first paragraph in Consensus is missing a citation, and, as it is a bold claim, it should be supported. I'll try to find a source, but I don't even have an account here, so it would probably be better if someone else did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

See Climate change consensus#Scientific opinion for a "bunch" of citations. Vsmith (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

opinion polls.

the chart on here is outdated/misleading. only 50 percent of americans see global warming as a major problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate inclusions of names on scientific reports

This article mentions individuals improperly included in the dissenting view, but there is no mention of those that were inappropriately included in the IPCC reports. Some of those scientists voiced their improper inclusion in IPCC reports in a 20/20 report with John Sotssel on October 19, 2007. One even reported that he had to threaten to sue after multiple requests to have his name removed were ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The only person I can thin of that matches that is Paul Reiter. His name was removed from the IPCC report (unlike the name of scientists on Heartland's list of X00), so there is not much to report. If you have a verifiable reliable source, we can start discussing if this meets WP:WEIGHT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations/language in Consensus section

Sigh, an old issue has reappeared. People introducing language like this:

"At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements."

...without any definition or citations. I hope I don't have to explain why this is a problem. Yet I bet someone will revert the edit before I'm done typing this talk page up.

For the purposes of this discussion I don't care about the accuracy of these statements. I just want to see a source - any source - attached to them. It's completely unacceptable and there's absolutely no "consensus" that can excuse things like this going unsourced. --Tjsynkral (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow the first {{main|...}}, find the reference there, copy it here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not cited there either. --Tjsynkral (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is. See Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations. We do not usually put references into the lede unless statements are controversial and challenged. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - I changed the statement and tried to add the reference, but was having trouble. Maybe someone else with better Wikipedia skills can edit the statement: "With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change." with the following reference: Julie Brigham-Grette et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). Eos 87 (36). Retrieved 2009-12-10. "AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."Airborne84 (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard, I added the reference. For those who have further discussion, please see my note two discussions below.Airborne84 (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why Dangerous?

The bulk of this article concerns whether or not the IPCC was correct in labeling the climate changes since the mid-20th century as "anthropogenic". However, the objective of Kyoto Protocol is the "stabilization and reconstruction of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." The lead paragraph of this article says "Additional disputes concern...what the consequences of global warming will be."

If anyone knows (or knows where to find out), what makes the consequences of climate change "dangerous"? Is the global climate as of 1950 "perfect" and, if so, who decided that and by what criteria? If we had the power to change it, would we make it 5 degrees cooler (like the Little Ice Age)? Or 5 degrees warmer (like the Medieval Warm Period)? Are they (whoever "they" are) only thinking about short-term effects? Maybe we could start a new sub-article or at least have a paragraph or two about consequences in this one. Or perhaps we should just remove any talk about "the consequences of global warming" from the lead? RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Effects of global warming, Politics of global warming and Economics of global warming seem to be the basic articles you are looking for. If you are looking for reference works/background on this - i guess the IPCC AR4 WG II+III reports is where you should look (there is also iirc a US CCSP assessment report about it]]) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Also see Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q20. And it has not been 5 degrees warmer or colder during the little ice age or the medieval warm period (if it even existed). The total range in he last 2000 years is much less than 5 degrees, wether Centigrade or Fahrenheit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


Why is "Changing positions of skeptics" in the politics section and why is there no corresponding section on the shifts in consensus view over time? I am not about to touch the article, just mulling. --BozMo talk 08:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for "At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement."

I removed the "citation needed" after this statement because I didn't see it about five weeks ago when I started researching this. I understand the need to provide references for certain statements. However, if someone had done research on the world's scientific bodies (a large task to be sure), and found no dissenting opinions, how would you cite that lack? Of course, if that statement came from a scholarly work, it should be cited. However, I believe that considering the number of skeptics that are out there (that surely read Wikipedia), if a dissenting opinion exists - someone would have found it and replaced that text by now. I believe that the fact that is hasn't been contested is citation enough. However, if someone feels differently, or knows who wrote the text and can get the details, there may be more to say on the subject. Airborne84 (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable point but one that has been discussed over and over again. Please see the archives. Sorry, I don't recall the exact dates of the discussions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - I'll admit I didn't see the archives. However, the fact that it's been widely discussed and no one has posted a dissenting opinion seems pretty good confirmation. Regardless, I posted a reference two discussions above. I just couldn't make it work in the Wiki page. maybe someone with better editing skills can.Airborne84 (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I was able to add the reference. There was quite a bit of "discussion" on this in the main article "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change." So, I would recommend that anyone who disagrees with the source document should check out that discussion first, as I think they've spent ample time discussing it - and the reference remains. An even better use of one's time would be to simply search for the dissenting opinion as the burden of proof is now on people who think a dissenting opinion might exist. Truthfully, if one exists, I'll be happy to add it myself.Airborne84 (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This version is an improvement... I would like to see the same language appear on Scientific opinion on climate change. --Tjsynkral (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I may have spoken too soon. The source clearly does not match the text that uses the source. The source says, "AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming" - and the article says "With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
In effect, the source says one scientific society denies human effects, and we say no body of national or international standing. Why do we say none when the source says one? And why do we add "national or international" - that isn't in the source. If we're going to use the source, can we at least be faithful to that source? --Tjsynkral (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
How reasonable. I agree there is a slight OR to the text and sticking with the source might be better :-o . --BozMo talk 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The text mentions a "revised statement" by AAPG. Am I to assume this statement recants their denial of human GW? Where is this statement? If we source that, we can keep it as-is. --Tjsynkral (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See Scientific opinion on climate change where the AAPG's current statement is linked. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why it's easier to tell someone how to improve the article rather than improve the article yourself. But I found it (and it is not cited properly as a footnote in that article, I will be sure to include that in the edit request over there). --Tjsynkral (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Something to do with a fish and fishing, I suspect. But I'm confused. What is wrong with footnote #69 in [1] (and any version in the history that I've checked)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Aside from a lack of details like publish date, access date... one of the references to that PDF in that article is a hotlink (under "Statements by dissenting organizations"), and doesn't use that footnote. --Tjsynkral (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this one is settled, but just in case, Tjsynkral - to answer your question: the statement in the footnote to the effect that the AAPG stood alone in its denial as a scientific society was meant to show that there was only one society remaining...and that dynamic was changed when the AAPG reversed their position - leaving zero scientific bodies remaining. The use of citations is less direct than a published document that simply states that "there are no remaining scientific societies...etc." but at the current time this may be the best way to logically explain the same concept - while using supporting references to keep people from adding the note "citation needed" to the direct, but unreferenced statement. I think the question of using the statement "national or international" has also been settled - by the redirect to the "scientific opinion on climate change" article. If not, or if it should be identified in the article, an adjustment to the references should suffice to allow the verbiage to remain.
I probably should have abstained from editing this type of article since I only started looking into climate change a couple of months ago - with no opinion either way beforehand. However, I'm certainly interested in accuracy and relevance in these articles now.Airborne84 (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
For info: WP:OR, specifcally WP:SYN, allows for simple obvious math, like (in this case) 1-1=0, to be included. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Since Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and the article is not titled 'Global warming controversy in the United States' I don't think it's a good start to have the Politics section begin with the views of America parties but rather a more global view. If more details about US opinion is needed, it should be in an inner section (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's some merit to that. It is worth noting that this is the English version of Wikipedia, so there could be some rationale to starting with opinions from a large portion of the English-speaking world. However, Americans are not the only readers of the English Wikipedia, to be sure. Why not draft an adjustment and discuss it? I wouldn't recommend trying to change key sections of a controversial article without a discussion on the talk page though.Airborne84 (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cite needs repair, or sentence needs dramatic rewrite

has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries[22].

I looked at the reference, and there is nothing there. Please someone fix the reference. If the statement is unsupported then it will need to be deleted or rewritten. I don't want to do so without discussion and giving someone a change to correct what might just be a stray dead link. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the Royal Society does not follow Berners-Lee. The new document page is at [2], the declaration has been printed in Science and is online here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can the Global WArming article be trusted in light of what Solomon reports about a Wikipedia Administrator?

The allegations were addressed at the appropriate noticeboard.

Allegations of impropriety made against William M. Connolley by Lawrence Solomon in the National Post and then repeated uncritically by James Delingpole in the Daily Telegraph were addressed in this discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

An article by Lawrence Solomon claims that the Climate-Gate emails show that Wikipedia has been manipulated on the issue of global warming. An excerpt from the article:

“Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

“All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”

Currently the Global Warming Article is locked and even the discussion page is locked. Is it locked a biased article controlled by Connolley or has this been corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has thousands of administrators, and Solomon's opinion piece is, sorry to say so, drivel. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a mistake to man the barricades against the implications of Climategate. As an example, this article is studded with IPCC references. All these national science academies cited the IPCC in their endorsement of AGW. But the IPCC's reports relied on input from the Hockey Team -- the scientists implicated in Climategate. In an open encyclopedia, shouldn't these articles by now reflect the obvious need to get an accounting of what exactly occurred? The whole edifice is in question. How much of it is tainted? Won't the public view the whole field as deeply suspect until those questions are aired and answered? Trying to pretend nothing happened looks odd. Has curiosity died? Greenbough (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Consider taking your concerns to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Climate_Change Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Can the Global WArming article be trusted in light of what Solomon reports about a Wikipedia Administrator?

The allegations were addressed at the appropriate noticeboard.

Allegations of impropriety made against William M. Connolley by Lawrence Solomon in the National Post and then repeated uncritically by James Delingpole in the Daily Telegraph were addressed in this discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

An article by Lawrence Solomon claims that the Climate-Gate emails show that Wikipedia has been manipulated on the issue of global warming. An excerpt from the article:

“Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

“All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”

Currently the Global Warming Article is locked and even the discussion page is locked. Is it locked a biased article controlled by Connolley or has this been corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has thousands of administrators, and Solomon's opinion piece is, sorry to say so, drivel. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a mistake to man the barricades against the implications of Climategate. As an example, this article is studded with IPCC references. All these national science academies cited the IPCC in their endorsement of AGW. But the IPCC's reports relied on input from the Hockey Team -- the scientists implicated in Climategate. In an open encyclopedia, shouldn't these articles by now reflect the obvious need to get an accounting of what exactly occurred? The whole edifice is in question. How much of it is tainted? Won't the public view the whole field as deeply suspect until those questions are aired and answered? Trying to pretend nothing happened looks odd. Has curiosity died? Greenbough (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Consider taking your concerns to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Climate_Change Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


addition to the controversy?

[3][4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section on the Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy because it's amply covered elsewhere and its significance to the wider controversy is hard to judge (Wikipedia:Recentism). Possibly a "See also" is merited at this stage, but it's hard to see this as being more than a nine-day wonder. The major news outlets already appear to be running out of new things to say on the matter, and most of the climate change news today appears to relate to the Copenhagen summit. --TS 16:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
This is far too big for you to remove on your opinion only. For a start, why didn't you put in links to justify your assertion "because it's amply covered elsewhere"? I'm putting it back until a much better argument for removing it is presented.--Damorbel (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've just added a see also section as proposed by TS who removed the full section. Please discuss it here if this also is not relevant and shall out. Nsaa (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
WTF guys? Why is there no mention of the E-mail hacking incident other than a lame 'see also' at the end? I don't mean to be Mr. Obvious here but this is a big thing and it belongs in the controversy section. Methinks someone here (*coughTonySidaway*) is gate blocking this, similar to the activist-scientists who were caught up in the controversy. Let's not make the same mistake twice. This is information and Wikipedia is an information site, people. JettaMann (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't I put in links to illustrate that it's covered adequately elsewhere? It's my impression that I did so when I typed the following link: Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy. I'm fine with a "See also" at the moment, and expect that in due course we may have a section on the subject--when we're clear about the impact the hacking incident will have on the controversy. --TS 01:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
How is this not notable in the context of an article on the global warming controversy? There are multiple reliable sources that make it clear it's already had an impact on the debate. There may be some question about how long-term that impact will be (although it seems quite politically naive to me to imagine this will go away), but the impact is already there. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Granted, many of these sources don't speak to the science of global warming, but they do speak to the controversy. Given what we already know, I don't see any justification for not covering it in this article. Do we honestly think this is going to go away? Especially given the nature of the allegations, which are not merely ones of scientific error, but of scientific misconduct? EastTN (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Geoffrey Lean, "Climate e-mails topple Australian opposition leader", The Daily Telegraph, December 1st, 2009. EastTN (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
And, just for kicks, John Tierney, "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science," The New York Times, November 30, 2009. EastTN (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I think the email hack and ensuing controversy has developed enough that it's time to include it in this article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As much as I don't think it will change anything in the long-term, the e-mail controversy needs to be covered. Removing it is going to just make people think that "Wikipedia" is trying to sweep things under the rug. Scholarly work needs to cover all sides, dissenting opinions, and relevant issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airborne84 (talkcontribs) 04:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

ClimateGate , there it is boys and girls, the word that can't be spoken at wikipedia !

This is a topic about controversy, so grow up and actually mention climategate in these pages if you wish to have any legitamacy. (talk) Sun Spot —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

Related Controversies?

In checking in I noticed that the Related Controversies section dealing with the skeptics anti-science positions on the regulating of ozone depleteing chemicals and the risks of passive smoking were removed on March 29, 2009 by "ChyranandChloe". Why was this allowed? It is quite clear that the skeptics simply did not want it known that they have resisted the scientific consensus on other notable issues as well. It was quite relevant because it lets people know just where these liars-4-hire are idealogically coming from, as spokespeople and spinmeisters for industry not for people. Clearly that kind of philosophy of distortion reflects on their positions on climate change as well. For those having such a disproportionate voice on such an important issue surely that little bit of knowledge is appropriate? I would hope it could be re-added. People need to know that these are not honest people. (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. We are going to have a lot of people asking about this, because it was linked from comments in the realclimate blog.
I am a strong advocate of the conventional science on global warming and a big fan of realclimate; but I am also active in wikipedia and know how it works. It's not a question of what is "allowed". Anyone can edit, and anyone can remove. It's completely counter to wikipedia principles to "disallow" changes. We presume that everyone is making their changes with a view to improving the encyclopedia, and try to reach a consensus on the content of the encyclopedia rather than laying down rules.
I personally think that this information is relevant and would like to see it included; but it's not just up to me or you. This was discussed at the time, in these pages. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

references section

The refs look like a dismal swamp of poor & inconsistent formatting. Eek. I dare not even try to fix them. If anyone wants to figure out where to put it, note #2 refers to:

  • McCright, Aaron M. & Dunlap, Riley E. (2000). Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims. Social Problems, Vol. 47, No. 4. , pp. 499-522.
  • • Ling.Nut 13:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I presume this would be your reference for:
"The level of coverage that mass media devoted to global warming "was minimal prior to 1988... but soon peaked between the middle of 1989 and early 1990".
I'm a bit worried about this. It seems improbable that the level of coverage of global warming in 1990 was anything like as high as it is now, when many mainstream newspapers have environment correspondents, the subject is a regular news item, major climate-related legislation is a regular occurrence in most countries and international agreements are in place.
To which mass media does it refer? Global, or only American? It's from 2000 so it's a bit out of date--an article 10 years ago claiming a "peak" of about 20 years ago. --TS 13:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for challenging this. I can email you the article; it is indeed outdated but is otherwise extremely informative. I forget if I accessed it via the Internet or a subscription-based database. However, the data sources are think tanks etc. The "peaked" is indeed misleading, as you say. My original intent was to provide context: when did these ideas began to hit the public consciousness? • Ling.Nut
Well in the UK context I think we can say that Margaret Thatcher's speech at the United Nations in 1989 really wakened things up. To say that media attention peaked in a global context in 1990 or so seems unacceptable, though in 2000 it might have been true of the USA. I suggest we use this source for whatever we can get out of it, but be aware of its limitations and continue looking for better information. --TS 15:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The full paper is online at I've not yet read it, but it looks interesting indeed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Human cause missing from lede

It seems to me that the extent to which human activity is responsible of global warming is a central part of the controversy and should be mentioned in the intro and not just alluded to. Am I missing something?--agr (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

..perhaps the fact you're missing is that there's no proof of the "A" in "AGW"... • Ling.Nut 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The opening sentence says "The global warming controversy is a dispute regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming" (my italics). Whether one wants to elaborate that the question of whether anthropogenic CO2 is a relatively large part of the public controversy, at least in the USA, is a question of balance. According to the figures cited in the "Public opinion" section, even that question isn't one where there is major dissent even in the USA, with some 79% of Americans agreeing that "Human activity is a significant cause of climate change." And our section on scientific opinion says "no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change." So maybe it isn't such a big part of the controversy that we should put it into the lead section. --TS 00:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Our article goes on to say "There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the US. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "[w]hile 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees." According to Science Digest "The global warming controversy is an ongoing dispute about the effects of humans on global climate and about what policies should be implemented to avoid possible undesirable effects of climate change." [14] The two primary questions that the IPCC answers are whether there is warming and whether it is human caused. In our article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, the largest group of scientists is listed under "Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes." i.e. not human caused. The word causes in the lede just alludes to the anthropogenic vs natural issue, why not be explicit? What other potential cause is at issue?--agr (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
We have conflicting sources. We should resolve the conflict by drilling deeper and seeing which of the sources are more reliable. --TS 02:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If you actually want to *know* about whether GW is anthro, then you should follow the links to global warming. If you want to know about the pointless chatter about it and the uninformed media and political debate, then you should be here, and this article should point you at suitable instances of this "debate" William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the chatter is not pointless in so far as it is holding up legislation on cap and trade in the U.S. Justified or not, there is controversy about global warming, at least in the U.S., and the extent to which humans are causing warming is very much a central part. I think that should be in the lede. Look, I'm not trying to open a new front in the climate wars here, I thought I was just pointing out an editorial oversight. Y'all have a Happy New Year.--agr (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is a matter of opinion. I was just trying to point out the distinction between the science and the politics. This article itself is somewhat trashy and I usually ignore it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This article, Global warming controversy, is not about the politics or societal issues. It is about the science as the article makes clear. Politics of global warming discusses the political controversy. How much of global warming of the 20th century was due to man is a part of the scientific controversy and should be mentioned in the lead paragraph. RonCram (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the above is true (this is about the scientific controversy, not the political problem), I'm wondering where we describe the "climate change denial", the "climate change skepticism", and the "AGW skepticism" positions and participants. I can't find any clear organization here. "Climate change denier/denial" has its own article, but the link from this one is in the "scientific consensus" section - I don't think denial is a matter of the consensus but rather the politics of it. "Climate change skeptic/skepticism" redirect here - by the above it should redirect to the political controversy article, right? But neither article has a section that tries to give an overview of that position. This one has a "changing positions" section that describes only part of the issue, and doesn't define it before saying that it has changed. AGW skepticism seems to be a new flavor of CC skepticism (not sure if it's the same people or the same political position), but there are no articles, sections, or redirects for that. So overall, a reader interested in getting a good overview of the political camps is out of luck. Sorry if this has been discussed before, I don't see it and I'm new to the page! - Wikidemon (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I found these articles made navigation very difficult and finding the kind of information one might want practically impossible. Perish the reader who wants to know whether Lord Monckton (currently doing a speaking tour of Australia) is lying over what he claims is the very uneconomic nature of reducing our carbon footprint.
Which is why I'm building a chart aiming to help identify what's wrong, it's here. The GW/AGW angle is part of it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

One sided article

Much of the article seems to be sided as global warming is fact. It needs more data against global warming.-- (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming is a fact. There is no data that disproves global warming. There are people who don't understand the science, and there are those who refuse to understand it for political or selfish reasons. See Global warming and Scientific opinion on climate change for why I say this. we have articles like Public opinion on climate change and Economics of climate change that try to cover other viewpoints too. All facts stated in Wikipedia have to be referenced to verifiable, reliable sources, especially controversial ones. --Nigelj (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
How can you call it one-sided when it cites without objection the results of Douglass et al drawing conclusions that "contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data"? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
A problem I see with all these related articles , whether it's global warming, global warming controversy, climate change, etc..., is that the definition in the headers and in paragraph to paragraph varies as to what the definition is. That definition variability is buried in general conversations also. The Global warming article right there in it's first sentence says NOTHING about global warming being anthropogenic. The climate change article says about the same thing except it states that anthropogenic warming is popularly called global warming. I never know from conversations of person to person or, in wikipedia, article to article, whether people are arguing about the same thing. If by definition global warming is anthropogenic it should state as thus right in the first sentence. If not then there should be a different article on anthropogenic global warming. The same with the climate change article. At least make the definition consistent to avoid extra controversy that these articles don't need. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right, in fact the whole lede omits any mention of the anthropogenic aspect. In view of the heated battles I've seen on this exact question it seemed like a prime candidate for inclusion in the lede, which I addressed just now by adding a suitable clause. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
@ - Fyunck(click) - a valuable point, both GW and AGW need mention in the lead and article. The current emphasis on covering as much as possible of the scientific (and observable) side of GW, while ignoring the fact that the linkage to AGW is intrinsically theoretical is both dubious in logic and confusing to readers. I have a number of ideas concerning the faults in these articles, you may have identified something more important than anything else. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change skepticism

Climate change skepticism redirects to this article. In a discussion at Talk:Climate change denial#Climate Change Skepticism vs. Denial it appears that the consensus there was that there are in fact three groups of people in the world:

  1. those who accept the scientific view on AGW
  2. those who are involved in denial of the scientific view (deniers)
  3. those who are rationally and legitimately sceptical of the science for valid reasons (sceptics)

I personally dispute that group 3 really exists, as I don't see 65% of the US population (or whatever the %age is) running their own figures through their own climate models and eagerly awaiting more data before they make their independent minds up. (I think many have said, in effect, "Only 97% of scientists agree with this? Well I'll go with the 3%, because that suits my lifestyle", which I would call a form of denial). That said, if that is the WP:CONSENSUS, I am happy to go along with it.

The point is, that if there is denial and scepticism, then should we have separate articles specifically describing the two positions? This would be preferable to trying to shoehorn discussion of this 'rational' scepticism into parts of the denial article and into parts of this one. What do editors here think of separating this concept out from here, there and possibly from elsewhere too? {{Main}} links would obviously tie the reading back together after any such refactor. --Nigelj (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to have separate categories for "deniers" and "scientifically minded skeptics". But it may be impossibly difficult for us to definitely decide who belongs in which category. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Lots going on in Global Warming since i last browsed this page - what is up with the Connelly thing( ie does he have his own article by now - I completely missed this blowup). RE Nigel's three points - number 3 sounds more plausible than I think he might guess. What with emails being hacked, etc the public has good reason to doubt stuff. As far as the computer models go, I work on one of the best - it aint that good... but courage we are still fixing it as I type, of course we have been fixing it for decades. (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm definitely a member of the third group. I hold a doctorate (although not in climate science), I have read the CRU and IPCC material and I am now very concerned about the manipulation of the peer review process as shown by the CRU e-mails, and the bogus claims regarding the Himilayan glaciers and the inclusion of World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace claims in the IPCC reports.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Stuff like this: seems to be coming out every day.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It certainly shows why Wikipedia need its policies about verifiability and reliable sources to stop articles being contaminated by pressure groups. You'd have thought the IPCC would show more sense than sticking stuff that wasn't properly peer verified into their report. I guess the problem is that they weren't really a scientific organization but something cobbled together to look at the problem by politicians. Dmcq (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way you do realize that criticism is about them saying the Himilayan glaciers were melting faster than anywhere else? Not about that the glaciers around the world were melting? Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
That's misleading - the IPCC report was written (and succeeding) in spreading such alarmism about the loss of Himalayan glaciers in the short-term that EU money was going to groups to study it's social effects. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but the melting glaciers are slightly increasing the flow in the rivers on which 2 billion people depend - no significant social effects likely for 100 years or more). More of this money went out even after the errors were known, based on portions of IPCC AR4 known to be false.
Meanwhile, the latest scandal (thankyou Spoonkymonkey) concerns replacing the Amazon with savannah - an important feedback (+ve) mechanism I tried to include in the main GW article here. You may guess, it was immediately reverted, leaving no mention of the Amazon or savannahisation whatsoever! MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't the foggiest what are the probable effects in the Amazon, but it does look to me like one editor here wanted to put in this WWF business about the Amazon into this article, and another is saying it is a scandal the IPCC stuck it into their report. Personally I tend to the scandal side if all they were depending on was some WWF report without peer review. Dmcq (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
They weren't relying entirely on the WWF. And there is a reason that we have a guideline such as WP:NOTNEWS. As i said in the below: This article is about notable controversies, not what is the cause celebre of the moment. If this belongs anywhere then it would be in Criticism of the IPCC AR4. But please read WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Joe d'Aleo and temperatures

There are several hundred scientific papers on temperature stations, on measurement, homogenization, averaging, uncertainties and other factors involved.

Despite this a self-published report by non-experts, which has had absolutely no mention in the scientific literature, very few mentions in mainstream media (and only very very recently) should suddenly be added... Please read WP:UNDUE, as well as WP:RS, because there seems to be some misunderstanding here...

We wouldn't add a scientific paper on this subject, which hadn't been in print for at least a month (test of time), so what makes it important enough to add a self-published report by non-experts? This is an article about notable controversy, not about the latest most recent claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Because, of course, anything skeptic must be rushed in immeadiately. See Talk:Stern_Review#NOTNEWs if you can bear it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
To KDP; Nonsense. Unless there's something in the GW probation rules that is — different — from the rest of Wikipedia, material only needs to be in a reliable source for it to be added to an article. The source doesn't need to be "in print for a month". I should, however, point out that I haven't checked whether this particular source is reliable, just that his argument, like the one WMC refers to above, is not based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but very wrong - I hope by oversight. It needs to be reliable, it needs to be relevant, and it needs to be in line with WP:WEIGHT. Icecap, however, is a conspiracy blog and fails even the first test by a wide margin. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I was going to copyedit my comment to note that I also didn't check whether the material was notable or outweighed by other (more) reliable sources. However, "the test of time" is not part of WP:NOTNEWS, and neither are WMC's comments on the Stern Review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Strangely enough WP:WEIGHT is a policy. The "test of time" is to ensure that we do not unintentionally give undue weight to something that is currently a "hot item" in the news. That is what WP:NOTNEWS boils down to really. When we are talking about a scientific area, the "news-cycle" is rather longer than what it is in mainstream media, thus we talk about "test of time", because there is a significantly longer reaction time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone else added the icecap link, this criticism is very common and there are several links (easily more out there). Honestly, you guys aren't arbiters of what skeptics believe - you should let actual skeptics edit this article instead of setting up so-called skeptics arguments and then knocking them down. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Interesting point. However, we also shouldn't give undue weight to quotes of unreliable sources such as Hansen rebutting claims that he may have been involved in manipulating data. As it stands, the information in the National Post (it's been removed from the Vancouver Sun web site) article probably should be combined with earlier disputes on the urban heat island effect and the paragraph regarding lack of sensors in the United States, already noted in the article in #Instrumental temperature record. It's just new information relating to an old, notable, dispute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The graph is quite good and I took the time to get copyright permission for it. I believe this criticism was also in the hour-long special by John Coleman (Weather Channel Founder). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I was right - here it is. This criticism was part of the Global Warming: the Other Side television special. As I said, this is obviously a notable argument from skeptics and has been promoted by several big name skeptics like Ross McKitrick. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 :-o That's where the disputed section was added. My mistake. Carry on restoring the information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
McKitrick is not a "big name skeptic".. His only contribution to the sceptic side, is as a side-kick to McIntyre. And Coleman is also not a "big name skeptic", he isn't even a scientist. And of course as always you forget WP:NOTNEWS --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes McKitrick is well-known in sceptic circles - I follow them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Well known, yes. Big name, no. And i follow these as well. McKitrick's notability in sceptics circles comes from his contributions with McIntyre. He's done some other stuff, but that has barely lifted anyones eyelids.. (there is no such thing as global average temp; temp follows development;...) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah so he is "well-known" but not "big name" enough to merit inclusion. Thanks for clearing that up Kim. You really don't like that graph do you? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
TGL, i'm rather indifferent towards the graph. I'm not indifferent in wanting to have the article document notable sceptical positions, and the controversy in general according to weight. This is not one those cases (whether one likes the graph or not). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, in addition to the sources provided I quickly found station loss mentioned twice at WUWT, the biggest skeptic blog online [15][16]. Is this sufficient evidence (in addition to all the other sources)? Or do you havea better method of determine what skeptics believe? I'm a skeptic, you aren't, I think this is interesting stuff, and it's been covered on a television documentary (by skeptics), newspapers, the biggest skeptic blog on the internet and by prominent AGW skeptics like McKitrick - this is clearly notable by any reasonable standard. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yay! On two more unreliable sources (WUWT), and a local TV station in San Diego. You are aware that this is a global issue aren't you? You are also aware that Watts isn't representative of what sceptics think - right? I believe Lindzen very recently called this kinda stuff BS (he also called a lot of pro- stuff the same of course), in a speech at the CEI (iirc). You are misreading notable with "someone mentioned it on blogs and it was also in the news". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
<outdent> Kim, WUWT gets millions of hits every month - it is by far the biggest blog for skeptics online and that TV documentary has been extensively watched online as well (not to mention KUSI covers a large population itself). It is ridiculous to say only criticism was famous physicists/atmos. scientists should be the only source - this topic is inherently about stasitics, of which McKitrick is well qualfied on commenting on as an academic. You are setting an unreasonable bar - this is not surprising though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
How many viewers WUWT has doesn't matter here. It is not a WP:RS. And i doubt if a KUSI special is either.
The basics here is: There is exactly one reference that is reliable [National Post, and reprinters]. Thats an extremely low bar for notability and is far outweighted by all other controversies in this article. It simply fails all reasonable WP:WEIGHT assessments. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Wrong, this is about establishing the notability of the argument - when the biggest skeptic blog writes about it, multiple times, it is certainly notable - esp. with all the other corroborating evidence that I've already gone over. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Rubin, the UHI argument is notable (albeit not something that has raised its head that much recently), because it is massively represented in reliable sources, has a significant amount of science papers that discuss it. The sensor controversy not so much, but it has several reliable sources talking about it, and multiple science papers.
This on the other hand, has no science papers about it, it is so new that there is almost no mentions in reliable sources, it has absolutely no background for being "enduring". (per WP:NOTNEWS) The "documentary" given as notability evidence, has only been shown on a San Diego local TV station. Pray tell how it merits WP:WEIGHT? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The trouble is TGL, that very few sceptics, actually do argue this particular point of view. None of the scientists amongst sceptics are playing this card. The report has just been released, so claiming that this is "what sceptics believe" is gazing in the crystalball. It is undue weight and focusing on the latest headlines, all of which is a breach of WP:NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The Global Warming documentary came out on January the 14th, and Ross McKitrick's chart that I'd uploaded had been out for several years (and in several of his published works). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
What global warming documentary? Has it been shown on any major channels? Has any non-US channels shown it? What is its notability compared to TGGWS? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The whole GW debate is unique in scientific history - it's extremely difficult to get answers to questions. Unless you're paying to hear what you want to hear, of course. Or so says William Happer, and it sounds as if he should know. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
What is so special about Happer? What is specifically notable about him? Is he a climate scientist? Does the literature generally quote him as an authority on this particular issue? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
As it has been said, you can do physics without climatology, but you can't do climatology without physics. Discarding a physicist from a climate debate because he is not a "climate scientist" (whatever that may mean) is absurd. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Did that answer any of my questions? [sidenote: Physics is a large field btw. Specializing in one branch, doesn't mean that you have any more knowledge of another branch, than (say) an engineer does. (as an analogy: You can't build bridges like the golden gate bridge, without engineering - despite this very few engineers have the background to stress analyse iron under the conditions that is inherent in such a problem)] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You cannot demand answers of peripheral questions - especialy when there's been a total failure, in articles and in Talk, to answer all the real questions people have about "the science", the thing we're here to inform people about, remember?
I will repeat evidence from Happer, however, here's some of what he claims in the DailyPrincetonian Jan 2009: I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow ... I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken" At the Department of Energy at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research managing a budget of more than $3 billion, he felt compelled to make sure it was being spent properly "climate change scientists ... was a completely different experience ... a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like'. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
MalcolmMcDonald, Wikipedia policy demands that we can't do Q&A's in article talk-space. You've been told this before. Article talk-space is also not here for you to use as a soapbox to complain about not understanding and getting answers. As before: Try some of the many websites and blogs out there. New Scientists has iirc a good section on GW myths with a Q&A. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
@Kim you say there is no such thing as global average temp nasa disagree`s with you 2010-01-21: NASA has posted a news release about the 2009 average global temperature mark nutley (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
No Mark, NASA disagrees with McKitrick (it is his argument, not mine), i strangely enough agree with mainstream science which says that of course it is possible to calculate a global average temp. [but this is a sidestep into a non-debate that never got further than a few headlines a couple of years ago] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but i have a large problem with this, there is only one reliable source for this, and that is a very recent national post one. All of the rest of the references are non-WP:RS. One self-published "documentary" (played on only one local TV station in San Diego), 2 WP:SPS's by McKitrick (who is not an expert, and thus not an exception to SPS), and something in the American Thinker. And every single one of them quotes Joe D'Aleo as a source - there are no outside sceptics quoted.... None. How on Earth is this notable? How does it even remotely compare to the other controversies with regards to WP:WEIGHT? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC) [correcting one instance of self-publishing which shouldn't have been there, the "documentary" was made by/for the local TV station in San Diego --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)]
People reference D'Aleo (a meteorologist) because he is the one who initially highlighted the NOAA removing thousands of stations from the temp. record which strongly correlated with an increase in the temperature record. The documentary, from the founder of the Weather Channel and a meteorologist, isn't "self-published," that is a pretty insulting thing to say and quite incorrect - I can only imagine why you'd say such a thing. McKitrick, as a expert in environmental economics - that is what he teaches and his graph is published on his school website. This is about what skeptics think, I should know being one, and you are apparently unaware - quoting policy after policy, none of which apply here, is frankly quite silly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but D'Aleo is the only one who highlights this. McKitrick may have a few pages on his personal website about it - but they all refer to D'Aleo. "This is about what skeptics think" - then you will have to demonstrate that sceptics really think this. As for McKitrick, yes he is an expert in environmental economics - but this isn't about economics... Its about physical measurement, thus he is not an expert per SPS.
Being a "founder of the Weather channel" doesn't make you a scientist or even a meteorologist (in the science sense).. It makes you an entrepreneur. And in fact the "founder of the Weather channel" has absolutely no education in meteorology... None. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
So I take it you are retracting that unsourced "self-published" claim? Also, I've plainly shown that D'Aleo isn't the only one talking about this - they often reference him, since polite people give credit for other's reveleations (instead of stealing credit from the work of others). Additionally, I'll educate you a bit, back in 1957, when Coleman first became a weatherman, far fewer people had college degrees, and, in fact, learned much of their skills from on-the-job training and a love of knowledge. Of course, none of that really matters, what matters is that he is notable and presented a notable criticism on a TV documentary.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This should be escalated to one of the notice boards. It seems to depend on a modification of WP:WEIGHT to only consider the the weight only in seasoned (KDP said "in print more than one month") scientific reliable sources. But there's also a dispute about whether a Weather Channel "documentary" is a reliable source, even if the primary creator may not be. I have also asked the question of whether an a marginally reliable (fails WP:RS, but generally would be considered credible in the real world) source may be used to reduce the weight given to a reliable source which it contradicts. I believe WP:WEIGHT requires editorial judgment. As an aside, to help TheGoodLocust establish expert status, does McKitrick have published papers on environmental economics in peer-reviewed journals? If so, his WP:SPS should be considered reliable unless he accuses specific individuals of selecting the stations to be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, McKitrick does indeed have peer-reviewed papers on that subject. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. It is not a "Weather channel" documentary, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Weather channel.
  2. The "documentary" in question has been shown (afaik) only on KUSI, a local TV station in San Diego. (local production)
  3. All documents by McKitrick are unpublished, and not within his expertise area. (thus WP:SPS)
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. I never said it did, the host of the documentary founded the Weather Channel.
  2. The documentary has been covered widely online by skeptical blogs and conservative websites.
  3. Wrong, flat out wrong, the link to his peer-reviewed publications shows which journals they were printed in. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. I know, and i didn't say you did. But you should have corrected Rubin in the above (which you answered), since he was under that impression. (my numbered list was a reply to Rubin (same indentation level)).
  2. Which are all non-WP:RS's aren't they? The blogosphere is interesting - but it doesn't relay notability.
  3. Then i suggest that you point out which papers he has published this in. All you've linked is a list of McK's papers, not the papers covering this.
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. I know, but you gave the impression that the "Weather Channel" connection was a complete fantasy - I was correcting your correction to note what the connection actually was.
  2. The blogosphere does indeed relay notability and wikipedia has used prominent blogs in the past like RealClimate (one of your favorite sources I believe) and the Huffington Post.
  3. Not necessary and tedious, I linked his papers and it shows exactly what papers they were published in. All you have to do is read them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I thought of a plausible argument in environmental economics which doesn't require wrong-doing by any individual, even if the differential warming calculation described on my talk page was used. It would be pointless to state it here (as I'm not a professional economist), and I don't know if McKitrick actually used it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
D'Aleo isn't a meteorologist, much less a climatologist. He is a retired TV weatherman William M. Connolley (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a step to proving D'Aleo notable would be to start an article on him. I can't see Joe D'Aleo or friends. The sourcewatch article [17] might be useful, if you're short of sources William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You say he is not a meteorologist, then supply a link showing he is, do you like proving yourself wrong :) mark nutley (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Meteorologist in the USA is a non-protected title, all weather presenters are titled meteorologist, no matter whether or not they have a formal education or not. All it requires is that you can look good, when you are presenting the weather charts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
D'Aleo has an MS in Meteorology and taught college level courses in the same. He is also a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and a past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’ Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. He also published a book in 2002, The Oryx resource guide to El Niño and La Niña. I think this qualifies. Q Science (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is WP:WEIGHT, on whether or not this qualifies as a global warming controversy.
There is only one national reference on this, the claim is "supported" by less than 3 sceptics, none of which are scientists within the field.
Please check all the rest of the controversies in the article, and notice the amount of coverage that these have gathered. We've had to split the article, and shorten the description of the very real controversies in the article several times. And we've still had to dismiss things that have significantly more weight than this one.
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd assumed since ExxonSecrets was considered a good source, by you, that a television documentary, newspaper, the biggest skeptic blog online, a meteorologist and a prominent climate skeptic who teaches environmental economics, would be good enough to establish notability. Perhaps I'm being unreasonable? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Try to address the points made, not the editor will 'ya? Also you might want to read the edit-comment i made, and the talk page of that article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm just trying to understand your standards for inclusion - and what better way to enlighten me then by looking at your record? We certainly can't find common ground if we can't grok each other. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Do that in another forum. Address content/issues not editors. I suggest you redact this. [this included, you have my permission] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Try: a "special" shown on local TV station in San Diego, One newspaper article, a TV weather presenter (with an MS in meteorology), a blog and two self-published page on a sceptics website. Doesn't sound like much when it is put that way - does it? You are inflating the importance, to make it seem like more than it is.
In comparison: All of the controversies on this article, has had numerous (>100) mentions in national/internation media, have been mentioned in several books (>10), is discussed in the scientific media (>10 PR papers), mentioned in several national and international TV documentaries/news-shows (>100), is extensively discussed on numerous blogs including the one that you mention above etc. etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't sound nearly as good when you put it like that. Luckily, that description happens to be inaccurate and/or misrepresentative in several ways - which we've already gone over. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Except that you haven't. What reliable sources are available? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. D'Aleo had as much of a professional standing as a meterologist as was possible at the time; he qualfies as an expert in a related field.
  2. The TV special doesn't seem to be being used as a reference; the interview which was not fully included in the broadcast is. That reliability is a bit questionable, as it may depend on the interviewer's integrity, but the interviewee is an expert in a related field, as noted above or below.
  3. McKitrick claims over 20 publications in peer-reviewed journals, many of which appear to be in the related fields of climate economics and geostatistics. We'd have to check that the journals are peer-reviewed and that he actually published in them, but if not claiming him to be a liar, he qualifies as an expert in related fields.
  4. The blog is not being used as a source relating to the truth of the claims; it is being used as an example of the notability of the claim. The readership of the blog is relevant to that. (If it were refuted on RealClimate, we could use that as an example of the notability of the claim, as well, even though RealClimate is not a reliable source, and posts there are considered self-published <cavaet redacted, as I can't figure out how to do it without accusing some editors of bad faith>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talkcontribs)
  1. as compared to whom? Are you saying that a TV weather presenter with an MS, some college teaching experience and no published science (except a popular science book) qualifies as an expert? Standards have fallen indeed.
  2. Actually it is being used as a reference. The interview is part of the special. And it has only been shown on the local TV station (KUSI) in San Diego.
  3. McK's is an economist, not a physical scientist. This is not a "related field" to economics.
  4. That RC has written about something doesn't make it notable, or increase the WP:WEIGHT of something. So not a good example. It can only be used as a reference if the particular subject has been covered in other sources, and if the writer is an expert writing on the subject of his expertise. This is all basic WP:SPS stuff.
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> Yes Kim we've gone over this plenty of time. Anyway, here for more sources - The Examiner (seems to have been improperly blacklisted at the moment), The Province, Investors Business Daily, and TransWorldNews. Let me take a guess - these sources don't meet your criteria? If you like, there is also one from Media Matters - you'd like that one right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Argh: #1 is the only notable reliable source so far (same one as before). #2 is an editorial in a business paper and it mentions it in passing (last paragraph), #3 is the SPPI news release (written by d'Aleo himself) and not a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. 1 it seems this article was carried in several news outlets (the other already sourced). #2 editorials in business paper's aren't good sources for notability? 3# WorldTransNews decided to go with it - if it was so unimportant then they didn't have to publish. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was carried by many of those who carry CanWest articles. And yes, a business newspapers editorial is a rather bad indication of how notable a science controversy is, it is simply not their metie. WorldTransNews carries newsreleases with no editorial oversight (thats what they do) and is not a reliable source.
Now, i'm not in doubt that d'Aleo thinks this is correct. I'm also not in doubt that he has said this.
But that doesn't make it notable (WP:WEIGHT), for it to become notable as a global warming controversy there has to be more than just a person stating that it is. We do not cover things just because a single (or less than a handfull) thinks something, it actually has to be a controversy. Things are not enduringly notable, just because they have had a short news-burst. (per WP:NOTNEWS)
Every one of the controversies that the article contains, actually has a significant number of followers (more than 10), has been covered over a long period of time (> year), has a significant number of independent mentions in reliable sources (>100), are covered in books (>10), has been covered in TV (national & international) several times (>10), has been covered in the scientific press (>10 PR papers).
All figures are conservative and shouldn't be taken as a "bright line". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Having looked at McKittrick's list of academic journal articles, I think it's absurd for anyone to claim that there is doubt about his publications. I am familiar with some of those journals, and they are for real. I'm also curious to know when Wikipedia's sourcing standard went from "verifiable" to "peer reviewed."Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
(to KDP again)
  1. Yes, he's as good a source as could be expected for a meteorologist of his era.
  2. Wrong, we're not using the TV program, we're using the full interview edited in to the program. The person interviewed is a expert, so it's reliable.
  3. McK has published papers in peer-reviewed geophysical journals, and those papers are related to global warming. Environmental economics is a related subject; not as to the warming itself, but as to why people might want to fudge the data.
  4. That scientific papers are written about a controversy is not relevant to whether it's notable. Climate blogs, or real-world newspapers, are.
So we should remove RC as a source except where the Wikipedia article is about RC itself, or the item is written by a scientist who has peer-reviewed articles, and the blog entry itself is in the same field has his peer-reviewed articles and of the Wikipedia article. That should clean out some of True Believer crap. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that the "Betting" section in this article is almost entirely sourced by small fry blogs and inaccessible magazine articles. This section easily has better sources than that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

I full protected the page. I'm getting tired of seeing the same 5-6 people at every edit war in this topic area, and I'm half inclined to ban or severely restrict the lot of you. Hash out a consensus here, and then decide whether or not to include the paragraph. NW (Talk) 12:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Restrict the people who are stone-walling this page and blocking all new material (especially the stuff now in the public domain). Even before the glacier-melting-2035 debacle it was a very poor article, with scientific (observable) GW being hopelessly confused with the theory of AGW. Confusing, uninformative and now even more POV than it was. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep, they stonewalled the inclusion of that stuff in the IPCC article with the same excuses - when they were flat out shown to be wrong they removed a section that'd been in the article for 5 years as some sort of "revenge." TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Even if GW "Controversy" were truly on the margins, go to WP:FRINGE and you'll find it says "articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations".
In fact, almost everything about the article is either wrong or quite different to the way it's done elsewhere. "Public opinion" is the very first section, it hopelessly confuses the very different GW and AGW, it's far too much to read and it looks a mess. Including or perhaps especially the table in there, which could be useful but isn't. What this article needs is less interference, not more. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW ...

of course the times is just a rag, etc etc .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Could Someone Add This?

I wonder if someone could add a bit about former climate change skeptic Gregg Easterbrook's change from denialism to acceptance of AGW to the Changing Positions of Skeptics section?

Here's a comment from Easterbrook: "As an environmental commentator, I have a long record of opposing alarmism. But based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert." (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. The NYT date was 2006, so I inserted it right after a link to a 2006 source.--SPhilbrickT 21:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much SPhilbrick. In looking at it I'm thinking it might be better to put in it's own paragraph perhaps after the Ron Bailey comments. The name of Gregg Easterbrook should be an internal wiki link too.
Wikilinked. However, I don't follow why this entry is deserving of a full paragraph, so I didn't break it out.SPhilbrickT 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I also noticed this in that section "U.S. Climate Action Report 2002". Looks like something got messed up at some point. I suppose it would be easier to contribute if I got a username but I don't contribute enough here to justify it. Don't want one anyway... :-) (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Multiple nonsense removed. Q Science (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Muchas gracias. (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BEWARE - there would seem to be [are!] two Easterbrooks in the frame. There is Gregg and there is this man: "EASTERBROOK, Don J., Dept. of Geology, Western Washington Univ, Bellingham, WA 98225," who believes the opposite, according to this source, because he presented a paper entitled "THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING AND PREDICTIONS FOR THE COMING CENTURY" to the "2006 Philadelphia Annual Meeting (22–25 October 2006)" which states "... changes, 10 orders of magnitude greater than the 0.8° C global temperate of the past century, were clearly not caused by changes in atmospheric CO2" and "... If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5° C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 ° C, rather than the catastrophic warming of 3-6° C (4-11° F) predicted by the IPCC." Are there really two notable Easterbrooks with opposing beliefs? The sceptic (ie Don Easterbrook) claims to have made a 2001 prediction that there would be global cooling (neither proven nor disproven at the moment) and seemed to be still sticking by his guns in 2006. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Don Easterbrook is a geology professor emeritus at Western Washington University, and a skeptic. See his homepage. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
So you label him "a skeptic". He appears to be using real data and sound logic! "Figure 4 shows CO2 that even though emissions from 1945 to 1977 soared, global temperature dropped during that 30–year period. If CO2 causes global warming, temperature should have risen, rather than declined, strongly suggesting that rising CO2.did not cause significant global warming." He is looking at the data and properly interpreting it, it appears to me. Looks like CO2 is not the bad guy, and this makes much more sense anyway. It appears this section is very poorly written and full of unnecessary material that obfuscates the arguments against CO2 being a significant cause of anything but is merely a result. This clutter merely further increases distrust of Wikipedia as a source of unbiased information for this subject. But thanks for pointing this person out. He has a very good website and has good credentials. So does Richard Lindzen. Good article in NEWSMAX also. (Rkcannon (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

Please add the link (Greenpeace USA). Thanks! --Gsälzbär (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, IMHO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change consensus

Controversy surrounding the presence of a scientific consensus

Just a heads up - folks watching here might be interested in the debate occurring at Talk:Climate change consensus#RfC: Split Article? and Talk:Climate change consensus#More spaghetti...Jaymax✍ 09:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."

I can not stress how incorrect this sentence is. Many scientists and organizations have expressed doubt. There is no consensus. If you bother to check the source, you will see that it is a statement by 1 society about the IPCC's 2001 report. That is hardly a global concensus. (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You have confused the statement ("by 1 society") about the consensus with the consensus (by the IPCC) itself. For sure, there are some number (how do you define "many"?) scientists that disagree, but "consensus" does not mean unanimity. It means that the bulk of the scientists that work in the field, and practically all of the scientific organizations (offhand I can't think of any exceptions), do endorse the finding of global warming. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no consensus: “has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change” only means that those who agree with this conclusion, issued some sort of endorsement.
including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries” - Ukrainian and Russian academies of sciences did not issue any statements endorsing this conclusion, it is hard to deny that those countries are amongst the most industrialized nations. I propose to reflect this in the corresponding section of the article. (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Has some source said what you want to say? A basic part of wikipedia is it is supposed to summarize what other people have said. Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will provide source if there were statements from Ukrainian or Russian academies of Sciences. Since there were no statements, then there are no sources to provide for reference. I think we need to edit this section of the atrticle to reflect that there is no consensus on this matter.Vsobody (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here - because the Russian academy of sciences is one of the endorcing scientific academies. Ukraine i'm afraid is not counted amongst the major industrialized countries. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[28], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[29]” - actually this is not true. Referenced document states only that AAPG supports further research on this matter. Once again, I recommend to edit this section to reflect that there is consensus towards continuous research on whether there is a climate change, and to what degree this change is attributable to human activities.--Vsobody (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't "reject" it anymore. Which is correct. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
and the reference to this "does not reject" is ???--Vsobody (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, looks like there no new comments here, so I recommend to edit this section to state the following:
There is consensus that there is a need to continue to study changes in the climate, and what impact human activity may play in this process, however, right now there is no consensus on the question on the scale and pace of the climate change, and the impact of human activity on this process. --Vsobody (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones...

Well, uh, I don't know what to say on this one, but read this interview of Phil Jones by the BBC: PokeHomsar (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Public Opinion

The public opinion data seems to end around 2007 on this page for some reason. Recent polls have shown that belief in AGW theory has gone off a cliff. [18] [19] [20] Shouldn't we update this table with recent polls? JettaMann (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SUMMARY, that section should be a summary of the main article, Public opinion on climate change. The place to start is there, discuss all current data and summarise the discussion here. Bear in mind that your refs only refer to the US and NZ and that there are about 200 other countries in the world, so the data should be put into that context in both articles to maintain WP:GLOBALWEIGHT. --Nigelj (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
No, put the newer data up. The alarmists have had enough say in this article. The AGW theory is dying a painfully hilarious death in public opinion and scientific sanity. The globe hasn't warmed in 15 years (according to a leading AGW proponent). (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
eMail revelations on junk-science coverup at IPCC continues to influence opinion.[21] Of course, Public Opinion is not Science. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Guide To The ClimateGate Scandals

From the "Orange County Register"[22] February 15th, 2010
WP:COPYVIO removed. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to write this article to what the sources say? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as I just said elsewhere, "Climate change controversies" are currently being manufactured quicker than you can list them. They all amount to nothing. Spring is still coming earlier, seas acidifying, ice melting etc., and the oil and CO2 are still getting pumped. One day, as a matter of record, we may have to list them, but we need to see if any of them have any effect on anything first. And if they ever do, those effects will appear in secondary sources. When the IPCC say they have changed their position based on what they read in the Orange County Register, for example. --Nigelj (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The first generation of GW alarmists have taken a really serious blow, from which it will probably take them many years to recover. This unfortunate effect coincides with what may be up to 20 years of plateau ahead according to ocean-current Latif (who insists he's a regular alarmist). It's getting time that these articles were written to be informative to the reader, and one thing they need to do is explain just how badly the first climatologists bolloxed things up for themselves. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen this? The academic analysis always lags, but it seems that the view is that this is not a cock-up by the scientists but a sustained and well-funded campaign by the conservative right. The trouble is that these greedy men have been playing russian roulette with the very future of the planet, for their own short-term ends. It will take a while before such published analyses of this years crop of -gates is available, but that's OK, WP is an encyclopedia not a news feed. We need to wait and see what serious analysis makes of all this before diving into the articles with blog- and op-ed-sourced opinions of our own. --Nigelj (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for linking that Nigel, I hadn't seen it and it was quite interesting.--SPhilbrickT 01:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Malcolm, you are wrong with regards to Latif and "20 years of plateau ahead", you may want to read what Latif is writing, instead of relying on erroneous accounts in the popular media (and yes, i can call them erroneous because Latif says that they are). I find your choice of wording here, rather strange, what defines an "alarmist"? Is that anyone who thinks that there are anthropogenic impacts? (i ask because you state that Latif is such). Are you aware that by doing so, you are polarizing things even further? And that you are putting the vast majority of climate scientists down as "alarmists"? [btw. i do agree that there is such a thing as an "alarmist", just as there are contrarians and deniers - the trouble is that with your apparent picture, there seems to be no neutral stance] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Plan to remove Lomborg material.

I noted the recent addition of an edit mentioning the Friel criticism of Lomborg. This book, while highly relevant to Lomborg, and appropriate for the article on Lomborg, has nothing to do with the section heading "Changing positions of skeptics". In fact, the entire Lomborg quote, while interesting, does not support the thesis of the section. It doesn't assert, for example, that Lomborg has changed his position over time. I'm not opining on whether he has or hasn't, but in a section about changing positions, the material should support changing position, not simply identify the positions of certain notable individuals. I plan to remove the Lomborg quote and the subsequent sentence, but simply removing the irrelevant material will leave a gap - an assertion that some skeptics have shifted to support of adaptation, without any reference supporting such a shift (Just to be clear, Lomborg supports adaptation, but there's nothing in the quote to show his position has shifted.) Finally, the last sentence about Nordhaus will need changing. I'd like to first get some agreement that the Lomborg quote does not belong in this section, and then I'll work on suggestions for rewriting the surrounding sentences. One alternative is that Lomborg has shifted his views, and we merely need to find the relevant quote—if someone has such a candidate, we could consider it, although the Friel sentence still is out of place.--SPhilbrickT 00:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in February, the Lomborg quote, while interesting, is not relevant to a section about the changing positions of skeptics. In his well-know book, Lomborg largely accepts the IPCC conclusions. If he formerly believed "that global warming is unproven", I'm not aware of it, more importantly, it isn't asserted with a reference. The Nordhaus and Schellenberger sentence has a link, but:
  • It is to a blog. Some blogs are acceptable, but I doubt this one is.
  • The link go to the general blog page, not to a specific article, so it isn't clear what article is meant
  • Arguments in favor of adaptation aren't relevant to the section unless the article talks about a changing position. That isn't even asserted.
I've also take out the sentence claiming some skeptics have shifted their position from disbelieving AGW to support for adaptation, as there are no examples.--SPhilbrickT 17:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you also noticed the sheer amount of blogs used as refs in this article, i intend to remove them when time allows mark nutley (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I hadn't. My understanding is that blogs closely associated with a newspaper, such that editorial control exists, are acceptable. I don't know whether we have a definitive list of acceptable blogs, or just a working rule.--SPhilbrickT 17:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes blogs in newspapers which retain editorial control are wp:rs but this one for instance ref 199 most certainly is not and there appears to be a lot of blogs used throughout all the climate change related articles mark nutley (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There's the Pielkes' blogs, McIntyre's blog, and so on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Depends boris, if pielke is blogging about something within his area of expertise the nhe is wp:rs right? Dunno about mcintyre but as he is a major player in the whole controversy it makes sense to link to his blog. However the one i linked above is most certainly just an opinon blog and is noway wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Roy Spencer removed?

Roy_Spencer_(scientist) by Boris [23] Given his credentials boris i think he is actually wp:rs could you let me know why you have removed this section please mark nutley (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a blog posting, not peer-reviewed literature. We've got enough trouble with sourcing without reaching down into blogs. If an idea has any merit it will have been published in a journal somewhere. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No Boris you are incorrect for instance you have said real climate is reliable as the people writing in it are experts writing within their fields. The same goes for Spencer here, he is wp:rs please self revert mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Just double checked on this Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications So he is wp:rs. Please self revert, thanks mark nutley (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested, Mark, in just how is it that you are able to ascertain, for each of the blogs you are dealing with at the moment, exactly what is the 'area of expertise' of each blogger? Are there reliable sources for that? Are you checking their CVs? --Nigelj (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Mark, This is a complicated discussion, which you kind of started. Policy does not, as far as I can see mean the blog of an established expert is always allowable, there is a proper discussion to have here. Strict pedantic interpretaion of policy would be they have to be expert in the "topic of the article" here is "Global warming contraversy". When that fails (and who is an expert in the contraversy itself?), on what would Roy Spencer have to be an established expert? If the topic is what he says in his blog Boris is right, he only has established expertise in that if he has third party reviewed work (which we should find instead). Otherwise what is the topic? I don't know... it completely fails to be clear cut, or at least not clear cut enough for me to judge. --BozMo talk 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I look at the website, i then google the names on said website. Easy really. If i am unsure i bring it to the reliable sources notice board, hope that answers your question nigel @Bozmo it would depend on the context that said experts comments were being framed or quoted would it not? mark nutley (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, some of it may be in the paper here: [24] anyway. I am struggling on a quick look to see that Roy Spencer is an "established expert" but perhaps I am too picky about the terms.--BozMo talk 22:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

L is there because he has published. Spencer shouldn't be there for stuff he has only written on his blog. If it is any good, why hasn't he published it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read this again whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications He has, it has been. Hence his self published work can be used as a reliable source. mark nutley (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Cool. So WMC and I can post stuff on blogs and then cite it in Wikipedia? And you'll of course support us because we've been "previously published by reliable third-party publications"? Thanks, I never thought of things that way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have seen WMC`s blog used as a ref actually, and i did not remove it as he was blogging about something in a field in which he is an expert. That`s the defining point boris, it must be about something in your field of expertise not just any old random stuff mark nutley (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Pretty sure that Wikipedia does not meet the standard of a "reliable" third part publication. Even the founder disputes that idea. Airborne84 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall saying it was. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked the Article and see Roy Spencer’s name mentioned a few times. This is a good thing. You could ask IPCC why he isn’t published more; (he is on the ‘Denier List') yet he is a recognized scientist and has testified before Congress. Spam removed per WP:TPG by 2/0Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly useful article

I saw [25] in the FT today. There are some useful looking quotes, particularly towards the end. (It appears that I'm only getting the first few sentences with a 'Sorry' message about the rest at the moment at that link -YMMV) --Nigelj (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Post-normal science

This insidious corruption of classical science has been specifically linked to global warming/climat change science. I believe it should be mentioned and/or discussed within the present article. __meco (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Post-normal science is not a particularly notable subject within the topic of global warming controversy (if at all). Also WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:UNDUE etc. — DroEsperanto (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Meco. The Post-normal debate is one of the key elements of the global warming controversy. AGW's most vociferous supporters adhere to some or all the PN paradigm, and AGW's most strident detractors point to it as one of its most serious concerns. How can this not be notable? FellGleaming (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Meco, as well. It's a notable perversion of the scientific method and risk analysis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't be presented as a perversion of science, but in a neutral manner, so the reader can decide for themselves whether or not it is. If its done in that manner, I don't see how anyone could object to its inclusion. It's obviously a notable part of the debate. FellGleaming (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ordering of the public perceptions in the U.S. table

What was used to define the default orderinbg of the table that comes below the statement, "public perceptions about the existence and importance of global warming have changed in the U.S."? It does not seem to be alphabetic by the first column, or numerically ordered by the 2nd or 3rd columns. I know you can re-order it by clicking the headings, but what exactly does it tabulate? I also notice that the same statement appears twice in the first column, for different dates, but nothing else has any tabular pattern to it. Would whatever it is meant to communicate be better set out as a series of bullet points? Or a paragraph of text? --Nigelj (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That table is getting worse - it's longer now, but still in random order and seems randomly to tabulate more unrelated data than before. Can we assume from the comment "(Global, not US)" on one row, that the rest of the table is US-centric? Can we at least order it by date or percentage, if either of those make any sense? Judging by the three {citation needed} tags, half of the data is probably made up anyway. I think it should be deleted now. --Nigelj (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Nigelj, this table is a serious problem. Smacks of WP:OR and synthesis. Should be removed.SPhilbrickT 14:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I read the references and tried to determine which reference applied to each line of the table. I was not successful. Since the line of text above the table says The table below shows how public perceptions about the existence and importance of global warming have changed in the U.S. and, based on the most probable reference for the first line, I added the note "(Global, not US)". I also added rows that agreed with the provided references. Since I have simply added data and not expressed an opinion, I don't think that either OR or synthesis applies. Remember, I have not added any new references, but simply read the references that were already there. By the way, I do support changing the order to "by date", and I think that the table itself is useful and should remain. Q Science (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it is not useful. It is misleading, and unprofessional. If a professional polling operation conducted a series of polls over time, taking care to ensure that the questions were consistent over time, that the poll pool was consistent over time, that the poll size was statistically adequate (the size needed to determine trends is not the same as the size needed to draw point in time conclusions), and the reputable polling organization drew conclusion abut the results, it would be proper for us to report the results. Instead, we have selected (in no organized way) questions form various pollsters, which may have been conducted differently, and whose questions were certainly worded differently, and we have attempted to imply that this data set tells the reader how perceptions have changed in the US. It is a mish-mash – not all of it is US, some questions are fact-based, and some are opinions. I’ve only scratched the surface, there are other problems as well.
One summary sentence says it tells us about changes in perceptions, while the second summary sentence tells us it informs us regarding absolute perception on a worldwide basis, despite the fact that only one poll is labeled world-wide.
I’ve removed it, but copied the material below – if someone wants to restore it as is, they need to make a case. If someone has some thoughts on how to use the data properly, that may be possible, but I cannot imagine that in this form it is acceptable.--SPhilbrickT 17:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose removing this. It might benefit from some cleanup, but this is an integral -- some people would say the most important -- part of the controversy. The part that seems to be synthesis is the conclusion that the results displayed show changing perceptions. A simple statement of public perception should be sufficient. FellGleaming (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry? Aside from all the reasons given above.... Why on Earth is it "integral" - its about a single region in the world - and we have an article dedicated to public opinion on this subject: Public opinion on climate change. I completely agree on the removal and the arguments for the removal --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
We have an article on the politics of Global Warming also. Does that mean we should remove the politics section from this article? We have a section on the GW debate in the main GW article. Does the presence of this article mean we should remove that from the main article? Current perceptions of GW are a crucial part of the controversy.
As for the objection that "its only a single part of the world"; that's an even weaker argument. If other parts of the world lack coverage, add it. FellGleaming (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all this article is already stuffed up to the limits, even though a number of articles have just been spun off it - so an inclusionist argument is rather problematic. You will have to consider due weight more than normally.
And no - we shouldn't add the rest of the world here, thats what the sub-article is for - we could consider a summary of public opinion - but focusing on a single region is not in the cards, unless there is an overwhelming reason to do so. As for public perception being a "crucial part of the controversy" - that is something that you will have to substantiate.
As for politics - we carry the controversy part of it, of which a lot would be undue weight within the politics article.
I notice a lack here - you haven't given a single reason for inclusion - nor any argument as to why it wouldn't be undue weight, or commented in any way or form on any of the arguments given above.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Eh? I most certainly did. This article isn't about the science, its about the controversy. How people address, perceive, and react to the issue. What could more relevant in an article about the controversy itself, than public perception of it? FellGleaming (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You appear to make your own personal WP:OR here. How people perceive a political issue, does not by necessity make it relevant for the political issue - good examples of this is the public perception (in various countries) of the European union - which has just about zero impact on the politics (this is though a very documented controversy). And you are still ignoring that we have about this issue. At best it merits a summary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Kim, this article is not "the politics of global warming". It is the Global Warming Controversy. A controversy is a disagreement between people. How the people view global warming is the very heart of the article. You have failed to state what could possibly be more important to the issue than this. FellGleaming (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"How the people view global warming is the very heart of the article" <- WP:OR (and POV) . Public perception has no influence on the science - it may have influence on the politics - it can have influence on the mainstream media. The two last are uncertain, but in all cases it will require reliable secondary sources to state this - and certainly not by doing original research and creating a table that isn't compiled by a reliable secondary source. And we'd certainly have to do more than the US - which is what we do in Public opinion on climate change - since the US isn't the world, and isn't generalizable to the world. (far from it in this case) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
"Public perception has no influence on the science" This is not an article on the science of global warming. Nor is a decision about what is relevant to insert in this article "original research". Finally, I ask you a third time: in an article over a controversy, what do you believe could possibly be more important than beliefs of the people involved in that controversy? Fell Gleaming(talk) 21:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Material removed

The table below shows how public perceptions about the existence and importance of global warming have changed in the U.S.[1][2][3] The worldwide consensus is that climate change is a serious problem.[4]

Statement % agree Year
Climate change is a serious problem.[citation needed] 78 2003
Global Warming is very/extremely important[2] 49 2006
Climate change is a serious problem.[citation needed] 90 2006
Human activity is a significant cause of climate change.[3] (Global, not US) 79 2007
It's necessary to take major steps starting very soon.[citation needed] 65 2007
It's necessary to take major steps starting very soon.[3] 59 2007
The Earth is getting warmer because of human activity[5] 49 2009

It requires a lot of cleanup. At a minimum:

  • All sources need to be cited
  • Justification for including a global survey in a table purporting to be about US perceptions
  • Explanation of sample sizes in each poll
  • Clarification from a statistician that it is OK to draw trend inferences from polls conducted by different polling organizations
  • Explanation why it is OK to combine fact based questions (is there warming) and opinion based questions (is global warming important) in the same table.
  • Explanation of why the exact same question in the exact same year produced different results (fifth and sixth questions).
  • Explanation of how you can conclude on a worldwide basis that “climate change is a serious problem” despite not a single question in the table (on a global basis) asking that question.

That’s a start – if these are all addressed, there are more problems. Seriously, it is an embarrassment that WP has allowed this misleading synthesis for so long. If you can clean it up, go for it, but it won’t be easy. Drawing inferences about public perception trends is serious statistical work. We can reference serious statistical work of others, but we aren’t supposed to be doing it ourselves.SPhilbrickT 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is no consensus to remove the table. What the table shows is that there is no consensus that Global Warming is a problem. It also shows that it is hard to find any references. I marked some entries citation needed because I didn't want to add bias by simply deleting the high numbers and so that other people could help. In my opinion, deleting the table is not "helping". In fact, it is adding bias by deleting well sourced lower numbers. My preference is a well sourced table providing an honest assessment of what people think. Q Science (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Say what? Have you noticed that we have an article about Public opinion on climate change? Which possibly could be summarized with a focus on the controversy [based on reliable secondary sources - not our own WP:OR!] Your "the table shows is that there is no consensus" seems to be personal POV. And you haven't addressed a single one of Sphilbrick's points.
As for no consensus to remove - i don't know where you are looking - but at the time an (albeit small) consensus of commenting editors agreed (and i had noticed it - as i assume that other people with this article on their watch-list have) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe he was adressing them by making edits to the source. Rather than a table, though, a summary of public opinion polls might work even better, and would certainly negate the weight issue some editors are raising. FellGleaming (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
As said - a summary of POoCC may be in order. But it should certainly be about more than the US. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming, I’m open to a rewrite as a narrative. I don’t find the contents of the table uninteresting, I’m objecting to the presentation of the data as a table with a summary that contends the table shows how perceptions have changed. Q Science, I have no objection to inclusion of some of the well-sourced polls, if done in a narrative form. I didn’t look closely at any of the original sources, but, other than the unsourced claims, of course, if the sourced claims can be included in a non synthesized way, go for it. As Niglej noted, the table is quite problematic as a table. I concurred, and was surprised it was still in the article. I decided to be bold, and remove if, as I don’t see it as a close call. It can be replaced as a table if you can address my concerns, but I think my concerns are quite serious. The individual entries are a different matter – a narrative paragraph mentioning the sourced poll doesn’t create the synthesis problem arising from inclusion in a table with explicit wording about trends. It is interesting to note that you conclude from the table that “ there is no consensus that Global Warming is a problem” while the original wording said “consensus is that climate change is a serious problem”. I would be hard-pressed to write more contradictory conclusions.SPhilbrickT 21:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) " I’m objecting to the presentation of the data as a table with a summary that contends the table shows how perceptions have changed." I think that's a fair statement, and I would agree with it. I would suggest that QScience take a stab at a concise version that scrupulously avoids the synthesis issue that Sphilbrick raises. I'm confident that would have consensus. Fell Gleaming(talk) 21:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the table is better out for the moment William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've made the changes suggested by Sphilbrick and Nigel. I think the new version is much improved; if consensus disagrees, I will self revert. Fell Gleaming(talk) 07:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Much improved. I think tables should identify their subject matter in the table, rather than in the surrounding text, but I’m not sure whether that is simply my preference, or a generally accepted guideline. However, my major objections have been addressed, so thanks.SPhilbrickT 12:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this still a controversy?

I think Peter Langdon Ward and Gerta Keller solved quite a bit of this mistery. [26]

  • Low sulfur dioxide emissions: global cooling and drought.
  • Moderate sulfur dioxide emissions: cooling for a few years.
  • High sulfur dioxide emissions: Global warming.
  • Extreme sulfur dioxide emissions: Extreme global warming and mass extinctions.

Very large sulfur dioxide emissions overdrive the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere. Carbon monoxide's and methane's concentration goes up (greenhouse gases), global temperature goes up, ocean's temperature goes up, and ocean's carbon dioxide solubility goes down, and so greenhouse carbon dioxide goes up. The total global sulfur dioxide emissions are lower, so the global warming is not so fast anymore. Extinction events and basalt floods correlate, and the Primate bottleneck and Toba eruption are linked. Sulfur dioxide (boiling point at standard state: -10°C) is oxidised in a few weeks, and sulfate is gone from the atmosphere after 3 years.

Quote, figure caption: "Extinction rate versus time (continuous line, blue field) (multiple-interval marine genera, modified from Sepkoski, 1996) compared with eruption ages of continental flood basalts (red columns). Three of the largest mass extinctions, the Permo-triassic, Triassic-Jurassic and the Cretaceous-Tertiary, correspond with the eruptions of the Siberian Traps, the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province, and the Deccan Traps, respectively. Three oceanic plateaus, the Caribbean (CP) Kerguelen (KP), and Ontong Java (OJP) are included. Modified after White and Saunders (2005)." [27], White, R.V. and Saunders, A.D., 2005. Volcanism, impact and mass extinctions: incredible or credible coincidences. Lithos, 79: 299-316, Sepkoski, J.J., 1996. Patterns of Phanerozoic extinction: a perspective from global data bases. In: O.H. Walliser (Editor), Global Events and Event Stratigrpahy. Springer, Berlin, pp. 35-51. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The troposphere warming measurements and models have been reconciled, see The first bullet under Greenhouse gases should be updated from:

  • General circulation models and basic physical considerations predict that in the tropics the temperature of the troposphere should increase more rapidly than the temperature of the surface. Models and observations agree on this amplification for monthly and interannual time scales but not for decadal time scales in most observed data sets. It is uncertain whether the discrepancy is attributable to deficiencies in model formulation, biases in the observations, or both. The present view is that because of large uncertainties in observed tropospheric temperature trends along with other evidence for tropospheric warming (such as the increasing height of the tropopause), the more likely explanation is observational bias.[6] Satellite temperature measurements show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with "rates similar to those of the surface temperature," leading the IPCC to conclude that this discrepancy is reconciled.[7]


  • General circulation models and basic physical considerations predict that in the tropics the temperature of the troposphere should increase more rapidly than the temperature of the surface. A 2006 report to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program noted that models and observations agreed on this amplification for monthly and interannual time scales but not for decadal time scales in most observed data sets. Improved measurement and analysis techniques have reconciled this discrepancy: corrected buoy and satellite surface temperatures are slightly cooler and corrected satellite and radiosonde measurements of the tropical troposphere are slightly warmer.[8] Satellite temperature measurements show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with "rates similar to those of the surface temperature," leading the IPCC to conclude that this discrepancy is reconciled.[9]

Thepisky (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a "controversy" in the sense that industry groups spend millions of dollars a year on disinformation to convince people that there is still some controversy amongst intelligent/educated people. But this article is just about the "debate". The scientific consensus is contained in the article global warming. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Poor Sourcing

Wow, I wish I had more time to investigate all the claims being made in this article. I happened to spot-check one of them:

"An example of the poor understanding is public confusion between global warming and ozone depletion or other environmental problems.[19][20]"

The source is a 1997 paper, done on student questionnaires taken in '1993 and 1994.' The second source is a followup by the same researchers a couple years later, drawn apparently from the same datapool. Does anyone really think student opinions from nearly 20 years ago are an accurate measure of public perception today? Fell Gleaming(talk) 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

On this particular issue I wuold say that yes, the confusion is likely to have remained William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"dog mess"

It seems that Britons feel that dog leavings affect their lives more than global warming. It's right there in the BBC source. But some feel[28] mention of it is "inappropriate". Doesn't seem so to me: it gives insight into the trivialization of the matter in some minds. Others have convinced me that the source is dicey and the poll questionable. Leave it out. PhGustaf (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly apropos. Saying "crime" is more important than global warming is one thing, but the "dog mess" statement really brings the situation home to the reader. Fell Gleaming(talk) 02:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The whole story did not ring true to me, so I went to have a look at the original research reports that the BBC article was based upon. The current page cites a BBC article, which in turn is about a poll which was conducted by Ipsos-Mori in June 2007. The BBC report includes the following text:
The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.
The clear implication is that this was a result of the poll. That isn't true, and there is essential context omitted in the BBC report. This is yet another example of substandard reporting on the issue, IMO. In any case, the full details of the survey are found at the Ipsos-Mori poll page.
There's no mention of "dog mess" at all. But I have tracked that down. The truth of the matter is that poll being reported in the BBC article was actually intended to "feed into" another report, which is detailed at Tipping Point or Turning Point? Social Marketing & Climate Change. That report is very extensive, and a pdf can be downloaded. Here I found the mention of dog mess -- but it was for a different poll, and a different question! Specifically, on page 16 of the full report, there is mention of a poll made in 2005 of residents of Leicester, asking about LOCAL priorities. There were six possible issue listed, being: (1) Traffic Pollution (2) Litter, Graffiti & Dog Mess (3) The Quality of Parks (4) Noise (5) Loss of Trees & Wildlife (6) Climate Change.
In that older poll, climate change was something of an oddity, in that it was the only issue that was not clearly local in scope. Unsurprisingly, it came last in that question of local priorities -- which is pretty much no indication at all of the general importance placed on the issue. That part of the report is looking at the public perceptions of the scale at which the issue is placed; a local problem or a global one.
In all, I think the reference to dog mess is better omitted. It SHOULD have been omitted from the BBC report, since the way it is included there is actively misleading. It's a good example of poor reporting using omitted context to suggest a completely invalid comparison. However, I appreciate we don't do original research here.
My feeling is that we should simply omit the reference to dog mess. We do not want wikipedia backing up shoddy reporting. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
While you've done an extensive amount of original research, the fact remains a reliable source made the claim, and the claim is credible. Frankly, I can't make heads or fails out of your objection, either. By your own admission, there was a poll taken: "There were six possible issue listed, being: (1) Traffic Pollution (2) Litter, Graffiti & Dog Mess (3) The Quality of Parks (4) Noise (5) Loss of Trees & Wildlife (6) Climate Change." Both "dog mess" and "climate change" were on the poll, so what's your issue? Your belief that poll respondents would have scored global warming higher, had it been called a global issue, rather than a local one? We can't omit facts simply because we don't like them. Fell Gleaming(talk) 13:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
A source that makes an unreliable claim isn't a reliable source for that statement. We cannot say anything about "dog mess" here because there is no reliable source for the statement. --TS 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Even if the source is reliable, it appears that only a small group of people were polled and, therefore, it fails WEIGHT and NOTABILITY. Q Science (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Eh? The source is already being used in the article, and has been for a very long time. We're simply adding the full statement as taken from the original source. As for the number of people polled, it's larger than those used in some other surveys already in the article, and large enough to be considered statistically valid by a large professional polling organization, and notable enough for the BBC to comment on it. Tour argument boils down to I simply just don't like it and don't want to see it. Fell Gleaming(talk) 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, it is not the "number of people polled" that bothers me, but the "single city" (of about 400,000 people) verses a regional or country sample. BTW, I also have problems with "global" surveys since those include people from unindustrialized nations and people from rigid dictatorships. To be clear, I have no problems with surveying those people as long as the results are associated with the country names. Q Science (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You appear not to follow the objection to the BBC article's report. I'll try to simplify. Here is the paragraph from the wikipedia article that is under contention, with a strike out applied to the passage which I believe is misleading.
A June 2007 Ipsos Mori poll conducted in the UK found 56 percent of 2032 adults believed scientists were still questioning climate change. The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime, and "dog mess" were all of more concern than climate change.
The striken phrase is, pragmatically, unreliable, even though it is from what is usually considered a "reliable source".
  • The poll cited made no mention of dog mess, despite the BBC implying it did.
  • On checking, it turns out dog mess was part of a DIFFERENT poll.
  • The different poll which DID mention "dog mess" did NOT suggest dog mess was of "more concern" in general -- only that it was a greater LOCAL concern with residents polled in Leicester in 2005. The question reported in THAT case was this:
Which two or three, if any, of these are you most concerned about in your local environment...?
  • The report which contains this specific detail does not adequately cite the poll; we have no idea how many people were polled or what other questions were included.
  • The 2007 poll which is the basis for the BBC article IS clearly described at Ipsos-Mori, and it makes no mention of dog mess.
The BBC article is misleading and gives an inaccurate description of the 2007 poll. I am not wanting my own OR to be part of the article. But mention of dog mess, even though it appears in the BBC article, is inaccurate and shoddy journalism, and I would prefer wikipedia not to give it unmerited recognition.
I am honestly not sure how wikipedia conventions apply in a case like this. But I think there is a problem in general with newreports as a source in that they are frequently pretty shoddy. Wikipedia is often treated like an encyclopedia with a credibility comparable to other well known encyclopedias like Brittania; and in many cases it deserves this; but that reputation is put at risk if the policy permits wikipedia articles to cite any newpaper article as "reliable", even when it is clear that pragmatically, it is not. I would also like wikipedia conventions to allow for background fact checking like I have done here as a basis for identifying a specific report detail in a news report as unreliable, and as a basis for omitting inaccurate information from the encyclopedia. This is different from including original research by members into an article. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── so your objection is the WP text (and BBC article) refers to the 2007 Ipsos Mori survey, but the "dog mess" actually refers to a 2005 Ipsos Mori survey? In that case, for accuracy I agree. We should put the results of the 2005 survey separately, to not confuse the reader. Fell Gleaming(talk) 02:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is notable. The 2005 survey is not well cited. It was specifically looking at whether warming is seen as a local issue or a global one; other questions indicate that on a global scale, warming IS of major importance to many people. Reporting one but not the other would be absurd. At this stage I would like to strike ALL the comparisons from the wikipedia page, since the 2007 poll did not actually make any comparisons, not with crime, or terrorism, or any other such things. The poll being reported in the BBC article is described at this | Ipsos-Mori poll page, and it does suggest the following:
  • 56% of 2031 polled adults either strongly agree or tend to agree that Many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change
  • 69% or 2031 polled adults either strongly disagree or tend to disagree that Human activity does not have significant effect on the climate
The juxtaposition of these two numbers is an interested insight into public perceptions. The BBC article, however, only reports the first. At this stage my preference would be that if the BBC article is to be cited at all, then we merely give the first sentence, and strike the second sentence on comparisons entirely.
Ideally, given that the topic is public perceptions, I think it would be good to remove the BBC reference entirely, and point to the available Ipsos-Mori publication Tipping Point or Turning Point? Social Marketing & Climate Change, which describes and summarizes a number of polls, including both those discussed here. The wikipedia page could give some short sound bites from the introductory summary of that report, as follows:
In 2007 a report on public perceptions by Ipsos MORI reports that
  • There is widespread recognition that the climate, irrespective of the cause, is changing - 88% believe this to be true.
  • However, the public is out of step with the IPCC, with 41% believing that climate change is being caused by both human activity and natural processes. 46% believe human activity is the main cause.
  • Only a small minority reject anthropogenic climate change, while almost half (44%) are very concerned. However, there remains a large proportion who are yet to be fully persuaded and hold doubts about the extent of the threat.
  • There is still a strong appetite among the public for more information, and 63% say they need this to come to a firm view on the issue and what it means for them.
  • The public continue to externalise climate change to other people, places and times. It is increasingly perceived as a major global issue with far-reaching consequences for future generations - 45% say it is the most serious threat facing the World today and 53% believe it will impact significantly on future generations. However, the issue features less prominently nationally and locally, indeed only 9% believe climate change will have a significant impact upon them personally.
Source is Tipping Point or Turning Point? Social Marketing & Climate Change (3Mb pdf). Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice work, Duae. Your arguments are well reasoned and your summation of the Ipsos-Mori material concise. I think you should feel free to lose the BBC reference and edit the article the way you’ve outlined here.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely first rate work there, Duae Quartunciae. Thank you. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... with that encouragement I have gone ahead to replace the paragraph on the Ipsos MORI research with approximately the text given here, cited to the Ipsos MORI report. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm too late to second the kudos, so I'll have to third them. Nice work,Duae.SPhilbrickT 18:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

NAS Member Open Letter

This open letter by 250+ NAS members, including 11 Nobel Laureates, published in Science and mentioned in The Guardian, Nature, The Torygraph,Discover, The NYT, ABC, Time, and many others, should probably go somewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI

A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus in scientific literature that recent global warming is caused by man?!?

I dispute this claim. There is no consensus and I don't believe the reference/link even begins to prove this claim. If (and it's a big if) there is a majority of scientists who contribute to scientific literature who believe this is this case, their opinions may have been formed due to incorrect information and questionable methods. This last sentence in the intro is highly inappropriate. Marktka (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See Scientific opinion on climate change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
'I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. There's been over 8 surveys of climatologists and the mainstream view on AGW is held by 94-97% of them. You have no idea what you are talking about. imiyakawa (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Science

I added a recent, relevant quote from prestigious Science to the paragraph discussing critics who believe the IPCC report was too conservative. I think I found an appropriate location, but we can debate the location and the inclusion.--SPhilbrickT 14:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've attributed it to the author, not the magazine, and replaced the AAAS with the year. People who don't know Science probably also don't know the AAAS, and can find out about both by clicking on Science. I'm a bit concerned that we now excerpt a fairly small point from the article, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Some percentages

I don't know if these is appropriate for this article, but here are a couple of interesting news reports that sound like they belong in some global warming article:

NW (Talk) 03:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate change consensus would be the appropriate article. Dmcq (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

To quote this article's lead, "The controversy is significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature." This would suggest that trends in public opinion are highly relevant to this article. Since Wikipedia is remarkably up to date on almost everything a case could be made for including short-term trends. However the following considerations suggest caution in taking short-term trends in public opinion too seriously, other than in the form of general remarks on its volatility---"it will fluctuate" as J.P. Morgan said when asked what the stock market will do.

Scientific opinion is formed largely from an shared in-depth understanding of the principles. Scientific papers and conferences ensure that the understanding is shared, and the certainty or lack thereof in the understanding is judged from the coherence of the literature and conference talks. It is hard for those sectors of the energy industry with a vested interest in a second opinion to shift the scientific opinion significantly, and it rarely changes dramatically overnight.

Public opinion on the other hand is formed on the basis of many sources coexisting in a relatively information-noisy and uncertain environment. A good analogy would be the stock market, where analysts and traders play the respective roles of scientists and the public. Public opinion is more easily swayed and fluctuates more wildly than scientific opinion, for much the same reason that the prices at which traders are willing to buy and sell fluctuate more wildly than the numbers supported by in-depth study and analysis of a company's fundamentals. Whereas the "market cap" of a company is a noisy figure, its fundamentals are more scientifically based (not to say that this makes them a perfect predictor of future performance). The same can also be said of housing prices, albeit with fewer fundamentals to go on.

Less than 1% of the world lives in Britain (which incidentally is home to CRU so the burglary might be expected to have a larger impact there). If Wikipedia were to track every monthly swing in public opinion country by country it would tend to undermine the big picture about the controversy, just as it would if housing prices in various markets were kept up to date. Public opinion trends should be analyzed (first, second, even third central moments as appropriate) over a reasonably sized window in order to make them digestible; at too fine a grain they cease to be encyclopedic knowledge and become mere information. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the first of NW's refs to the "Public opinion" section. Arguably that section is far too large for an article which has a see-main William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


The Guardian article introduced here is certainly a good source. But a) it should not replace the definitions, and b), we cannot take it as gospel truth. Guardian attributes the reporting to Greenpeace, we need to attribute it to either or both. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pull quotes with Cquote template

I don't like the way the page uses the Cquote template for quotes. This is not recommended usage, and it looks ugly because short quotes appear centered. The template documentation strongly advises that this template should not be used for block quotations in article text. For long quotations in the text, the Manual of Style recommends using the HTML <blockquote> element, such as through the use of the {{Quote}} template.

I propose to replace all the CQUOTE templates as suggested. It means that the large quote characters will no longer appear. So I want to double check this is okay before I go ahead. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. You could standardise the use of italics in these quotes while you're there. The more semantically meaningful the final HTML the better. --Nigelj (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice call. Chuck the Cquote.--CurtisSwain (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the large quote characters when used properly as pull quotes. I’ve started using them more, hope that I am not abusing them. Properly used, they can add positively to the visual appearance of an article. However, I agree that they should generally be used as pull quotes, as opposed to simply used to quote a long block of text in an article. I agree that most of the quotes I reviewed in this article should not be formatted using cquote. I’m not averse to using a pull quote where appropriate, but I didn’t see any such examples.SPhilbrickT 15:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen Duae for some time, so I went ahead and made the changes.--SPhilbrickT 13:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I've been slack about keeping up with good intentions. Looks much better now. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Any objections to adding the term "Climategate" (parenthetically) to the See Also section, next to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy link already there? Someone asked about it over at GW article talk. I was going to direct them to this article, but I see the term only appears in 2 refs here. I might also suggest the body text could mention the term, at least. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If it is NOT added, then average users will have to click the link to know that it refers to Climategate. Only the regular editors know it by the long "official" name. Q Science (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#NEWS seems appropriate. "Climategate" is a well-known in parochial and obsessive circles, but not to general reference points. WP:SEEALSO seems to indicate that controversial links should probably be eschewed, as should this one, methinks. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

Let's not link to the undead William M. Connolley (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether The Gore Effect will survive the AfD, but it doesn't belong in this article, at least not in its present form.--SPhilbrickT 11:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It is a shame Cla has blindly reverted without any attempt at discussion. At the very least inclusion should await the outcome of AFD; but as you say, it probably doesn't belong even if it survives William M. Connolley (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
"Even if". Including the merges as effective deletes the AfD is currently at 18-19. So delete seems unlikely unless the Cabal has access to a Claque. --BozMo talk 13:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
A claque is a clique that claps. PhGustaf (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The article appears to be well on its way to surviving AfD. The relation to the controversy/debate is well established in the article, explaining that the term is used to mock advocates of the theory of human-caused global warming. I think the term should be listed in the See Also section. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that you're pressing for the inclusion of a term that is used to "mock" an individual (Gore), when you have objected to derogatory remarks elsewhere. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Please don't personalize debates SBHB, it's not helpful. Do you disagree that the use of the term by some in the media is part of the often adversarial debate over acceptance of the theory of human-caused climate warming? Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Firstly I do not believe that pointing out inconsistencies in an editor's position is "personalizing"; I'd be quite happy to receive such feedback myself. Secondly I do not think the term is a significant part of the issue -- we don't need to include everything that has ever appeared in a newspaper, and the difficulty the term has had in surviving AfD points to its relative obscurity. Finally, such mockery trivializes the article. It would be like including Drill, baby, drill as a Seealso in Energy policy of the United States. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You really believe that simply including a link to it in the "See Also" section with no accompanying text whatsoever trivializes this article? I guess we'll have to disagree. Use of satire related to global warming is, IMO, part of the cultural and socio-political war that is ongoing about global warming which seems to me to be what this article is about. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
We had a short debate recently somewhere about the inclusion of links to wingnut, whacko and nutcase quietly at the end of somebody's BLP. You can guess which way that went. --Nigelj (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this reference would be fine in the see also of climate change denial but it looks out of place in this article which is supposed to deal mainly with the more rational objections. Dmcq (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope the Gore effect survives AfD, but that doesn't change my view it doesn't belong as a link here. That said, I concur with someone who noted that the removal should not occur while the AfD is in progress. The global warming controversy should relate to science and policy based controversies (noting that for the purposes of this discussion, a flawed science based objection counts, it doesn't have to be scientifically valid to merit inclusion, it merely needs to be notable).--SPhilbrickT 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. (Except for the part about not removing it while the AfD is in progress; I don't see the connection there. So not so precisely, I guess.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
A proper Wikipedia article gives due consideration to all important relationships
The Gore Effect is part of the controversies about global warming, and there is no good reason to limit coverage of the controversies only to their origins in science and policy. The subject of every controversy extends beyond policy questions and questions of fact. Editors should stop pretending otherwise. It isn't as if the more emotional aspects of the controversy are unimportant, either, as the CRU emails show. This yearning to deny the sillier aspects of the actual subject strikes me as being a little too much Victorian earnestness that's making us trip over our own feet. The readers are best served by getting a full picture of the scope of the subject, including all of its important aspects. In a public controversy, you note all of the aspects that have enough WP:WEIGHT (in terms of information), not just the ones we deem serious. "Serious" simply doesn't equal "important enough to cover" because, as we all know, public opinion in this public controversy is of outstanding importance, and a very widespread meme in the public debate is therefore of some importance. Certainly important enough to include a three-word link in a "See also" list at the bottom of the article. Is it really editorial judgment we're exercising here or self-censorship? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that it would be better to write about the Gore effect in a few sentences in this article and give the wiki-link there, rather than to have an entry in the see also section. When I read Wikipedia articles (so my mindset is then really to read and not to edit), then I may click on "see also" links with the expectation to get more information about the topic. Clicking on the Gore effect wiki-link wll send most readers to an article they would likely not find useful at all. And ending up at a page you don't want to read is irritating. So, at least one has to include a text here explaining briefly what the Gore effect is. Count Iblis (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think someone in the AfD brought up a very good similar example: Merging Lolcat with Cat. It's a question of whether or not the subject is worth an article on its separate page. We should limit discussion of that to the AfD page. My comment to Kim, just below, addresses why I think a link would help readers better understand an aspect of this article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The Gore Effect is part of the controversies about global warming[citation needed]. Do please come up with a demonstration that it actually rises to a WP:WEIGHT level that even remotely compares to the other items in this article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Kim, do please understand that a three-word link in a "See also" section at the bottom of an article has the lightness of a feather. I think that's actually less weight here than a sentence coming from a merger would have, and I think three words amount to roughly the proper weight, but at this tiny level the concepts of WP:WEIGHT get a little surreal. Does this article give due weight overall to the influence of the less serious aspects of this public controversy? This would be a good example of that side of it. Do you deny that there is such a side of it (please refrain from answering with the obvious partisan dig about "serious sides")? Shouldn't readers who may be unfamiliar with the controversy be helped in understanding that there is a fervid, emotional side to it that may not otherwise be apparent in our coverage? Given the dramatic emoting of Wikipedia editors on this subject, reflecting the emotional tension of the debate beyond Wikipedia, one would think it would be obvious that it's an important enough aspect of the controversy. All controversies tend to have some emotional element, this one has a huge emotional element. It ain't always pretty, but it's real. So we should cover it. -- -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC) --- Actually, I see that the paragraph ending in Footnote 210 (in "Political pressure on scientists", starting with "Scientists who agree with [...] ") does cover some of the emotional element of this issue, but only addresses the emotions of the climate change campaigners. Readers should know it's emotional on both sides. This is one brief way to allude to that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
"See Also" sections are also determined by WP:WEIGHT - otherwise we would end up with cross-reference articles where the "See Also" part is the major content item. When you are saying/noticing that "but at this tiny level the concepts of WP:WEIGHT get a little surreal" - we've passes the WP:WEIGHT threshold quite a bit of time ago. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
To say that something is not worth much WP:WEIGHT isn't to say that it's worth no weight. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually it does. Otherwise articles would be filled up with trivia (which is sorted away because it has little to no weight). Articles are not supposed to link/ref every remotely related article - that is what categories are for. In the context of this article, the neology/joke usage of "Gore effect" is WP:UNDUE - it serves no purpose except as a distraction. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's representative of an important part of the subject of the article that is not given its due weight in the article now. As I said previously. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
What?! The local weather on the days this one US politician speaks is "an important part of" the worldwide global warming controversy?! That's not a very serious controversy, then. --Nigelj (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I assume Nigel is right - a controversy with no measurable outcome is as serious as Endianness. The catholic church needs three miracles for a saint, the Gore effect is all what the Church of climatism needs. Polentario (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change sceptic scientists 'less prominent and authoritative' is fun. Scientists who believe in man-made climate change have better scientific credentials than global warming sceptics, according to a study. and so on William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps Science is a better source: Or read it yourself: William M. Connolley (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazing what redefining the peer review process can do for you, funny how Judith Curry "called the study "completely unconvincing"" mark nutley (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, I can't see it convincing skeptics of anything. The surveys asking the scientists themselves are far better that way. It's a survey though so I suppose it should go into scientific consensus on climate change. Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that nothing will convince the skeptics. Fortunately this article isn't called "Convincing the skeptics" so your complaint is irrelevant to the materials inclusion. As to "re-defining PR" - perhaps MN could expand on what that might mean William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Really WMC? Climategate ring any bells here? mark nutley (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope. Vague waving of "scary" words gets you Nul Pointe. Have another go? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Gosh your funny, Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! mark nutley (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Mark, what does this have to do with anything? That sentence can be understood in at least two ways: as an expletive as in "My Boss is an asshole, i could fragging kill him" - or in a more conspiratorial way. So lets examine the conspiratorial one: Is there any real life evidence that PR was redefined? (excepting the sceptical conspiracy theories?) Has any of the 3 official reviews found such? Did Kevin and Phil manage to keep the papers out? (hint: No). It is all very well that you (apparently) feel that the conspiratorial version is correct - but could you please leave those opinions in the foyer? [unless you have some really really serious reliable sources to back them] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
WMC asked a question, it is answered, that mail clearly shows an attempt to corrupt the PR process, but of course that does not matter does it? The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included Sure they are all saints who were quoted out of context mark nutley (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Mark, No. The mail doesn' "clearly show(s)" such a thing - just as a mail from me complaining about my boss and telling that i'm ready to kill him, doesn't clearly show that i'm capable (or even contemplating) murder. You are assuming things - and you are fooling yourself into believing that your assumptions are factually correct. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So, returning to the point at hand: does anyone have any credible objections to putting a brief summary of the Science ref in? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all so long as it contains "Judith Curry, a climate expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology – who was not part of the analysis – called the study "completely unconvincing" while John Christy of University of Alabama claimed he and other climate sceptics included in the survey were simply "being blacklisted" by colleagues". This mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me why we should priviledge Curry or your pet text in that way. The Science article is better than the Torygraph anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Well it is clear per wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Youre bickering about vanities in the press. I would prefer to have the Hartwell Paper discussed in detail. We all know that science is settled. According the paper, this -for more than 15 years has not resulted in any significant reduction in greenhous gases. The scientific consensus seems not to be able to produce a real world reaction. Insofar its not worth a farthing. Polentario (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
@MN: you'll have to lay out your reasoning in more detail. Why exactly does NPOV require priveledging one partiucular viewpoint? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm talking about a peer-reviewed paper in PNAS. What do you think we're talking about? I agree, avoiding the press is a good idea though. as to Hartwell, if you're interested in it: great! Why not write about it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don`t care what PNAS say`s, either balance it or it can`t go in. The Telegraph is a relaible source, as is Science This is a completely unconvincing analysis," says climate expert Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technolog mark nutley (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Erm? Where exactly does it say that we have to have the same weight as in a review? Curry may be interesting - but it is certainly not a given that she automagically must be included. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Rubbish, you have been giving me hell on my talk page for what you sy are cherry picking and not sticking to npov, and now this? Per wp:npov both sides of this should be included mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is of a weight or relevant enough to go in this article. As I said before scientific opinion on climate change would be my vote if anywhere. Dmcq (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Mark. The paper is the important thing here, not the reviews, or commentators. Any NPOV discussion on the paper would be with other papers. Does other papers within the literature present a different view? If they do - then we most certainly must consider them in conjunction with the weight that we may give this paper [iff it goes in]. What commentators state about it is secondary. Had this been the Global warming article, i'd have said that the paper is way too new, to be discussed, but since this article has a lower threshold its different. The reason for the "new" part, is to allow for other PR reactions to have time to surface. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don`t care what PNAS say`s [sic] - but PNAS is the source. We have to care what they say, even if you don't like it. Quoting them without any commentary is entirely reasonable. POV would be adding commentary from only one side, which is what MN appears to want.

@D: I don't understand the weight argument. It does indeed seem to be quite weighty. As to the relevance: it is about GW. And it is controversial! What more can you want? But your argument in favour of SOOCC is quite plausible: it could indeed go there. I wouldn't object to someone moving it there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me why adding commentary from two clearly partisan sources [29] is improving NPOV. That edit does not improve the article William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
A NPOV would show balance by showing what people thought of the study. Your pet text violates npov mark nutley (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
A balanced view of opinion about the study might be interesting, but is clearly less interesting than the study itself. But you made no attempt to provide a balanced view - you added only commentary you personally agreed with. Oreskes, for example, is quoted before Curry by Science, and yet you didn't choose to include her William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

But you made no attempt to provide a balanced view - you added only what you personally agreed with. Pot kettle black. An attempt to balance what you added would be the opinions of those who disagree with it, not those who agree. Any chance you will actually go for a npov on this or is it going to be yet another rfc? mark nutley (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Err no. I included a direct quote from the anstract of the paper. Asserting that "balance" to that is achieved by providing only views that dissent from the paper is entirely wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It is at a remove from the scientists and involves an interpretation of what they write in papers. And as the skeptics say the choice could be affected by bias. There's direct surveys of scientists and there's statements by reputable organizations, so there is no point in including something which is at second remove and subject to all sorts of interpretations like this here. It should of course go into an article which specifically deals with scientists opinions. Dmcq (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to quote a controversial piece as Oreskes in this context is obviously out of sync. Polentario (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
That remark is opaque to me. can you explain what you mean William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It is at a remove from the scientists and involves an interpretation of what they write in papers. And as the skeptics say the choice could be affected by bias. There's direct surveys of scientists and there's statements by reputable organizations, so there is no point in including something which is at second remove and subject to all sorts of interpretations like this here. It should of course go into an article which specifically deals with scientists opinions. Dmcq (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The results could be affected by bias, either way. But it is very hard to see bias materially affecting so strong a result. There are direct surveys of scientists but those surveys are flawed - perhaps you have read the pages about them, so you'll know that? And no - this isn't subject to "all sorts of interpretations" - unless you mean, that some people are bound to disagree. But there is no surprise there William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice of Stephan Schulz to revert me and join the discussion here, o wait he has not bothered to. Lets review his reasons for reverting Two individual opinions do not have the same weight as a peer-reviewed PNAS paper Well i think Judith Curry carries more weight than a blogger [30] Would someone give a reason within policy as to why her opinion should not be mentioned here? mark nutley (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Why are you commenting on some random blog? Has anyone inserted that - is it in the article? We are not talking about blogs here - but a paper in PNAS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Kims comment about blogging is opreposterous: First the PNAS paper (actuaklly black list) is itself based on a rather random resp. loose cannon blog. The discussion here is more about "airspace domination" respectively about which blog (e.g. crap like Realclimate) is allowed to be quoted and which is not. Pielke jr and senior need to have more space here - go for as a start. Polentario (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, thank you for declaring yourself so completely. But PNAS and blogs do have a somewhat different status William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is it "opreprosterous(?)"? I had no idea that one of the authors was running a blog (thus to me a random blog) - and frankly it doesn't matter whatsoever with regards to the paper in PNAS (which according to Pielke Jr. doesn't link or otherwise mentions that blog). Your opinion on what "crap" there exists, is rather irrelevant. The blog in question (birdbrainscan) would never be acceptable as an RS [matches no exceptions to WP:SPS], but the paper most certainly is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Its either eating the cake or having it. you cannot (resp sure you can,but its preposterous) deny the value of blogs on the one side and come up with a PNAS paper which is based on a - as you said - inacceptable source :). 22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polentario (talkcontribs)
Gravel is not a reliable source either - but you can find several scientific papers (geology), who are reliable sources, that are using it as the main data and source of information. It is the peer-review at PNAS that makes it a reliable source - not where the data originated. The blog is not a reliable source, and it is rather irrelevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not keen on having the commentary. But if we must have it, a balanced set would be to have some from each "side" (or would !side be better?) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's better than it was; but surely, if we're going to have WP:DUE weight, we should have commentary in the proportion 98% pro and 2% anti? --Nigelj (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. This is an article about global warming controversy, not global warming. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


I've removed the POV-section tag. No reason was given for its inclusion. Folks, if you're going to use these tags, please read them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Global warming skepticism

The result of an AfD discussion on Global warming skepticism was to merge it into this article. With this result I think it's time to discuss splitting this article because it is well over the 100kb threshhold at which it is recommended that articles be split -- and that's before the merger of the Global warming skepticism article. "Global warming controversy" is just too broad and encompassing -- the whole topic of global warming is controversial. I have not gone through this article to look for natural places to split the article, but I encourage this merger discussion to also consider whether some other sub-issues in this article might be readily combined with the skepticism article and spun off into another article, leaving this one a more manageable size. Minor4th 19:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The result was only merge in a formal sense. There was no content of any value there, so there is nothing to merge. That article reverts to a redirect here. All that pointless stuff you stirred up adds nothing. You can talk about splitting this, presumably in a desperate attempt to re-create your dead article, but I doubt you'll get far (cue: GJP, ATren, MN, etc: please say the usual) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Some good-sized chunks of the current article could be trimmed. In particular, most of the sections with "Main article" links could be reduced to a couple of sentences summarizing the main points with the details being available in the linked articles. Also, frankly, there's a lot of cruft in this article left over from old edit wars and such. That would leave room for any useful content from the old global warming skepticism article (which I don't recall looking at in quite some time, if ever, so I don't know how much useful content there is). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I honestly don't know if there was anything worthwhile in the skepticism article -- I know Greg was going to basically rewrite it, but put that on hold pending the outcome of the AfD discussion. While that discussion was going on, I did look over at this article and noted that it is gigantic and not particularly well organized and covers too many subtopics. I don't have the energy to see about a split, but I think that would be a worthy goal at some point if someone's looking for something to do. Minor4th 03:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

We live in an Interglacial optimum period (lucky us)

During this ice age the interglacial optimum periods lasted between 2000 and 17000 years. We are hitting our 12500 year ‘birthday’

Holocene period is going to end between tomorrow and 5000 years. I seen a 50,000 year prediction but dang talking about pulling a rabbit out of the hat. There is no bases in 50,000 year prediction other then taking the whole interglacial periods rather then the optimums.

My question: Why do we concern ourselves of global warming? When glaciation will return soon?

More important then that. Glaciation is returning if we like it or not shouldn't we be preparing for the enviable rather the arguing over the idea winter will never come?

--OxAO (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure you've got the right article here. Your first question is more relevant to than to this article. Your second to rather than here, and your third question isn't clear - what's enviable about glaciers? I don't envy anyone who has to live on one.
Whatever may be going on, I think you've got the wrong place. Wevets (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I'm as reliable as Pielke. Actually I'm *more* reliable, but you don't have to accept that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparing Roger A. Pielke to William Connolley I fail to see how, and do you think you should make this choice? Not like there is a wp:coi is there? mark nutley (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
If I have a COI, so do you. If you're arguing that blogs aren't RS's, you need to be consistent. I'd argue that blogs are frequently far more reliable that so-called RS's (newspapers) that are riddled with errors William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
How do i have a COI? mark nutley (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you a direct personal conflict with me? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
No of course not, why would you think that? I may disagree with your views but your entitled to them, I certainly don`t take our content disputes personally and i hope you don`t either mark nutley (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you're wrong. So, if you want to turn this into a COI issue, please do. Until you do, I'm going to treat this as a two-blogs issue and object to your inconsistency (which, oddly enough, weakens views you disagree with whilst leaving views you agree with. Isn't that unsurprising) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Wrong about what? Are you saying you take content disputes personally? With regards to the issue of reliability pielke passes sps with regards to the issues at hand, how do you? And yes, you citing yourself in an article is of course a COI i`m surprised you don`t see that mark nutley (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Why not just toss out all the blogs? We should be using better sources than blogs anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There is absolutely no reason to be using blogs or newspapers in this article due to the enormous amount of high quality scholarly literature that exists on the subject. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason to exclude newspapers from this article. Again, it's not about the science, where peer-reviewed papers are preferred, it's about the controversy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is a reason to exclude newspapers: We have plenty of scholarly discussion of the controversy as well. Using a scholarly review of newspaper coverage of an issue is better than using newspapers directly, if such scholarly reviews are available. In this case they are, so there is no reason to use the papers. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree with that. Scholarly reviews would be expected to be biased in favor of assuming the science, while newspapers would not, thereby leading to a potentially different WP:POV. But I don't know exactly what you mean, here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of your personal opinions on whether scholars will tend to "biased in favor of science" rather than <whatever it is that newspapers are basing their claims on>, the fact is that WP:RS states that, if they exist, peer-reviewed academic sources are generally preferable to newspapers; in this case they do exist, so they should be used instead the newspapers. Also, you might want to take a look at WP:FRINGE, which states that for fringe theories like climate change denial, we don't present their views as if they were accurate or widely accepted -- we present what the academic consensus on these viewpoints is. That is, our goal is not to write a POV fork that allows climate change denialists to have a platform to freely voice their views; our goal is to write what highest-quality reliable sources have to say regarding their viewpoints. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
(I'd like to outdent, but it ruins the thread below). There is a controversy, and it's not (all) in scholarly journals, and not all reported in scholarly journals. If a specific matter reported on in newspapers is reported in scholarly journals, then the journals are preferred (regardless of bias). However, for general works on the controversy, there is no appropriate field of expertise to indicate which journals may be "expert", and which may be completely biased, even if peer-reviewed. Newspapers are required if they differ significantly in viewpoint.
As is noted in other articles, not all articles in scholarly journals are "reliable", and, even among those which are nominally reliable, if the article is out of the journal's field of expertise, it may not be usable in a Wikipedia article, even if it "appears" to be peer-reviewed.
As an aside, an article in a mainstream newspaper, if also a WP:RS (that is, a news article, rather than a column), cannot violate WP:FRINGE, by definition, even if it differs from the scientific consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to add to this and suggest that the merged article is heavily biased in favor of man-made global warming, with an overall tone of debunking the opposition. At the very least you should have two articles on this subject, one on each side of the argument, to allow opposing opinions to be presented without the slant, and NO point by point commentary from one who disagrees. Let people read for themselves and make up their own minds. (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Big Bad Bombastic Bob 3:13 PM PDT October 7, 2010
That's because the scientific consensus is that human-caused climate change is a reality. For fringe pseudo-scientific viewpoints such as climate change denial, we don't have to present them if they were part of an accurate scientific theory. Instead, in articles about fringe theories, we discuss what the overall consensus of reliable sources is regarding the fringe theory, rather than just what proponents say about it. Since the vast majority of the scientific community believes that climate change denialists base their claims on junk science (or not on science at all), most of the article on climate change denial is going to discuss how the science behind it is inaccurate junk. The point is not to present the inaccurate opinion of proponents, but to present the opinions that the majority of scientists hold regarding the claims of denialists. See WP:FRINGE. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split

This article is 140 kb and has 236 references. It's a monster to load even with a relatively fast connection, and it's too cumbersome to read like an encyclopedia article. This article still seems to be the catch-all for sceptic-type topics that are nommed for deletion. The natural split as the article is currently laid out would be to split into political controversies and scientific controversies and link both articles to a disambiguation page. Thoughts? Minor4th 01:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This article has historically been a dumping-ground for junk no-one can really accept anywhere well managed. So it isn't too surprising that it has bloated. Even so, I don't think there is a place for a "scientific controversy" page - firstly, it would be too small; and second, global warming should cover anything non-trivial already William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so do you have a suggestion? This article could be restructured for one thing. But many of the subsections here could be articles of their own, and a smaller summary could be left here on this article. I don't really care how it is split, but this article is too big and cumbersome and really poorly organized, don't you agree? Minor4th 22:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, the vast majority of sections already do have a "main article" note right underneath the subheader. The general thing to do in a case like this is simply to shift the info to the subarticles and then use the subarticles to better summarize the relevant sections. Joseph Priestley, Jane Austen, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Charles Darwin are all examples of this. NW (Talk) 23:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I did do a bit of work a few hours ago on this. If no-one objects too strenuously I'll do more William M. Connolley (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to undo the split. Looking over the history of the skeptic page, it appears to me (sympathetic to the skeptical POV) that we had numerous tentative efforts at making a useful page -- some misguided, but the Wiki idea is that pages will start out poor but improve through increased involvement by the community -- only to be instantly reverted by editors (and Admins, notably Mr. Connoley) to stubs or redirects. "Policing" of embryo pages by privileged opponents of the POV is fatal, if only because it means that every prospective editor will be faced by the forehead-bleeding Blank Page.

Likewise on contentious issues -- of which there are many -- perhaps some general policy revision is in order. In an article on Fox-Rabbit Controversy, for example, there should be required pointers to Fox-Rabbit (Fox) and Fox-Rabbit (Rabbit), with the understanding by Admins that the POV guidelines, while still to be enforced, should be interpreted somewhat more loosely in such cases, and that it is reasonable for Foxes and Rabbits to slant their articles towards their respective POV, while of course retaining other Wikipedia values and guidelines. -- Craig Goodrich (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should treat topics without a point of view. AN it definitely should not be doing point of view forks. There's lots of blogs for people to fight out their sides on the web without turning Wikipedia in to a combined Conservapedia/Rationalpedia with bunches of editors pushing their POV on different pages. Dmcq (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


The following line has a misspelling:

"or the Synthesis and Executive summaries; the scientific reports attract less attetnion." (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Q Science (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph before "On the assertion of consensus" uses the term GHGs without defining it (definition can be found further down the page though). Seems like an unnecessary abbreviation regardless.

Pw swe (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

i know that people don't like the fact of climate chage but we have to cut down on useing fossil fules because the coal in the ground collected carbon dioxide thousends of years ago and we are letting it in to the air and the cycule is aroud over and over but we are also cutting down trees to make space for houseing but the trees are collecting carbon dioxide. fajemsocnjdyhd 8th october —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous suggested updates

In the section "Internal Radiative Forcing" it is asserted that Dr. Spencer's contention that feedbacks have been misdiagnosed due to the presence of non-radiative forcings in the climate system, leading to an excessively high diagnosis of climate sensitivity (which I think is a clearer characterization of his conclusion) has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It has now been published (or accepted for publication? I don't know whether the presses have actually run yet). The citation is: Spencer, R. W., and W. D. Braswell (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D16109, doi:10.1029/2009JD013371. It is available on the Web at Dr. S's blog, . -- Craig Goodrich (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding footnote #13, if Martin Gardner in 1957 did not particularly use GW/AGW (or skepticism towards it) as an example of pseudoscience, it should not be allowed as a reference here. Pw swe (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Blogs and self-published material

I've removed [31] a reference to a self-published blog critique of Paterson (2003). --TS 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

New global warming theory

I propose to add new reference page to a new global warming theory: Miroslav novak (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the ideas that you postulate (now in your user space at User:Miroslav Novak/Global warming by Solar wind) appear to be original research and thus are not appropriate for inclusion in wikipedia at this time. If these ideas are later discussed in reliable sources, you may someday be able to include them. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Crackpots. (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
See also the 5th comment posted on this blog posting Count Iblis (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Add Novemeber 2010 Scientific American "Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues: Why can't we have a civil conversation about climate?"

Add Novemeber 2010 Scientific American Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues: Why can't we have a civil conversation about climate? by Michael D. Lemonick October 25, 2010. (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Too tangential for this article, I feel, but it's currently in the external links to Judith Curry's article and may have a place in the article proper over there. Cheers, Sailsbystars (talk contribs  email) 02:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Add Chemtrail conspiracy theory ?

Add Chemtrail conspiracy theory ? (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My initial response would be, "No." This article is about a controversy, not a conspiracy, and the chemtrail thing is far too fringe to go under “Related controversies.” So, unless somebody comes up with a convincing argument for its inclusion, I’d still say, “No.”--CurtisSwain (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tinkering with scientific data is dangerous

Climate Change leads the era in the acceptance of unscientific data by so many

Can we not cite one article/section on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not true. How about Christianity, Islam etc. never mind creatonism, horoscopes in newspapers and people betting on the lottery because it might be them? Anyway you'd need reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Probably a new title will do: IPCC's Scientific Climate Change Convention leads the era in the acceptance of unscientific data by so many (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this warrants inclusion, but we cannot present it as fact but we should quote some of the many notable (in this context) people who have put this assertion forward. And as we do that we should also present the opposite side to this specific opinion. __meco (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what you people are discussing here. Are you saying that the IPCC is pushing unscientific data onto people? Or are you saying that people who disagree with the IPCC are accepting unscientific data? Don't forget that anything that will go into the article has to be cited to WP:RS, so here is a good place to list the sources we could reference. --Nigelj (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to the large bulk of attendees of the conference as if they donot give a damn to the unscientific basis of the IPCC's convention's summaries --as if they are still saying "will keep on implementing" inspite of the facts.. here are some of the resources of this controversy and can be cited: (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)-In response to these issues here is a reaction: (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Implementing what? The conferences come to no effective conclusion, the people rubbishing the science have been extremely effective. And where in all those references does anyone say climate change is especially amazing in terms of the idiot way it is treated by the public? The statistics of how many people agree with the science and of those who reject it are documented in a number of articles on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think "implementing" here refers to continuous discussions and later creation of agreements such as this: though the basic root of these all is not supported by accurate science. (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course they want to walk away with smiles and photos, but agreements are not the same as binding agreements. I don't know how much 'accuracy' you want over predicting future climate, currently it is probably better accuracy than most things your doctor will say to you, but then again I guess a lot of people do ignore what their doctors say and you do get the occasional 96 year old wheezing on a fag saying it never did them any harm. Dmcq (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
"Let them alone; they are blind leaders of the blind. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall in a pit." (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
How does that quote help improve the article? Are you saying climate change scientists are wrong to use the scientific method and instead they should pray so God will inspire them with the answers? I'm not sure how that fits with the title of this discussion which seems to say that most people are already accepting unscientific answers. Or perhaps the resolution is that God is scientific and the scientists are not? Dmcq (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone share new ideas? This is now becoming a monotonous "spinning wheel" and may end up as another forum? (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OR about new ideas. Generally a bad idea here. A good summary of the general principles for editing Wikipedia is at WP:5P. This is not a forum, it is for improving the article. Dmcq (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone share new ideas about this article? This is now becoming a monotonous "spinning wheel" and may end up as another forum? (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Good article if you want something new and old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC) - Another one. This seems to be on some childish banned list. I assure you this is well written and researched. Wiki is getting more and more sophomoric by the day. Instead of asking for $$, Jimbo should be reading his creation and tightening up the ship before it becomes more of a laughing stock. (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge from "Climate change consensus"

In 2009, Global warming controversy was split in this discussion and the article Consensus on climate change controversy was created, which was later moved to Climate change consensus. However in December of 2010, the article was proposed to be dissolved and the content merged into other articles. There has been no objections over the last month, and I have taken the liberty dissolve the article. There are two sections I believe could belong in this article:

  1. "Allegations of coercion, censorship, or other external factors" contains an Op-Ed, and may suffer from a lack of reliable sources.
  2. "Open letters" in my opinion may be more fruitful. It contains two signed letters of petition and appear to be reliably sourced.

Both would belong in the sections "On the assertion of consensus" and "On the authority of the IPCC" in the article. The collapsed boxes below contain the text. What do you guys think? --CaC (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of coercion, censorship, or other external factors

A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached, and listed the Science journal study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "an intense effort to suggest that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected."[10] Lindzen wrote in The Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2006,[11]

At least one survey of the scientific community has found the opposite problem—New Scientist notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities[12] or risk losing funding.

In 2008, Fergus Brown, Roger A. Pielke and James Annan submitted a paper titled "Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?"[13] It was rejected for publication by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) publication EOS and Nature Precedings.

The New York Times reported in 2009 that the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group opposing climate change mitigation action, removed from an early 1990s report from its own scientific advisory committee a section that said that theories contrary to the consensus “do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.” The coalition included the committee's position in an amended report, publicly released in 1998, and stated that scientists disagreed about “the rate and magnitude of" resulting warming. Despite including the committee's findings, the coalition continued to question scientific evidence which was in line with the consensus.[14]

US Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has referred to the "so-called global warming consensus."[15] Similar language has been used by other commentators.[16][17][18][19]

Open letters

In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an open letter[20] 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.[citation needed] For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. More than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) indicated current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science.[21] One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter.[22] In response shortly afterward another open letter to Prime Minister Harper endorsing the IPCC report and calling for action on climate change was prepared by Gordon McBean and signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists initially, plus 30 more who endorsed it after its release.[23][24]

In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to members of the United States Senate stating, "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."[25] The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.

The letter was signed by the Presidents or Executive Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.[26]

I'd just stick them in. People can always fight over them afterwards (image of snarling dogs comes to mind). It's best to deal with one problem at a time and the first problem is cleaning out that article on climate change consensus. Once they're in there can be separate discussions about bits if needed.

I'm not sure why you think there is a problem about unreliable sources in the bit about coercion. Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Illogical redirects

Hi editors. I noticed:

This didn't seem very logical to me, when you link from another article it seems fairly random where you end up! Should we decide which article is most relevant and sent them all to the same place?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I've now redirected Climate change scepticism to global warming controversy as well. I believe that is the most appropriate target for skepticism. We really don't need redirects for every single possibility, the search box is there for a reason. Dmcq (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Climate Change or just a repetition of yesteryears???

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Here is the link: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The linked article does not mention climate change or global warming at all. --Nigelj (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Because of the controversy of climate change, they wanted to be in the safe side so they won't mention it- at the end of all these, there is no such thing as climate change after all
IPCC people and the rest will believe this is climate change- implied as such —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
IMO the weather phenomena the article is discussing about isn't necessarily caused by the global warming (or climate change). The article does say that the particular weather event repeated in the past, thus it's a natural weather event, although rare and very extreme. Other things (e.g. that it will repeat more often) are just speculations without any backing scientific evidence. 1exec1 (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember the 1970's great interest in overpopulation? Where is that now in the discussion of environmental impacts (including Global Warming?). It seems to me that reducing global population should have significant impact on environmental concerns, yet politically it is a taboo subject. Because of the overt avoidance of a seemingly viable solution to environmental ills, there is great reluctance to consider this as a solution. As a result, there can be no significant gains in so-called "man-made" environmental concerns without first addressing the human population problem. The topic of human population control must be front-and-center in any discussion of man-made environmental controls. All other solutions are just fluff in comparison - unsustainable in the long run so long as human population continues to increase. -- (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

On the assertion of consensus - the first sentence (scientists' opinion in the media)

"Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the media in all countries but the United States often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming.[32][33][34][35]"

This sentence is significantly misleading.

The use of the (quite stark) phrase "the media in all countries but the United States" suggests (although not directly states) that between the U.S. and the whole rest of the world exists a striking difference in the media coverage (of scientists' stances on global warming); or that the media in "all countries but the United States" report on the scientists' views on global warming in roughly the same way.

Both of these statements are simply not true. It is really not hard to find articles and news pieces in the mainstream American media which treat man-made global warming as a fact, supporting this with scientists' opinion. On the other hand, articles (of varying scientific accuracy) that put the global warming consensus in doubt DO appear in Euopean newspapers and popular magazines - regularly. And, probably as in the U.S., some of the media present the global warming controversy as not fully settled.

There are big differences between individual countries in terms of citizens' opinion (on average) and media coverage of global warming, but this is not the U.S. vs. the rest of the world. For example, the difference between the United Kingdom and Poland would be significant.

Just to give some example, two opinion articles on global warming from the same influential Polish newspaper, one by an economist, and one by an environmental activist (very rough translation via Google Translate),75515,7209431,Przeciw_klimatycznym_zelotom.html&prev=_t&,75515,7315508,Zaufajmy_nauce.html&prev=_t&

Bottom line: this sentence, in the part regarding the media reporting, is quite dubious, and unsourced; the sources linked refer to the scientists' stances on global warming, but have nothing to do with the media coverage of the scientific consensus (or, specifically, the American media). Gft4 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Scibaby here?

Any one know why the topic "Scibaby" is redirected to this article? And while I hate to give him any recognition, perhaps there should be two or three lines to explain what "Scibaby" is about? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We have Talk:Global warming/FAQQ21. But its questionable if a main space article should redirect here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Not questionable at all. I prod'ed it under the auspices of WP:DENY. Not speedy eligible I'm afraid. For info about scibaby, see WP:Long-term abuse/Scibaby. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Scibaby is notable enough to have his own Wiki-article. Not sure how the BLP rules would work out for such an article, though :) Count Iblis (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The nature of sceptics

I think a note on the types and degree of skeptics is not out of the question. Unfortunately, a majority of those who would be called skeptics are in the 'blogosphere' and hence do not represent reliable sources. That being said, I propose the following paragraph. I will not add it to the article. If there is consensus that this is OK, then I will leave it to senior editors, etc., to add it. If this is considered out of line, please feel free to point this out to me. I will delete (I do a LOT of traveling, so may not be able to review again for a bit of time.)

Degrees of Skepticism and Acceptance:

In the debate over Global Warming, there is a complete spectrum of acceptance. The debate over this topic plays out daily in many widely read blogs. There are those who are politically, strongly, sometimes vociferously, supportive of the concept. Climate Progress There are those who provide a more scientific approach to the advocacy of the position. Real Climate. There are those who, while accepting the premise of global warming, advocate for less universal solutions. Dr. Roger Pielke Senior. There are those who advocate for the position, but believe that there is common ground with the skeptic community. Dr. Judith Curry There are those who are considered skeptics, but who believe that global warming is real and at least partly a result of human activity. Steve Mosher. There are those who provide a scientific approach to the skeptic position Anthony Watts. And there are those who are politically, strongly, sometimes vociferously, antagonistic to the concept. James Delingpole. At least one skeptic is an IPCC reviewer. Steve McIntyre Many of these blogs provide links to other sites as well. Generally, the reader will be able to assess for themselves the quality of the material on each site. A wide reading may give one the impression that each is, to some degree an Echo Chamber.

John G Eggert (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As a sceptic myself, this obviously gives weight and an impression of "equal validity" to a number of fringe blogs denying, to a greater or lesser extent, that global warming is as real an issue as 97% of practising scientists in the field consider it to be. The "sceptic community" appears to be the credulous community, taking Delingpole as an example. Not a good idea to source this to blogs, verification requires that the analysis this presents should be based on a reliable third party source, not on your views about the blogs. Oh, and I don't think there's anything preventing a contrarian from being an IPCC reviewer, so there are probably several in that unpaid volunteer role. So, we should really start with a good source providing an independent analysis of the blogosphere rather than adding a link farm. . . dave souza, talk 06:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Didn't think any of these were "fringe", but that's an opinion. In this debate, there will never be any good source that would be universally accepted as independent. What I've tried to do is provide a link farm, so to speak, that covers the range of opinions on the topic. Since I posted this, I've done some reading of various bits regarding the 'wars', for want of a better word that have occurred on wikipedia regarding climate. I think I'll back off from any contributions to this subject. Too many people on all sides taking things far too personally, from what I can see. On an editorial note, I hope I've replied to this properly.John G Eggert (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about fringe but they definitely are blogs and one has to be very careful about such links. I guess we'll have to figure out a better way of dealing with blogs in the future since they account for so much of the web and how people's opinions are formed, but how one would ever separate out anything useful from them I don't know. That bunch above is just a hall of people all shouting at once and the most arrogant and ignorant shout the loudest. Perhaps we should just rely on Google or IBM to eventually produce a program to automatically extract a general idea from them. Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
@ User:John E. -- you may be responding to the negative connotations of 'fringe' (e.g. 'pseudoscience') but Wikipedia guidelines [32] use the term much more broadly to cover any "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view". -PrBeacon (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)