Talk:Climate change/Archive 60

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

→

Tony's proposed wording of FAQ 22

This discussion budded off from #FAQ Q22 needs rework

I had a go here to incorporate the sense of this discussion and earlier ones.

My new proposed wording:

There are many peer-reviewed papers published every month in scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters,^[1] the Journal of Climate^[2] and others. We can't include all of them, but the article does include references to individual papers where there is consensus that they best represent the state of climatology. This is in accordance with the "due weight" principle (WP:WEIGHT) of the Neutral point of view policy and the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" principle (WP:INFO) of the What Wikipedia is not policy.

In essence, why refer to a guideline when we have policies? --TS 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the shoutout to GRL and J Clim? -128.196.30.219 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy over guideline, looks good. Saying no to a paper isn't always because it's non-neutral or because it's unreliable, sometimes it's notability (WP:N). I think its worthwhile to separate the trivial facts from the critical factors of GW. Scafetta 2007, seems to come to mind looking back (Archive 59 I think).

Why GRL and J Clim? They're one of the main journals in climatology. It's just an example to make things concrete. I don't know why they're cited though. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of attributed and expected effects, and other changes

Additions to intro

I've made some additions to the intro. I didn't think the intro was alarmist enough. Global warming/climate change is probably bad news for at least some people (if not most people), and that fact shouldn't be obscured.

Temperature changes addition

I've added this paragraph to the section:

In 2007, the IPCC concluded that warming of the climate system was "unequivocal." This conclusion was based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

The was one of the central conclusions of the last IPCC report, and it should be mentioned in this article.

GHG change

I've changed this because the previous revision was inaccurate. Previous revision:

CO2 concentrations are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The future rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. Accordingly, the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100 (an increase by 90-250% since 1750).[34]

The SRES scenarios are emissions scenarios, not concentration scenarios. The 2100 concentrations are projections based on these emissions scenarios. It is also wrong, because the 541-970 ppm figure is only for the six SRES marker scenarios, not, as was implied, the entire set of (forty) SRES scenarios. Another criticism is that uncertainty is not mentioned in the projection, in the sense that you are projecting concentrations from emissions scenarios. There's uncertainty about the carbon cycle, for example.

Attributed and expected effects

I've rewritten a large part of this section. My rewrite was based on my following concerns:

The Northwest Passage does not, in my opinion, deserve to be mentioned in this prominent article.
The previous revision of the article did not, in my view, adequately explain negative health impacts, negative impacts on ecosystems, negative impacts on coastal areas, negative impacts for water resources, etc..
The previous revision's coverage about those most vulnerable to climate change was poor.
Areas of this section were vague and imprecise

My revision was designed to address these issues. Enescot (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the major rewrite, for now at least. It's much too much for one edit, given the large number of participants in this article and the controversy that attends this article. I recommend taking it in smaller chunks so each can be individually analyzed and, hopefully, consensus can be gained for each aspect of the proposed changes. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats the way to take it. There are problems with relying on IPCC's outdated 2007 projections, and oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf's Sealevelgate article, about a very real projection anomaly that ought to be an international scandal but somehow isn't, demonstrates this quite graphically. In short; Rahmstorf argues that sea level has risen in the past and is likely to rise in the future much faster than the models used by the IPCC. We should take notice of informed critiques of IPCC, and to represent IPCC's position as fully as possible. I'm not very familiar with this or with the critiques Enescot raises, but they are the kind of detail of which I would probably want to be aware, whereas, as Enescot says, the Northwest Passage stuff is neither here nor there. Americans and Canadians may regard that as possessing a symbolic relevance that people living in other continents find quite difficult to understand. While I haven't looked at Enescot's revision on health impacts, further work in this area is to be welcomed. --TS 16:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately another way to say "the model underestimated the last 50 years of sea level rise by 50%" is that the model just isn't good at explaining the data. (Insert comment about how it is better than anything else here.) Ignignot (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This article is about the best projections available based on a careful consideration of the available information, which takes into account the models and the possibility that they are wrong. --TS 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The sea is a huge system with massive in-flows and massive out-flows every day. The future variations in these flows are the end-products of huge calculations and projections in many other areas including temperatures on land and sea, at different levels up and down. Then you subtract 'out' from 'in' and get a small number. That that number is accurate with +/- 50% may well be one of the greatest pieces of careful estimation ever done, for all we know. Sorry if it "just isn't good enough" for you. It's getting better all the time, though, provided whole research departments aren't held up for too long dealing with mass FOI requests from blog-readers, or dealing with public enquiries. --Nigelj (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Calm down dude. I put the required boilerplate in parenthesis. Maybe it is a herculean feat to get it that close, I dunno. I just wouldn't bet my life on it. Ignignot (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For one, I'd support the proposed sentence: "In 2007, the IPCC concluded that warming of the climate system was "unequivocal." This conclusion was based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level." [cite to IPCC 2007 report) ... Kenosis (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No. If it's "unequivocal", then why not just say it? If the purpose is to establish authority, remember that the IPCC's authority doesn't come from the itself. Scientific societies recognize the conclusions. You're getting this from the SYR or an SPM, which is "for the benefit of policy makers".[1] Scientifically an "unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system," which isn't pratical.[2] I like how the National Academies of Science put it, it's that "There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring."[3] Which runs along the lines where strong evidence qualitative observations and significant being statistical significance. There's no "unequivocal," that just sounds hubris. Evidence-wise, the lead is really running out of space. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Enescot proposed that the italicized text above be placed into the section on temperature changes, not in the lead. Perhaps more accurate are the words In 2007, the IPCC stated that warming of the climate system was "unequivocal." ... Kenosis (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I'd to see Enscot reply, because for some reason it's turned into regional effects of global warming.[4] If you believe this owes merit, start a new thread. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Adaptation

Installation of air conditioning may be a rational adaptive action for individuals but will actually lead to increased fossil fuel consumption, so leading to further global warming. Should this not be pointed out here? Agricmarketing (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not here. This article is a top-level one, that summarizes a multitude of different sub-articles, many of which are summarizing even more articles. An issue with air-conditions and what ever pro- and contra's that may have is minute details that have little relevance here. I'm not certain where such a discussion would be relevant though, and it is certainly not as simply as you've set it up (for instance there is no rule that states that more aircondition will lead to more fuel-consumption... in fact the opposite is the case in Denmark where the increase in geo-thermal heatpumps have both increased the amount of airconditioners and reduced the fuel-usage). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not notice that air conditioners are already mentioned under the Adaptation heading? My point was that if air conditioners are to be mentioned as an adaptation the possibility that their use could exacerbate the situation should also be mentioned. Perhaps reference to air conditioning should be dropped altogether?Denmark may be an exception. How many air conditioners are geothermal in the States?Agricmarketing (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please notice that A) its a summary from another article B) what the context is ("everything from the smallest to the largest measures") - it is not a discussion of the merits or demerits of the proposed adaptation measures. Had it been from "drying clothes in the air" to ... - should we then wallow into a discussion of how various clothlines are made from petroleum? :-) As said - this is something for the subarticles, where there is room and context for such discussions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A smaller sign of adaptation – interesting, perhaps suitable for one of the sub-articles but not here. . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim, If it is a summary of Adaptation to global warming how come that article does not seem to refer to air conditioning?Agricmarketing (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing against it being removed, i think the range description is reasonably valuable - but an indepth discussion certainly doesn't belong here. The summary should be with content from the article being summarized, of course, but there are various reasons where this may have failed - one of them could be that the summarized article has changed since the summary. But it could also be that the summarizer has taken the gist rather than the verbatim road. But none-the-less a discussion of the pro's and con's of airconditions have no place here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

@Agricmarketing - yes, they could be used more, but more GHG are emitted as a byproduct of Winter heating. Climate Change Feedback is complicated, nonintuitive, and very interesting. Ignignot (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit semi prot

{{editsemiprotected}} Please replace this:

Soot may cool or warm, depending on whether it is airborne or deposited. Atmospheric soot aerosols directly absorb solar radiation, which heats the atmosphere and cools the surface. Regionally (but not globally), as much as 50% of surface warming due to greenhouse gases may be masked by atmospheric brown clouds.^[3]

with this:

Soot may cool or warm, depending on whether it is airborne or deposited. Atmospheric soot aerosols directly absorb solar radiation, which heats the atmosphere and cools the surface. In isolated areas with high soot production, such as rural India, as much as 50% of surface warming due to greenhouse gases may be masked by atmospheric brown clouds.^[4]

Thanks. -128.196.30.219 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Set Sail For The Seven Seas 323° 48' 0" NET 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

GISS update

NASA: “It is nearly certain that a new record 12-month global temperature will be set in 2010″ « Climate Progress gives interesting information from an email written by Hansen, with a link to the full draft paper. Hansen also describes the misuse of FOIA requests and their effects. Statisticians reject global cooling - Environment- msnbc.com and Global cooling bites the dust: Hottest January followed by second hottest February. Now March is busting out. « Climate Progress also provide relevant information. . . dave souza, talk 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

~~It is too soon to include this. This is just a prediction. Let's stick with facts. Task Force B (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)~~[confirmed scibaby sock Kim D. Petersen (talk)]

It is WAY too soon! Hansen has just circulated his draft of the paper for comments and has not yet identified a journal for publication. While holding skeptics to a nebulous 'wait and see' for inclusion of material from publications in refereed journals, disciples of AGW want to rush to the fore in Wikipedia with pre-publication material flattering to their biases. Hardly a pattern for cogent treatment of a controversial subject!Dikstr (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, worth waiting for definitive figures either way, just an update that seemed worth noting on the talk page. . . dave souza, talk 02:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify for the benefit of Dikstr, Q22 applies to this paper even more than it would to a published paper. It doesn't matter who proposes its inclusion. We can afford to wait for the global average temperature for 2010 to be calculated after the measurements have been collected. Also, as previously noted, the temperature of any given year doesn't count for much. This article is about the rising trend over time, not years in which the global average temperatures set a record (albeit the latter occurrence is a predictable corollary of the former). Tasty monster (=TS ) 07:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Attributed and expected effects

This section relates to a previous discussion at Talk:Global warming/Archive 60#Rewrite of attributed and expected effects, and other changes

Large proposal moved to Talk:Global warming/Attributed and expected effects

I've gone ahead with the revision I suggested above. Please note that I've directly referenced the section of the Synthesis report on the IPCC website. This version is not the same as the print version (I know of one difference between the PDF and html versions), so I'd prefer it if my referencing is not changed to the "cite book" style. The reason I mention this is because on a previous edit, I wasn't happy with another editor changing my citation style (for Schneider et al (2001), mention of report editors McCarthy et al was deleted). Another thing is that in another article, an editor was critical of my imprecise referencing. Referring to the html version allows editors easy access to the relevant section of the report. Enescot (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Solar Variation

OK. Lets discuss my recommended alteration of the 1st paragraph of the Global Warming/Solar Variation section:

"Variations in solar output have been the cause of past climate changes.[46] Although solar forcing is estimated by climate models to be a minor component of global warming in recent decades,[47] recent research indicates a larger role comparable to that of anthropogenic greenhouse gas accumulation.[48]"

This seems like an eminently fair description of the current knowledge of the subject. And if you claim that ref 48 is an 'outlier' paper you'd better be prepared to justify it! References 46 - 48 are:

Solar Influences On Global Change, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., isbn=0-309-05148-7, page=36

Hansen, J., et. al., Efficacy of climate forcings (2005),Journal of Geophysical Research, v.110|pages=D18104

Scafetta, N., Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007 Dikstr (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

46-48 should be 3 papers. Do you miss something? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No you did. I've put dots in front of them to make it easier for you.Dikstr (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

RealClimate: Please, show us your code . . dave souza, talk 09:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to expand on the significance of this blog site statement?Dikstr (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It could have something to do with reference #1 which uses (amongst others) the Friis-Christensen & Lassen paper, which is discussed in the Realclimate posting. Why we are using a very old reference from 1994 is beyond my understanding (the NRC book) - since a lot of things have happened since that time. (this has been raised several times on Talk:Solar variation btw. It is extremely misleading to use an assessment from 1994 when we have newer assessments that draw upon expanded and more complete data and research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're prepared to discuss specific findings that refute those of the 1994 NRC publication your objection to using 'older' publications is just POV posturingDikstr (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of Wikipedia - there are several newer assessments - two at least by the IPCC (the TAR and the AR4). Several assessment papers (one of these is mentioned below). I see no reason to use a 1994 publication, especially since the TSI record, as well as the proxy record, has grown significantly since that time, and not least that papers it is based upon (F-C&L) have been obsoleted and shown erroneous. You are attempting to reverse the burden here - you in fact are the person who has to defend using an old assessment instead of the newer ones. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

RealClimate: Please, show us your code is of course a WP:SPS giving the expert views of Rasmus E. Benestad and an update of discussions following his joint paper (Benestad and Schmidt 2009) regarding problems with Scafetta's papers. These issues are further analysed in Lockwood 2010 Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum which notes problems with use of the ACRIM TSI composite based on the application of an entirely inappropriate TSI reconstruction, multivariate fits resulting in dramatically reduced significance (unstated by Scafetta) and the analysis of Scafetta (2009) requiring an amplification of the solar input by a factor of 13.5 which Scafetta fails to explain or justify. Lockwood concludes that "the popular idea (at least on the Internet and in some parts of the media) that solar changes are some kind of alternative to GHG forcing in explaining the rise in surface temperatures has no credibility with almost all climate scientists." In a more recent posting, Benestad discusses More on sun-climate relations citing several new papers to conclude that "changes in the sun play a minor role in climate change on decadal to centennial scales. After all, 2009 was the second-warmest year on record, and by far the warmest in the southern hemisphere, despite the record solar minimum. The solar signal for the past 25 years is not just small but negative (i.e. cooling), but this has not noticeably slowed down global warming. But there are also many unknowns remaining". . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Solar variation, models, and Scafetta

If we want to be finicky, essentially everything we use to make scientific statement is "a model". But the influence of solar variations had been analysed using many different models, both so simple that most people won't recognise them as models, and full scale GCMs (Boris correct me if I speak nonsense ;-). Scafetta is a real outlier with a history of papers that fail to find much support in the scientific community. See Talk:Global_warming/FAQQ22. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not well informed regarding Scafetta's work or you'd not be consistently misspelling his name. Scafetta's work has been published in refereed journals. Unless you can cite specific refereed publications that argue convincingly against his methods and results then your opinion lacks credibility comparable to Scafetta's work.Dikstr (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is such a violation of WP:UNDUE it's not funny. If the theory ever gains widespread support within the scientific community, we can include it, but until then, it's an outlier and nothing more. StuartH (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:UNDUE. Your characterization is incorrect.Dikstr (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

For starters, if one looks at Scafetta's papers with a technical eye that has any reasonable balance w.r.t. reasonable conclusions that might merit consideration in a GW summary article such as this, it's clear his assertions about GW are outliers as other WP editors here have said. Most of what Scafetta has said in his published work has to do with measurement and analysis of solar variation. with no evidence of any serious incentive on the part of researchers in the same community as that of Sarfetta to either respond or confirm his work. Whether or not it will ultimately have been taken seriously in the very small community of researchers that focus upon solar variation per se remains to be seen. Some, or perhaps even much, of what Scafetta has published may well merit incorporation in certain very limited ways into e.g. the article on Solar variation. IMO.
As to Scafetta and West (2007) and Scafetta and Wilson (2009), they do not merit inclusion in this summary article on GW, at least for the following reasons: In the abstracts and conclusions of published research papers, both sections of which researchers are normally granted wide liberty by academic and scientific research communities to speculate about the implications of what their data analyses might mean for their readers with little or no serious danger of being discredited for purely technical ineptness, Scafetta, West and Wilson respectively make their personal conclusory arguments. For example:
In Scafetta and West 2007, "Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600", In the abstract the authors suggest a scenario that they, and they alone or pretty-much alone in the research community have put forward to date, then say that under this scenario the Sun might have contributed up to approximately 50% (or more if ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003] is implemented) of the observed global warming since 1900.
....... Going forward a couple years, in Scafetta and Wilson 2009, ACRIM-gap and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model.
In the Abstract:

Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033 %/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037 % found in the ACRIM composite.

In the conclusion the authors say:

"Within the uncertainty of the model we have concluded that the data support the view that TSI increased significantly (by about 0.033 %) between the successive solar minima of 1986 and 1996, confirming the trend found by the ACRIM TSI composite and contradicting the absence of a TSI trend in the PMOD and the KBS07 proxy model."

and

"a corrected KBS07 proxy model is expected to reproduce the upward trend of the ACRIM TSI composite between the 1986 and 1996 TSI minima."

and

"This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades. [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008] Current climate models [IPCC 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming."

Note that in 2007, Scafetta and West asserted that there could be under their scenario as much as a 50% underestimate of the non-anthropogenic contribution to present-day global warming. By 2009, the assertion had become that "Within the uncertainty of the model we have concluded that the data support the view that TSI increased significantly (by about 0.033 %) between the successive solar minima of 1986 and 1996, confirming the trend found by the ACRIM TSI composite and contradicting the absence of a TSI trend [deduced by two of the methods considered by the IPCC]."
....... Note that the 0.033% difference in total TSI between the IPCC estimates and Scafetta and Wilson's estimate equivalent to 0.00033 of the TSI estimate. They call it "significant", but by what statistical standards is quite unclear. This is rather unlike the IPCC whose statistical standards are also somewhat unclear to us when they say things like "95% confidence level", but which appears to be far more cautious than Scafetta about calling things significant, if for no other reason than that Scafetta has no one else to account for other than Wilson and West in person, the rest of the research community evidently content to regard them as outliers since there doesn't appear to me to be either much follow-up work or much response except for some criticisms of his "methods").
....... More important, IMO at least, is the fact that in two years Scafetta has in his arguably very liberal published conclusion sections gone from saying "up to 50% or more, if ..)" of GW is natural varialtions of the Sun, to saying that 0.0003 of TSI within an undefined confidence level,
Stranger yet to me at least, is that after we jettison all the technical jargon, Sacafetta asserted in his 2007 paper that there is a delay of several decades in the effects of TSI in having a measurable impact of forcing within key components of the troposphere and subsstrates, yet making such sweeping conclusions about AGW. To me at least, it's not surprising that in the four-years-or more-since Scafetta began to publish his empirical conclusions with radical speculations in the abstract and conclusion sections (both of which are written by the authors of the papers) that other researchers worldwide had pretty-much chosen not to even bother to respond.
....... Speaking of course as only one WP editor, I completely agree with the other editors who have rejected Scafetta's material on solar forcing due to issues of WP:WEIGHT. Further, according to the policy WP:PSTS we're to avoid including primary source material in the following way:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. [bold emphasis mine]

Not only are Scafetta's conclusions highly doubtful for inclusion in this particular article by WP:WEIGHT , to me they're clearly out of bounds w.r.t. WP:PSTS (part of the core content policy WP:NOR). While I'm not intractably stuck on resisting the inclusion of Scafetta's material in this particular article, to date at least, it seems clear to me that his conclusions and abstracts to date have insufficient weight within the scientific community to merit much of a published response, and that the proposed inclusion of his conclusory statements does not come anywhere close to meeting the standard set by WP:NOR. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Is the above comment WP:TLDR about what should have been a very minor issue? Here's cutting to the chase, IMO. Scafetta'set al research appears to me to meet WP:V, specifically WP:SOURCES, but doesn't appear to me to meet either WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT or WP:NOR, specifically WP:PSTS, in this article. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis - You start with the subjective statement: "if one looks at Scafetta's papers............." and continue with the "outlier" characterization without any semblance of argument or proof. After exposing your bias the rest is just a ramble without any coherent or salient scientific criticism. Your discussion of the 50% solar forcing versus the 0.033 %/decade TSI rate of change demonstrates that you did not understand Scafetta's work. You might also attempt to spell the names of the authors you're citing correctly - it would give one more confidence in your critical reading abilities.Dikstr (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. True that it was a good bit of a rant from me last night, hastily composed, sloppy, and which I should have yanked out and more thoroughly recomposed after mistakenly hitting "save" instead of "preview". Anyway, I've been seeing numerous attempts over the last several months to insert sentences into this article based on Scafetta's 2007 and/or his solo 2009 work, conclusory sentences based on Scafetta alone, to the effect that "recent empirical research" has shown that TSI is responsible for a good deal of observed GW, or "phenomenological reconstructions" show that solar forcing is on the rise and is substantially responsible for GW. An example of those many attempts, all by Dikstr, is this edit. So I decided to take a closer look at the articles he's published, and responses to it.
....... Scafetta and West 2007 is an outlier even on the face of it, in Scafetta and West's own words in the abstract and conclusion, hardly a "subjective statement", as you say, which reveals my "bias" as you say. Scafetta and West say they've come up with a composite model which leads them to a conclusion very different than that of the other researchers' models considered by the IPCC (all of which have factored in solar forcing based on the same satellite data set used by Scafetta and Wilson). By pasting together a bunch of other researchers' work into a new model, Scafetta purports to find a whole bunch of increase in solar radiation starting from about 1900 that everyone else seems to have missed, radiation which he and West assert could account for in excess of 50% of the observed GW since 1900. He's acknowledging being an outlier by the very words of his 2007 abstract and conclusion, which amount to saying all those other models the IPCC are using are wrong, and they could have radically underestimated the non-anthropogenic contribution to GW. On the face of it, essentially an intentional position setting one's self up as an outlier. Problem is, of course, that we don't have any measurements of TSI before 1978.
....... His and Wilson's 2009 paper is of course far more technical and tightly focused on the measurement methods of TSI, and concludes a 0.03% per decade increase in TSI between 1986 and 1996, but without necessarily going the extra step and extrapolating this conclusion back into the past when there were no direct measurements of TSI. My point above was not to imply direct equivalence of the conclusions in these two papers, but only that this one is a far more conservative conclusion much more tightly focused on the specific TSI measurements and calculations. And even here, other researchers have analyzed the same information and concluded differently even on this issue of possible changes in solar forcing in this limited time frame.
....... As to the 2007 paper, only Benestad and Schmidt have bothered to respond to date, and they've criticized the methods and conclusions of Scafetta and West specifically, and Scafetta has in turn criticized them. AFAICT, Benestad and Schmidt are to date the only scientific secondary sources about Scafetta's slant on the ACRIM/PMOD debate and how researchers might best extrapolate TSI back to before 1978. Now, if Scafetta 2007 had any merit I'd sure think there would be a stampede of scientific literature attempting to hone in further on what Scafetta and West had to say. But that's not what has happened to date.
....... As to Scafetta's other 2009 paper, I hadn't yet seen it as of last night. In that one he says in the abstract w.r.t. solar forcing "The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used." In this one he's basically re-analyzed everybody's work, and comes up with a wider range of variability than have others. Fair enough I suppose, except again, if there were merit to these broad assertions of TSI increasing since 1900, made without access to measurements of SI prior to 1978, it seems that there'd be plenty of secondary scientific literature following up post haste. AFAICT, there has not been such a response. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As discussed in the section above, Lockwood's 2010 paper (link below) discusses various problems with Scafetta's papers and with various claims made on the basis of these papers. . . dave souza, talk 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another secondary source, also quite critical of Scafetta's slant (in this case his and West's assertion that most of the observed GW since 1950 is due to increases of TSI): Duffy, Santer and Wigley,"Solar variability does not explain late-20th-century warming" Physics Today, January, 2009, pp 48-49. .pdf. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum — Proceedings A Proc. R. Soc. A 8 February 2010 ? . . . dave souza, talk 13:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line of Lockwood's analysis of Scafetta's work seems to be for Scafetta's assumptions to work, he needs to provide credible evidence of amplification of solar input in the climate system by a factor of 13.5. Lockwood states that: "Although these can reproduce an amplification factor of 3, no credible model has generated a factor of over 13." Whereas increases in GHGs are capable of fully explaining the observed 20th century GW, the suggested TSI increases (if they exist) do not explain observed warming. Scafetta provides no evidence in support of this extent of amplification. In other words, by Lockwood's analysis, Scafetta's extent of reliance on an as-yet-undiscovered amplification mechanism is off by at least 450% when compared to models that are regarded by most climate scientists as being credible. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis: I'll tackle a few of your misstatements (in quotes):

"Scafetta and West 2007 is an outlier even on the face of it.." - A subjective evaluation prior to any discussion. Clearly what follows is just an inadequate attempt to justify your POV.

"Scafetta and West say they've come up with a composite model which leads them to a conclusion very different than that of the other researchers' models considered by the IPCC" - the major climate model results referenced by the IPCC are global circulation models, approximate representations of the complex climate system. Their sensitivity to TSI variation is highly uncertain, as is their ability to predict future climate based on current data and past proxies. Scafetta & West use an empirical analytical technique with current climate/satellite TSI data and past solar proxy and climate data. These methods are vastly different in approach and ability to identify solar climate forcing - a difference you seem to be unaware of.

"(all of which have factored in solar forcing based on the same satellite data set used by Scafetta and Wilson). " - Same satellite date - but very different assumptions regarding sensitivity to solar forcing and computational approach.

"Scafetta purports to find a whole bunch of increase in solar radiation starting from about 1900 that everyone else seems to have missed" - Not true. Virtually every solar proxy modeler has derived similar TSI increase during the industrial era.

"He's acknowledging being an outlier by the very words of his 2007 abstract and conclusion, which amount to saying all those other models the IPCC are using are wrong, and they could have radically underestimated the non-anthropogenic contribution to GW. On the face of it, essentially an intentional position setting one's self up as an outlier. " - Solving a problem using another method and finding different results is a quintessential part of the scientific process. Disagreement does not make an idea an 'outlier'. The bizarre overuse of the term 'outlier' in Wikipedia is a convenient ruse to discredit less popular ideas but irrelevant to their value or accuracy.

"but without necessarily going the extra step and extrapolating this conclusion back into the past when there were no direct measurements of TSI" - WRONG! This is exactly the process used by Scafetta. His approach is validated by satellite data and extrapolated through proxy data to pre-satellite periods. Really - read the papers before criticizing!

"And even here, other researchers have analyzed the same information and concluded differently even on this issue of possible changes in solar forcing in this limited time frame. As to the 2007 paper, only Benestad and Schmidt have bothered to respond to date, and they've criticized the methods and conclusions of Scafetta and West specifically, and Scafetta has in turn criticized them." - Benestad and Schmidt are not the only ones and made some glaring and obvious errors in doing so. See: [5]

"AFAICT, Benestad and Schmidt are to date the only scientific secondary sources about Scafetta's slant on the ACRIM/PMOD debate and how researchers might best extrapolate TSI back to before 1978" - NOT TRUE! See Physics Today Letters for Oct. 2008 and Nov. 2009 Dikstr (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dikstr, you've been provided with reliable sources severely criticising Scafetta as being incorrect and being an extreme minority view. Your original research doesn't cut it. . . dave souza, talk 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have? Name one. Benestad and Schmidt aren't in that category. You're entitled to your opinion on my original research but you need to back it up with specific arguments to achieve any semblance of cogency.Dikstr (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I find this discussion quite distressing. Why are Wikipedia editors making judgements about which viewpoints to include in an article based on technical analysis of the contents of academic papers? The point of WP:UNDUE is that important minority viewpoints should not be over-represented in articles, not that they shouldn't be mentioned at all. The Scafetta paper is in every way a reliable primary source, whether its contents are actually correct or not. What other topic area on Wikipedia would have editors arguing over whether a peer-reviewed paper can be mentioned in the article or not, based not on an editorial question about improving the article, but on their own original research into the validity of the paper's conclusions? Referencing a paper does not constitute an endorsement of its findings. The paper should be mentioned, in context, in a neutral way, and linked to for the educated reader to make up their own mind - just like it would be in any other topic. Thparkth (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Important minority viewpoint"^{[citation needed]}... Ie. your argument would have merit, iff this had been an article about Solar variation and not a top-level article with a summary section. Here the WP:UNDUE gets extreme - because the summary is roughly 1 paragraph, where the Scaffetta paper would get roughly 33%. Outside of that S&W is an outlier - which doesn't come up to significant minority position. And of course it is an editorial judgement, WP can't include everything, everywhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanctimonious but unconvincing. I note you've avoided joining in the discussion to provide justification for your judgment regarding "doesn't come up to significant minority position".Dikstr (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually an argument I agree with - an editorial one based on optimizing the usefulness of the article. What I object to is the idea that we can exclude any mention of a peer-reviewed paper because we disagree with its methods and conclusions. Thparkth (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's the methods or conclusions. I just want to know how it's notable. In my opinion, I think Dikstr thinks it's important because it disagrees with the mainstream assessment. What are we writing? An encycolopedic overview for the readers, or an esoteric overbudened section for the writers? I do appreciate Diskr's decision to write rather than edit war, I don't appreciate his persistence and disparagement of the editors. --CaC 04:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.167.156 (talk)

It is notable because it is a peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable scientific journal which presents a view that is contrary to the established scientific consensus. Things don't come much more notable than that. It is notable regardless of the truth of its contents. It is also relevant and of interest to the readers of even this overview article. Of course it shouldn't be accorded undue weight, but treating the subject neutrally requires us to at least mention the existence of contrary minority viewpoints, particularly ones which are as ironclad per WP:SOURCES as this one. Thparkth (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think its important because new results from a new and more accurate way of evaluating solar variation's contribution to climate change has become available since the GCM's cranked and ground out their approximations 10 years or more ago. We're talking about a section in global warming called 'solar variation' and it should not be used to suppress a balanced view of the solar effects. But that's just what the editor-defenders of AGW have done. I criticize other editors when they try to hide their AGW bias behind Wikipedia gobleygook rather than discussing the science at hand (and they deserve it).Dikstr (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that there should be a brief mention of the existence of alternative viewpoints on the solar variation, but it's inappropriate to go into much detail in a summary article. So I would suggest wording like "...but solar forcing is generally thought to be too small to account for a significant part of global warming in recent decades, [though some research indicates that solar forcing might play a more major role]," with a reference to the Scafetta paper or some reliable secondary source that summarizes it. This small amount of additional verbiage would present no threat to the reader's ability to understand the article, is entirely balanced and appropriate per WP:UNDUE, and is more neutral in its treatment of the subject than the current wording. Thparkth (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair approach. But I suggest a slightly different wording such as: "...but solar forcing is generally predicted by climate models to be too small to account for a significant part of global warming in recent decades, although some recent research indicates that solar forcing might play a major role"Dikstr (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We need to be careful to state the majority view as the majority view, and the minority view as the minority view, per WP:WEIGHT. The qualifier "generally predicted by climate models" should be deleted, since the majority view on solar forcing is not based solely on models. Maybe something like "The consensus is that solar forcing has had a much smaller effect on recent climate than the increase in greenhouse gases, though a few studies have suggested that solar forcing may have had a more significant effect." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing, based upon the RSs I've seen thus far, to support a sentence such as, for example: "The consensus among climate scientists is that solar forcing, if it has contributed to late-20th and early-21st century global warming at all, has had a vastly smaller effect than the increase in greenhouse gases—although a few studies have suggested that solar forcing may have had a more significant effect." .[cite to Scafetta et al, along with criticisms of Scafetta's work by Lockwood, Duffy, Santer, Wigley, Benestad and Schmidt].. Kenosis (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you believe the recent publication by Benestad and Schmidt justifies your negative evaluation of Scafetta's work. Scafetta claims they used a module version of the Maximum Overlap Discrete Wavelet Transform (MODWT) without adequately understanding it and made an obvious error in its application. If true the results of their calculations, and their conclusions, are fatally flawed.[6]Dikstr (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an implicit assumption in what you've written that everyone agrees solar has had a positive effect, but people disagree whether it is small or not. That is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the suggested wording makes a good effort to avoid that impression "... if it has contributed to ... warming at all ..." but I guess the point could be made more explicitly. Do you have a suggested wording, and a suitable source handy? Thparkth (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points. As WMC and SBHB would already know, solar forcing has most likely had a net cooling effect in recent years. Bottom line still is that the scientific consensus is that GHGs are capable of fully accounting for observed warming, while solar forcing does not. On the evidence to date, the latter is widely agreed to be capable of accounting only for a small proportion of observed warming. Scafetta's math only works if he's able to find a mysterious amplification factor more than 450% greater than what is regarded by the experts as credible. So it quickly gets quite complicated to explain all of this at this article's summary level, which is why the section links to solar variation#Global warming, and gives a quick summary of the mainstream. At present there is no notable "minority" school of thought on this issue, but rather is Scafetta's work. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't see how Scafetta's work can be included in the brief summary without needlessly complicating it with the qualifiers, explanations and contrasting research that minority scientific viewpoints warrant. A link is found to Solar variation where there is room for more detailed discussion, but on the global warming summary, what we have now ("solar forcing is generally thought to be too small to account for a significant part of global warming in recent decades.") is reasonable. Other phrasings of this which imply that this view is widely, but not universally, held within the scientific community would also be adequate. StuartH (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There is sound wisdom in the WP editorial policies WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSTS, and the guideline WP:SUMMARY. WEIGHT and SUMMARY instruct us to put the content in balance and perspective based on the preponderance of the entire body of existing reliable sources that are relevant to a given topic, in a level of detail appropriate to the entire scope of that topic. PSTS instructs us to exercise an additional degree of caution when considering the use of primary-source material, especially prior to its having had an opportunity to be vetted, criticized and integrated by the relevant community of experts into at least some kind of recognized significant minority school of thought. PSTS also prohibits us from presenting conclusions drawn from primary-source material which can't be double-checked by any generally educated person without specialist knowledge. Scafetta's work is already given due treatment in the article on solar variation, where there's a reasonable opportunity to also mention criticisms of Scafetta's work by, e.g., Lockwood, Duffy, Santer, Wigley, Benestad and Schmidt in balance with a mention of Scafetta's papers. ... Kenosis (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no editorial reason not to at least mention that "conflicting research exists in this area" or words to that effect. It's not necessary to mention Scafetta at all (this is a summary) but even summaries must be neutral in tone. Such a phrase is appropriate per WP:UNDUE and a positive service to our readers. Thparkth (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to include fringe or extreme minority views in this overview, the current statement allows for these exceptions by stating "but solar forcing is generally thought to be too small to account for a significant part of global warming in recent decades." Note the implications of "generally". In the more detailed account in the solar variation article it may be worth considering recent research by Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf. . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Solar variation II

The solar forcing findings of Scafetta & West are new and a minority view at present but characterizing them as fringe or extreme and to be ignored is counterproductive to a reasoned discussion.Dikstr (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to recognise that due weight applies. If these are new, and minority, then it isn't clear there is space for them. In all events, the "solar" part of this article should reflect the sub-articles William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think dave souza meant that the views were those of an extreme[ly small] minority, not that the views themselves were extreme. In any case, as WMC points out, being a small, new, minority view is sufficient for excluding its discussion from this article; any mention would lead readers to believe it has greater acceptance/importance in the climate science community than it actually does.— DroEsperanto (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Adaptation

The existing coverage of adaptation in this article is very poor:

A wide variety of measures have been suggested for adaptation to global warming, from the installation of air-conditioning equipment, to major infrastructure projects, such as abandoning settlements threatened by sea level rise.

Measures including water conservation,[87] water rationing, adaptive agricultural practices[88] including diversification, construction of flood defenses,[89] changes to medical care,[90] and interventions to protect threatened species[91] have all been suggested. A wide-ranging study of the possible opportunities for adaptation of infrastructure has been published by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers.[92]

Schneider et al [7]:

A general conclusion on the basis of present understanding is that for market and social systems there is considerable adaptation potential, but the economic costs are potentially large, largely unknown and unequally distributed, as is the adaptation potential itself. For biological and geophysical systems, the adaptation potential is much less than in social and market systems. There is wide agreement that it will be much more difficult for both human and natural systems to adapt to larger magnitudes of global mean temperature change than to smaller ones, and that adaptation will be more difficult and/or costly for faster warming rates than for slower rates

In the article, this sentence is pointless:

A wide-ranging study of the possible opportunities for adaptation of infrastructure has been published by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers.[92]

Reference to this study can be moved to further reading section. My suggested revision is as follows:

A wide variety of measures have been suggested for adaptation to global warming, including: water conservation,[87] water rationing, adaptive agricultural practices[88] including diversification, construction of flood defenses,[89] changes to medical care,[90] and interventions to protect threatened species[91]. The capacity and potential for human systems to adapt is unevenly distributed across different regions and populations. The economic costs of adaptation are potentially large, but also largely unknown. Across the literature, there is wide agreement that adaptation will be more difficult for larger magnitudes and higher rates of climate change.

Ref: [8] Enescot (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Unequivocal" warming

I'm not happy with the way the article deals with its central topic, that of global warming. In my view it is ridiculous not to mention the IPCC's central conclusion, that warming of the climate system is "unequivocal." This is the most important conclusion of the IPCC report, which is the most widely cited report, most thoroughly reviewed report, and most widely accepted report that there is. To not cite this conclusion, in an article about "global warming", is preposterous.

So here's my suggested revision, which is to the section on temperature changes:

In their Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, the IPCC concluded that warming of the climate system was "unequivocal." Evidence supporting this finding included observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

The most common measure of global warming is the trend in globally averaged temperature near the Earth's surface. Expressed as a linear trend, [...]

Ref: [9]

To be honest, the view that warming is "unequivocal" deserves to be mentioned in the article's introduction. In my opinion, it is more important that anything else in this entire article. I accept that the intro is too long, but if necessary, stuff from the intro should be deleted to make room for the "unequivocal" quote.

I made a similar revision to this article previously that was deleted. As I recall, (1) ChyranandChloe was critical of the use of the quote "unequivocal." (2) Kenosis suggested that in the preamble, the word "concluded" should replaced with the word "stated", i.e., "IPCC stated that..."

On point (1), with all due respect to CaC's analysis, I think it is irrelevant. While CaC is entitled to his/her own views on the IPCC assessment, it is an authorative assessment. Therefore, since the "unequivocal" statement is unquestionably extremely significant, it deserves to be mentioned in this article. If other editors are unhappy about this, they should cite sources that challenge the IPCC conclusion. However, in my view, since the IPCC represents the consensus view among experts, as supported by several national science academy statements, plus reports by the US National Research Council, any challenges would represent minority views. The IPCC does not directly assert that its conclusions represent majority views in the scientific community, but this is implied by the national academy statements. The point is also made explicitly in recent publications by the US NRC and the UKMO.

For these reasons, I think that any challenges to this particular IPCC conclusion should not be mentioned in this top-level article. Perhaps they can be included in sub-articles. I should also note that article, as it is at present, in my view, is excessively generous to minority views, for example, there is the long and confusing titled "debate and skepticism" section (the word "debate" is redundant – all aspects of science covered in this article have been debated by scientists). As an aside, the section is also absurdly US-centric.

On point (2), the IPCC conclusions, unlike the national academy statements, are based on a literature assessment. Therefore, the IPCC's conclusions are not just "statements", they are based on an assessment of available scientific evidence. Scientists usually make conclusions when they've assessed evidence. I don't know of any scientific papers that end with a "statements" section, they end with a "conclusions" section. To be entirely consistent with the IPCC report, the "unequivocal" statement is one of the findings presented in the report. However, it's not a great leap to say that this finding is reported because it something that the IPCC authors concluded as being correct. Anyway, I think the word "stated" does not accurately convey the fact that the IPCC report is based on an assessment of evidence. Enescot (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying "the IPCC concluded that warming is unequivocal" is perfectly fine. Since you mentioned it, yes, there's a lot of stuff in the lead that should be elbowed to make room for other things. Much of the lead is accretion from various edit wars where everything had to be finely parsed and everybody wanted to get their 2p in. At present it doesn't summarize what's in the body of the article, which is what the lead is supposed to do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris, this whole article has been bypassed by events and really now given the low public interest and conseqent low importance of the subject the whole article should be drastically cut to the bare bones to avoid having to read realms of entirely useless stuff to get to the few key facts in the article. Honestly, there are many much better source out there! 86.23.30.116 (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In respect of the proposed new wording, I'd rather not tie it too strongly to IPCC 2007. Also, we already say "Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century" - how is that, functionally, any different from "unequivocal"? I'm really not sure why using the word helps - I thought that was one of the more uselss parts of AR4: to call something that was already obvious in 2001 "unequivocal" in 2007 - who cares? However, having said that, Boris is very likely right: that the lede could do with attention. But given the effort inevitably involved because of friction with - ahem, how does one say this without causing offence? - our esteeemed colleagues who take a slightly different view of reality, perhaps - I'm not sure it is worth the effort William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

[...] we already say "Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century" - how is that, functionally, any different from "unequivocal"? – William M. Connolley

The questions (1) "what does the instrumental temperature record show?" and (2) "is warming actually happening?" are two separate questions. The IPCC statement answers (2), while your statement answers (1). The answer to (1) suggests a positive response to (2), but it does not answer it definitively. The answer to (2) draws on the answer to (1), but also on other lines of evidence:

Evidence supporting this finding included observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. – proposed edit

Therefore, I do not see the answers to questions (1) and (2) as being identical. The answer to question (2) is, in my view, more important than the answer to (1) because it draws on a greater body of evidence than the answer to (1):

The key (emphasis added) finding of IPCC AR4, "The warming in the climate system is unequivocal [...] ", is based on measurements made by many independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, the ocean and in the ice-covered areas of the Earth (...) – Co-chairs of IPCC Working Group I. Ref: [10]

As you can see, the co-chairs of IPCC Working Group I identify the "unequivocal" statement as the "key" finding of the last assessment report.

In respect of the proposed new wording, I'd rather not tie it too strongly to IPCC 2007 - William M. Connolley

I disagree. The issue of global warming is contested. Therefore, in my view, it is necessary to maintain a separation of IPCC conclusions from the "narrative" of the article. This is achieved in the way that I have written my edit. By not attributing the "unequivocal" statement, it suggests that editors of the article agree with the statement. Or, to put it differently, the statement represents a consensus view among editors. I don't think that either of these positions are correct. Personally I do not feel comfortable stating that warming is unequivocal without very clear attribution. I'm not an expert, and I have not assessed the evidence myself. So I am reliant on the IPCC's assessment, as is suggested in my edit.

I am willing to not use the unequivocal quote and not so directly attribute the warming statement to the IPCC. To do this, I suggest that several sources are referred to that support the unequivocal statement indirectly. I am not willing to compromise on the substantive point of the unequivocal quote, that is, that warming is a fact. To start off, here is source 1:

In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reaffirmed that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems – Joint-academies statement. Ref: [11]

source 2:

The Earth is warming – US National Research Council. Ref (p.4): [12]

source 3:

Earth is warming – UK Hadley Centre. Ref: [13]

source 4:

Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced – USGCRP. Ref: [14]

I think these sources are sufficient to justify having a non-atttributed statement in the article. I suggest:

Warming of the climate system is happening: evidence for this includes observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. - new proposed edit

To summarize:

(1) I do not agree that it is sufficient to state the instrumental temperature record and use that only as evidence for global warming. The edit I've suggested is an assessment of all the relevant evidence, which is different to simply citing the individual pieces of evidence that point to that conclusion.

(2) I am happy to go ahead with the unattributed revision that I've suggested here. I believe that the diversity and reliability of sources means that no "separation" is necessary between the narrative of the article and the views contained in the cited sources. Enescot (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Global warming graph attacked by study

www.ft.com. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't trust the FT's inaccurate reporting. Read the report itself [15]. It isn't long and is well worth a browse William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't recent acceleration of warming mentioned in the lead?

I wonder why recent acceleration of warming in the last forty years isn't mentioned in the lead? On the RSs we have including the IPCC, the substantial acceleration, particularly since the mid-Seventies, has quite clearly occurred, and is demonstrably continuing on this accelerated path even despite the exceptionally weak solar minimum we're presently going through. Seems to me a mention of "acceleration" or "accelerating", a word both scientists and laypersons understand, should perhaps be right up front, somewhere immediately after the first or second sentence of the lead. There's no mention in the lead that the past two decades are by a long shot the warmest since instrumental temperature records began, and by all credible reconstructions the warmest in at least 2000 years, presently exceeding even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period. Even the Moberg "Letter to Nature " graph published to debunk the smoothed-out "hockey stick" has it this way (the red line on the first composite graph at right). And by the averaged values of credible reconstructions going back some 12,000 years (shown in visual form in the third graph on the right) it's already the warmest since the end of the last ice age. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Broken Links

Reference [2] <http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf> should be updated to: <http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf> 03:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.176.196 (talk)

Thanks for the report of dead link! I'll change it to the updated link to the official source, which is at <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf> Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Impacts on ecosystems

Large proposal moved to Talk:Global warming/Impacts on ecosystems

--TS 00:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

More interesting than Adolf Hitler but not as good as Jesus

Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched pages by namespace#.28Main.29 .2F Talk William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Just a quick comment so as not to digress for more than a moment from the purpose of the talk page. Apparently South Park is more important, or at least interests more users than any of these three. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Little Barrier Island on Nr. 2????? Count Iblis (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

O RLY?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is veering wildly off-topic. Please open a new thread to raise any concrete concerns about whether the article content conforms with all of Wikipedia's policies.

Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions. That was on the war page. now this is like, 100% LIBERAL!!!!! Wikipedia must hate conservativism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjb0607 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is edited according to Wikipedia:Scientific point of view. Articles edited under these rules will often not give the conservative POV, because usually the Left is Right and the Right is Wrong. Count Iblis (talk)

Articles should be edited with a moderate POV that accommodates credible differences of opinion. The left should be left out and the right rightly ignored as well as a matter of principle. Dikstr (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attributed and expected effects

Here is my proposed edit of the section on "Attributed and expected effects":

Global warming may be detected in natural, ecological or social systems as a change having statistical significance (1). Attribution of these changes e.g., to natural or human activities, is the next step following detection (2).

Natural systems

Global warming has been detected in a number of systems. Some of these changes, e.g., based on the instrumental temperature record, have been described in the section on temperature changes. Rising sea levels and observed decreases in snow and ice extent are consistent with warming (3). Most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid-20^th century is, with high probability, (footnote) atttributable to human-induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations (4).

Even with current policies to reduce emissions, global emissions are still expected to continue to grow over the coming decades (5). Over the course of the 21^st century, increases in emissions at or above their current rate would very likely induce changes in the climate system larger than those observed in the 20^th century.

In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, across a range of future emission scenarios, model-based estimates of sea level rise for the end of the 21^st century (the year 2090-2099, relative to 1980-1999) range from 0.18 to 0.59 m. These estimates, however, were not given a likelihood due to a lack of scientific understanding, nor was an upper bound given for sea level rise. Over the course of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in sea level rise of 4-6 m or more (6).

Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater warming over land, with most warming at high northern latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean (5). Snow cover area and sea ice extent are expected to decrease. The frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation will very likely increase.

Ecological systems

In terrestrial ecosystems, the earlier timing of spring events, and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges, have been linked with high confidence to recent warming (3). Future climate change is expected to particularly affect certain ecosystems, including tundra, mangroves, and coral reefs (5). It is expected that most ecosystems will be affected by higher atmospheric CO₂ levels, combined with higher global temperatures (7). Overall, it is expected that climate change will result in the extinction of many species and reduced biodiversity of ecosystems (8).

Social systems

There is some evidence of regional climate change affecting systems related to human activities, including agricultural and forestry management activities at higher latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (3). Future climate change is expected to particularly affect some sectors and systems related to human activities (5). These include:

water resources in some dry regions at mid-latitudes, the dry tropics, and areas that depend on snow and ice melt
Agriculture in low latitudes
Low-lying coastal systems
Human health in populations with limited capacity to adapt to climate change.

It is expected that some regions will be particularly affected by climate change, including the Arctic, Africa, small islands, and Asian and African megadeltas. Some people, such as the poor, young children, and the elderly, are particularly at risk, even in high-income areas.

Footnote: In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, this attribution is given a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement (9). According to the US National Research Council Report – Understanding and Responding to Climate Change - published in 2008, "[most] scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" (10).

References:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) – Executive Summary
(8)
(9)
(10) is already referenced in the article – NRC (2008)

I've tried to condense down all the most important and highest confidence findings of the IPCC report into this section. I think that my structuring of topics is more logical than the existing revision, that divides impacts into "environmental" and "economic" sections. I also think that my revision is more logical in the way it covers the subject. Each section is organized according to observed impacts, followed by projected impacts. The existing revision haphazardly mixes up predicted impacts with observed impacts. Enescot (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In regards to Ecological systems, is it reasonable to explain why a loss of biodiversity would occur, and what climatic changes are expected to cause this. Just pondering, that some readers might not understand why this would occur.--Snowman frosty (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that information on the scientific basis for projections should be included, but in a sub-article. This is because the article is too long and more information about projections would make it even longer. Also, to add more info on ecosystem projections would be unbalanced without adding more info on the projections affecting natural and social systems. Enescot (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No problems I understand what you mean with balance in terms of the amount of space given to each topic area. Just commented on that one, because its within my background area. --Snowman frosty (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Another article linking global warming to seismic activity

Hi. This is not a journal reference, but here is another site that proposes a connection between global warming and earthquakes, volcanic activity, etc. I remember that there was a recent scientific journal article that was not mentioned in the Wikipedia article because it was a single reference. Although there is likely disagreement on this, please discuss to include at least one sentence of information pertaining to the effects of global warming on earthquakes in the main article as this is a significant effect, and more people are now linking glacial uplift, tropical cyclones, and even other weather patterns to a heightened risk for earthquakes, and if water from sea level rise floods into volcanic basins, the effects of global warming on seismic activity may be further demonstrated as well, but first we need to include some information on global warming affecting factors for earthquake risks. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a recent news story linking global warming to volcanic eruptions. The relavent information is contained in the last two paragraphs. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm sure there are plenty of scientists cringing at media reports trying to link global warming to earthquakes and the like, if it's being reported in the media then it should be considered for inclusion here or in other articles as appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with peer-reviewed publications. Science by press release doesn't have a great track record. And no, those who actually understand geophysics aren't "cringing" at this; it's a very reasonable hypothesis, given that isostatic rebound is a well-established process. But it needs more quantitative evaluation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my inexperience is showing, but shouldn't we prefer secondary sources to primary sources? I'm assuming (and maybe that's where I'm wrong) that by peer-reviewed publications, you are generally referring to academic journals which would be considered primary sources? Thepm (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:V sez Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of news reports linking either global warming or weather to earthquakes and other seismic activity. Some here: How Storms Can Trigger Earthquakes, Could weather trigger earthquakes or landslides?, Volcanic ash cloud: Global warming may trigger more volcanoes, just to name a few. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Of AH's links [16] is just about "How Storms Can Trigger Earthquakes ". There doesn't seem to be any GW connection at all. [17] looks to be another newspaper report about the same underlying paper. So is [18], but that report actually speculates about a link to GW. It also provides a link to the underlying paper which is nice: [19]. However the underlying paper *doesn't* talk about GW, so the stuff in [20] is likely just speculation from the newspaper. So we shouldn't use it.

[21] is about the recent volcano, really, plus some speculation; [22] is a bit vague.

If this is to have any substance there ought to be real papers that we could link to (secondary sources good, yes, but there must be real primary sources underneath) for (1) isostatic rebound or ice retreat causes volcanoes and (2) GW will cause more of them William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The theme of May's Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Physical, Mathematical and Engineering Sciences is 'Climate forcing of geological and geomorphological hazards' [23]. Novickas (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, very interesting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC's helpful comments bring up another point, which is that the media will often try to link stories like this to global warming, even when the original researchers involved made no link to it themselves. I don't see that we currently have a Global warming in the media article. Cla68 (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is to the discussion at hand, but I found these subsections on Plate tectonics and Volcanism (over in Climate change > Causes) to be helpful in understanding the broader picture somewhat. E.g. "During the Carboniferous period, about 300 to 360 million years ago, plate tectonics may have triggered large-scale storage of carbon and increased glaciation."^[5] PrBeacon (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2010

However, that's about plate tectonics and seismic activity triggering climatic change (cooling), not the other way around. Although if there is a causative link between global warming and seismic activity, then this may be a negative feedback mechanism except for the glaciation as that is affected by continental positions, or in the case of release of subsea methane deposits it could be a positive feedback. ~A H 1^(TCU) 11:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Geological processes do serve as feedbacks, but on extremely long time scales. Effects like rock weathering are very much negligible on the time scale of centuries. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Here's my attempt to provide some info on a the issues brought up here:

Glaciers and volcanism: yes, there is a connection that has been documented between the two. The basic idea is that the loss of the ice decreases the confining pressure in the system. This makes the ratio between the pressure due to the magma to the ambient pressure increase (see Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion) and the volcano erupt. A visual is that it is easier to break a rock that is sitting in air than a rock that is surrounded by water or other rock: less confining pressure, more deviatoric stress. As an anecdote, Mount St. Helen's 1980 eruption was actually triggered by an earthquake that caused a landslide and removed the confining pressure from the hot center of the volcano. Here's an article that documents this: Effect of glacier loading/deloading on volcanism: postglacial volcanic production rate of the Dyngjufjöll area, central Iceland. I'm not sure if this is worth putting here though, maybe more for the "effects of global warming" article.
Climate and tectonics: there is a whole subindustry of scientists who work on the connection between the two. It's basically a stress balance (between the weight of the rock and the end loads induced by tectonics): tectonics builds things up, and erosion removes material. Plus lots of orographic precipitation, etc. The first-order idea (that is often correct in general but incorrect in particular) is that the faster things go up, the faster they come down. For climate, uplifts associated with continent-continent collisions have been linked with periods of cooling (due to more rapid silicate weathering and erosion, as said Stephan). This is a very long-term thing.
Isostatic adjustment: I'm not aware of any connection between isostatic rebound due to removal of non-volcanic masses and volcanism, though there clearly is a connection between how the volcano changes lithospheric loading and associated isostatic uplift or subsidence. It also seems to me that glacial-isostatic uplift through sea level could unload magma chambers and induce more eruptions, but I don't know of any documented case studies. In any case, the same removal of surface loads that causes isostatic rebound also can cause the unloading and activation of magma chambers.
As something of an aside regarding geomorphic hazards and climate, something many geomorphologists (to a small extent including myself) are interested in is how different distributions of storm events affects the behavior of rivers, landslides, etc. Since many of these responses are nonlinear in that they drastically increase beyond a threshold, and climatologists predict larger storms, this is a concern in terms of land management. There has been quite a bit of work done on this, so it may also deserve a place in the "effects of global warming" article.

Hope this is helpful, Awickert (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most helpful, thanks. The details would I think be appropriate in the effects article. Does anyone object to a single sentence in the environmental section here along the lines of 'Geologic and geomorphic effects are possible..." with a link to the Royal Society journal. It does seem a rather new angle, but not fringe if the RS devoted an issue to it, and as said above, if it's getting media coverage WP should probably be forward about it. Novickas (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the current reporting implies that the current rate of earthquakes and so forth are the observable effects of global warming. Now, one does not have to be a scientist to realize that such causation over the course of a year is simply not possible considering the rate at which ice is melting. If the link were really as strong as the reporting seems to imply, then every year the world should suffer the result of catastrophic earthquakes and volcanism as the northern hemisphere is inundated with snow and ice of a magnitude far greater than the average loss in any one year. Think outside the box people, this is nothing more than fear-mongering. Trying to make a causal inference related to the seemingly large uptick in large earthquakes within the past year is nothing more than fear-mongering by the press. While there may be long term effects, none of us will be around long enough to able to disern a statistical inference. The timeframes are simply far to great. Arzel (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

To this non-scientist, much of that rationalization (especially the "fear-mongering" part) seems like OR or Syn. Perhaps part of the issue is possible versus probable -- not always clear cut. Regardless, if it's noteworthy enough for reliable sources then it should be included. Likewise any notable counterargument may deserve inclusion. Thats my 2c. PrBeacon (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some more links specific to the eruption in Iceland: Ice cap thaw may awaken Icelandic volcanoes, Get ready for decades of Icelandic fireworks, and Volcano eruptions in Iceland could last for years. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Some more news stories: Scientists call for research on climate link to geological hazards, Fire, ice and climate change. ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I could see another sentence added into the "environmental" effects section; it should probably be more specific though, like, "There is worry that melting ice sheets would remove pressure that is preventing volcanic eruptions underneath them, and that larger, more sporadic storms could cause more frequent landslides, in addition to other geological and geomorphic hazards." And the info would need to be added to the "effects of GW" article first, and then put here. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to do this, but I am happy to lend a hand / send papers / etc. if needed. Awickert (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added some relavent information to effects of global warming. Please discuss. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I lightly edited it to remove the "some geologists say..." phrasing, which I don't like. As to the rest, I think the tone may be slightly wrong, but I'll leave AW to comment, since he clearly kno0ws what he is talking about William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's overall good to have something on this there, but there are a number of technical inaccuracies, and we'll want better sourcing in the near future (all peer-reviewed, so we don't hold newspapers to an uneven standard). It will take me ~1/2 hour to clean to my satisfaction, which I will not have for some time. If you have a chance: the Royal Society itself simply publishes the journal, the about.com ref can't even spell "volcanoes" and there will be no release of pressure over the sea floor (rather, a slight increase, so I don't see why there would be more tsunamis), and though landslides and volcanoes technically are "seismic" (that is, they shake things), I always thought that the popular view of "seismic" was "earthquake"... choose what to do about that, if anything. But for now - it's a good start - thanks. Awickert (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Debate and skepticism" section

Here's my proposed change to the section on "debate and skepticism.":

There are different views over what the appropriate policy response to climate change should be (1, 2). These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater damages and risks in poorer regions (3).

Politics

Developing and developed countries have made different arguments over who should bear the burden of cutting emissions. Developing countries often concentrate on per-capita emissions, that is, the total emissions of a country divided by its population (4). Per-capita emissions in the industrialized countries are typically as much as ten times the average in developing countries (5). This is used to make the argument that the real problem of climate change is due to the profligate and unsustainable lifestyles of those living in rich countries (4). On the other hand, commentators from developed countries more often point out that it is total emissions that matter (4). Emissions from developing countries make up around half of the world's global emissions (6).

The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005, sets legally binding emission limitations for most developed countries (7). Developing countries are not subject to limitations. This exemption led the U.S. (under President Bush) and a previous Australian Government to decide not to ratify the treaty.[95] At the time, almost all world leaders (including those of Canada, China, member states of the EU, Japan, South Africa, and Pacific Islands) expressed their disappointment over President Bush's decision (8). Australia has since ratified the Kyoto protocol.[96]

Public opinion

In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[105] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University finds that "results show the different stages of engagement[clarific] about global warming on each side of the Atlantic"; where Europe debates the appropriate responses while the United States debates whether climate change is happening.[vague][dubious][106]

Other views

Most scientists accept that humans are contributing to observed climate change (9). National science academies have made calls on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions (10). There are, however, some scientists and non-scientists who question aspects of the climate change science. Some doubt whether humans are responsible for recently observed warming, and some have also suggested that warming over the past decade has stopped (11, 12).

Organizations such as the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, and companies such as ExxonMobil, have challenged IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.[109][110][111][112] Environmental organizations and public figures have emphasized changes in the current climate and the risks they entail, while promoting adaptation to changes in infrastructural needs and emissions reductions.[113] Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years,[114] or called for policies to reduce global warming.[115]

References:

(1)
(2): Banuri, T.; et al. (1996). Equity and Social Considerations. In: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (J.P. Bruce et al. Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A. doi:10.2277/0521568544. ISBN 9780521568548. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help) p.87
(3) Banuri et al, p.83
(4) " pp.94-95
(5): Grubb, M. (July–September 2003). "The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol" (PDF). World Economics. 4 (3): 144. Retrieved 2010-03-25.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
(6)
(7): Liverman, D.M. (2008). "Conventions of climate change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere" (PDF). Journal of Historical Geography. 35: 12–14. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008. Retrieved 2009-08-08.
(8). pp.5-6
(9) – NRC (2008) referred to in article, p.2
(10)
(11)
(12)

I've attempted to correct for what I see as a bias towards US views, and an under-representation of other views. I think that the section should be renamed either "views on global warming" or "opinions on global warming." I think that the title "debate and skepticism" is meaningless. To say that there is debate is pointless. What matters is what the competing viewpoints are. There is no need to say that there is "debate." The word "skepticism" is also unnecessary.

Tags

results show the different stages of engagement[clarific] about global warming on each side of the Atlantic"; where Europe debates the appropriate responses while the United States debates whether climate change is happening.[vague][dubious]

I think this is a poor sentence. What does "engagement" mean? It strikes me as one of those words that sounds impressive but conveys little information. The second part of the sentence is weak. The statements are generalizations. It would be better to state what percentages have certain views. At the moment, the sentence is too vague.

The dubious tag is over the US's views on climate change. According to lectures by Jon Krosnick [24][25], the US public does, to a large extent, accept mainstream scientific views on climate change. In my view, to say that the "United States debates whether climate change is happening," is misleading. Enescot (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming is a hoax created by liberals to get us to spend all our money for an imaginary danger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.145.98 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as helpful in editing the article; it's about the subject, rather than being a proposal for what should be in the article. (Aside from being a probably BLP violation.) However, it doesn't do much harm here in the talk page, so I suppose it could remain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion of the above two comments. My understanding is that discussion entries should be left on Talk pages unless they are blatantly malicious. If y'all disagree with me, or if I went too far, please say so here and I'll avoid it in the future.

While I don't agree one iota with the "unsigned" post (and find it annoying as Hell), it isn't vandalism, per se, and I felt I had to defend his right to say it.

Don't everyone flame me at once, please! UncleBubba (Talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete... rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)" - WP:Talk page guidelines personally i dont mind either way but many editors think those off-topic posts are distracting and counterproductive (as is the ensuing discussion of the posts.> PrBeacon (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Melting ice amplifies Arctic warming

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42499

Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition

The first line of this article says

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

The only provided reference is the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers" which does not contain the phrase "Global warming". The associated appendix defines Global Warming Potential but not Global Warming.

This reference abstract defines "Global warming" as

'Global warming' is a phrase that refers to the effect on the climate of human activities, in particular the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and large-scale deforestation, which cause emissions to the atmosphere of large amounts of 'greenhouse gases', of which the most important is carbon dioxide.

Merriam-Webster says

an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution

I suggest that these definitions do not agree and that the one currently used is nothing more than WP:OR. I know that there have been previous discussions with respect to this definition, but it seems obvious that the current definition either

Needs a reference, or
Needs to change

Q Science (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This sounds very familiar. Haven't we been round this loop before, more than once? Have you checked the extensive archives? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, I would tend to agree with Q Science. The current defintion is not entirely correct. The only problem with the M-W defintion is that the enhanced greenhouse effect is not caused by pollution, it is caused by carbon dioxide, methane and other GHGs. These are all gases produced by natural processes. So called "pollution" (such as particulates) can actually cause cooling. Stovl (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

However in that sence they are pollution as they cause disruption of the existing system by man made products. As per below

Merriam-Webster - Pollution

1 : the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste; also : the condition of being polluted

Burning fossil fuels in combustion engines, or powerplants, making concrete isnt exactly a natural process it is polluting the existing system with waste products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.186.226 [26]

See archives

The index lists more than a half dozen threads. Most replies: Archive 31 - "Incorrect definition" (47) .. More recent: Archive 43 - "why is land temp excluded.." (and probably others since then)- PrBeacon (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, those provided a link to the IPCC definition

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

which also does not agree with the wikipedia definition. Actually, since the archives (from 2007 and 2008) cite no other references, it appears that the current definition is simply wp:OR . Q Science (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I took out [27] because I don't think it is right William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

While I don't have any refs at the moment, I definitely have read quite a few opinion pieces that say we shouldn't take any action. I think the edit was inconsequential, but it should at least be grammatical: “…what actions (if any) to take in response.”--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you can find one (doesn't even need to be used as a ref, just link it here) I'll be happy to revert William M. Connolley (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actions include reviewing the implications of global warming when planning sea defences, as is already done in the Netherlands, is anyone really saying that they shouldn't take that action? . . dave souza, talk 10:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't seen anyone say that specifically. Keep in mind, those who take a do-nothing approach don't necessarily present sound reasoning. I'll try to find an example.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There are skeptics, and some that find global warming positive. For example: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c Quote: "Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants. Stovl (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinions of politicians are not relevant to scientific subjects. In general, if a Wikipedia article is about science, people who, for example, can't do calculus are not entitled to an opinion. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And yet, it is the politicians that allocate the money to take action. Therefore, their opinions are relevant in this context. Q Science (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

More appropriate to Politics of global warming or Global warming controversy, imo. And philosophically one might argue that inaction (and its concomitant proselytizing) is simply another form of action. So the "if any" becomes superfluous :> PrBeacon (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Using that argument you could add politics to any article about any subject ever given any public funding. Which is just about everything. So I think it is a self-defeating arguement William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence we are discussing is

Political and public debate continues regarding global warming, its causes and what actions to take (if any) in response.

with the disputed text in bold. In addition, I was responding to Rick's comment that the "opinions of politicians are not relevant". So, William, I am confused by your response. Q Science (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know what "context" you meant. I thought you were making a general argument William M. Connolley (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence conveys the same meaning with or without the "if any". Since this is English, not legalese, it's better writing to omit the extra statement. Guettarda (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Charts

What about refreshing charts since the most is obsolete since 2005 many things was changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.23.137 (talk • contribs)

See the talk:Global_warming/FAQQ7. Most of the graphs seem to be up-to-date, anyways - which ones are you referring to exactly? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Off-wiki evaluation of this article by subject matter expert

David Archer has reviewed and evaluated this article for this study of WP's Featured Article process. Here's what the article says of his assessment:

Even among those articles that scored highly, there was room for improvement. For example, David Archer (Professor of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago and the author of Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast), scored the article on global warming at an eight [out of 10] and wrote that it was “very concise and clear”, but remarked that he could tell “it was not written by professional climate scientists” and noted an error in the way the article explained how clouds are included in climate models.

Anyone know what the error about the clouds he is talking about? Cla68 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No. But notice those aren't DA's words - those are a paraphrase by someone who doesn't know. So it is probably something cloud related, but might not be exactly that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a very interesting link, thanks. Good to see GW getting an 8. *Also* very interesting to see that study essentially repeating a comment that many of the science-based contributors have been saying for a while now In expert evaluations, nearly one–third of the featured articles assessed were found to fail Wikipedia’s own featured article criteria. As such, the featured article process can hardly be considered successful. It is not especially surprising that Wikipedia’s non–expert contributors are not able to adequately assess the quality of featured articles. Other research into quality on Wikipedia suggests that the participants in the featured article process apply rather unsophisticated criteria to their decisions... For Wikipedia, then, it seems that if the featured article process is to serve as an effective means of quality control, it must be changed. The most obvious way to improve the process would be to include the input of experts William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Something like that (inclusion of expert input) happened informally at Talk:Donner Party during the Donner Party FA candidacy. Hans Adler 08:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting study. One glaring omission, though, is that the article does not list which version of the article was reviewed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In this thread, Mike Christie offers to obtain the actual evaluation from the subject matter experts. I didn't request for this article because I thought it would be more appropriate for one of the major contributors here to do so. I think Dr. Archer's raw evaluation might be very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it the goal that the article should read like it is "written by professional climate scientists"? I would dispute that. It should be written in a way that is accessible and useful to the non-specialist reader. It should be accurate, but not pedantic. it should avoid jargon. Professional scientists usually are not noted for their ability to communicate effectively with the general public. Thparkth (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a great point & deserves further discussion or at least acknowledgement. Scientific writing is often best handled by writers with a good grasp of science, not scientists with a good grasp of writing. PrBeacon (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say what he meant by that -- maybe we should ask him? If it means that the article is inaccurate that's a concern we should address. I have to admit that I've occasionally let errors stand as a result of the need for cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What errors would those be SBHB? Yes, we should ask for Dr. Archer's full evaluation. I want to know what the cloud error is so we can look at correcting it. Cla68 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68 that we should get the specific errors and address them. I have to disagree with Thparkth. Scholarly writing differs from the kind that's appropriate for Wikipedia, but many (if not most) scientists can write in either style. The only way you can tell that an encyclopedia article wasn't written by an expert is if it's wrong. Let's find out how and fix it, to improve that already-good score of eight. TypoBoy (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No one's saying that all scientists are bad writers. But some of us might argue that scientific writing (ie, popular science) is generally better from writers than from scientists. Of course there are many exceptions like Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov yet they are far from a majority. By the way experts can be wrong too. PrBeacon (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Eight out of ten. Let that shut up the carpers and critics. Though it won't, and clearly hasn't. --TS 01:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Eight out of 10 is an excellent grade, but let's try to make it 10 out of 10. If no one has requested Dr. Archer's review yet, I'll go request it. I want to see the error about the clouds corrected if, indeed, it is an error. Cla68 (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think his 8/10 rating is quite laughable. Personally, I would say the article is "start" class. There is a ridiculous bias in the article towards US-based views and interests. Bias towards scientifically- and policy-illiterate "skepticism" is evident throughout, e.g., the pointless referencing to corrections due to the urban heat island (so small therefore why is it mentioned? – obviously to appease so-called skeptics), or to cosmic ray theory; the abysmal treatment of ethical issues, particularly with regard to the section on "skepticism and debate".

How many times are small islands referred to in this article? what about the effects of global warming on Africa? Why is there a dedicated section on economics and not threats to water supply or food production? The answer to me is straightforward: the editors of this article are more concerned with impacts in rich countries (largely monetary) than impacts in poor countries (largely non-monetary). In relation to this, my worst criticism of this article is that editors do not appear to be interested in the views and potential interests of people living in developing countries, who make up most of the world's population. Enescot (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Clouds error

I asked for and obtained the review by Dr. Archer. I was told not to post the text of the review here, but can discuss it in general terms. The cloud error is this line, which I notice is unsourced in the article, "Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so are considered separately from water vapor and other gases." The error appears to be that clouds are considered separately, not because they are liquid or solid, but because they are an internal feedback to the climate system. Discussion? Cla68 (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I had to think about this for a while to figure out what Archer meant, then realized it hinges on the "and other gases" part which is where the forcing/feedback distinction arises. We could just remove that part of the statement. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I was going to say that the error was "so": they are considered separately not because of their composition, but well because they can't be considered together with the well-mixed gases. Mind you if this is the worst error in the article we've done very well William M. Connolley (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the sentence in question is unsourced, why not just remove it? Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff

There is some other stuff in the review which Cla, oddly, neglected to mention:

I can tell occasionally that it was not written by professional climate scientists, but it does a good job. For example, the sentence "A 2008 paper predicts that the global temperature may not increase during the next decade because short-term natural fluctuations may temporarily outweigh greenhouse gas-induced warming." is taking that 2008 paper a lot more seriously than I personally would say it warrants; the sentence seems to me naive. The sentence beginning "Current climate models produce a good match to observations ...", for example, repeats the claim twice that climate models "do not simulate all aspects of climate." The repetition is detrimental just of the writing, and it seems like it has an ax to grind.

I'll see if I can fix this up William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Too late. The 2008 paper is gone. Not sure about but do not simulate all aspects of climate. - can't see any repetition now, but may have been in the past William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Breathing

Why not pay homage to the military and add "breathing" to "...caused by breathing, fossil fuel burning, and deforestation". This seemingly simple change will strengthen the "human causes" argument as well as emphasize the carbon dioxide component of the global warming causes. It will also strengthen the argument for war as a means of population control. Even the most deadly of battles in human history have been dwarfed by the unmitigated exponential population growth. Brian Everlasting (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Because breathing doesn't belong. In short: It is part of the short term Carbon cycle (see it), and therefore doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels and deforestation are exchanges between the long(er) term Carbon cycle and the atmosphere, and therefore does accumulate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Less edifyingly, other farming practices are mentioned by the IPCC with specific reference to methane and nitrous oxice produced at the other end of cows etc. – perhaps farming should be mentioned? . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate change and agriculture - we have articles on almost all aspects. There is only so much information that can be summarized here. [nb: Eructation is actually the major Ruminant source for methane not flatulence - common error :)] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How the sun infuences the local climate in Europe

see here

It could be interesting to mention how the Sun does influnece the local climate in Europe, instead of only mentioning the negative results which rule out a solar influence on the global climate. Count Iblis (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article, like it I blame The Sun, indeed think it was "The Sun wot dunnit", but we can only really blame Murdoch for the electoral weather. Quoting the article, "However, Lockwood is keen to emphasize that this research can tell us nothing about global climate change." So, perhaps a bit offtopic here, presumably it could be worth explaining this on the main article on Solar variation. Thanks for the link, dave souza, talk 18:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it interesting as well. Agreed with Dave Souza that in the greater context it doesnt say much about global climate..a comment or two on the regional effect could deserve some mention, after the paper has some settle and digestion time? --Snowman frosty (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

~~I think it ready for inclusion. Why not include it now? FullRoomingIn (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)~~

In principle it is fine, but it is easy to misinterpret. Also it is (explicitly) regional so perhaps dubious in GW. I'd agree with DS: put it into SV first William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Responses to global warming

Here's a draft I've put together for the section on "Responses to global warming":

Reducing the amount of future climate change is called mitigation of climate change. The IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce GHG emissions, or enhance the capacity of sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere (1). Many countries, both developing and developed, are aiming to use cleaner technologies (2). Use of these technologies aids mitigation and could result in substantial reductions in CO₂ emissions. Policies include targets for emissions reductions, increased use of renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency. Studies indicate substantial potential for future reductions in emissions (3).

Other policy responses include adaptation to climate change. Adaptation to climate change may be planned, e.g., by local or national government, or spontaneous, i.e., done privately without government intervention (4). The ability to adapt (called "adaptive capacity") is closely linked to social and economic development (3). Even societies with high capacities to adapt are still vulnerable to climate change. Planned adaptation is already occurring on a limited basis. The barriers, limits, and costs of future adaptation are not fully understood.

Another policy response is engineering of the climate (geoengineering). This policy response is sometimes grouped together with mitigation (5). Geoengineering is largely unproven, and reliable cost estimates for it have not yet been published (6).

UNFCCC

Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (7). The ultimate objective of Convention is the prevent "dangerous" human interference of the climate system (8). As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHGs are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where:

ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change;
food production is not threatened;
economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.

The UNFCCC recognizes differences among countries in their responsibility to act on climate change (9). In the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, most developed countries (listed in Annex I of the treaty) took on legally binding commitments to reduce their emissions (10). Policy measures taken in response to these commitments have reduced emissions (11). For many developing (non-Annex I) countries, poverty reduction is their overriding aim (12).

At the 15^th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen, several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord. Parties agreeing with the Accord aim to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius (13).

References:

(1)
(2), p192
(3)
(4). 18.2.3. Adaptation Types and Forms
(5)
(6). Section 17.
(7)
(8)
(9). Quote: "[The Parties to this Convention acknowledge] that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions"
(10) – Liverman (2008), referred to in the article, p.14. Quote: "[...] it is notable that the US or Australia were the only industrialised countries not to ratify the protocol when it went into force without them in 2005"
(11). p.11.
(12). p.6.
(13). p.5.

In my draft I've attempted to correct for what I see as a number of problems with the current revision used in the article:

Mitigation

Examples of mitigation policies are biased towards actions in developed countries
The description of mitigation cost estimates are misleading and confusing
The description of the Kyoto Protocol's coverage of global GHG emissions is misleading

Geoengineering

This section is way too long in proportion to the sizes of the sections on mitigation and adaptation. Geoengineering is unproven and no reliable cost estimates have been published for it. In the IPCC report, geoengineering does not receive anywhere near the amount of coverage that adaptation and mitigation get. I should note that the IPCC report's content is determined by what most world governments want in it. It should therefore act as some kind of guide as to how much coverage particular topics get. Additionally, the UNFCCC clearly emphasizes mitigation, i.e., avoiding dangerous interference by stabilizing GHG concentrations.

You can also look at the policies most countries have on climate change. It is quite clear that countries are concentrating most on reducing their emissions and adapting to future climate change. The fact that some US conservative groups prefer geoengineering to mitigation does not mean that it deserves preferential treatment in this article. Enescot (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

UN science chief defends work, welcomes review

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100514/ap_on_sc/climate

This is an AP article that mentions the 15 member review panel that is currently examining the IPPC; 'The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri defended Friday the work of the thousands of scientists who contribute to its reports, even as he welcomed a review of procedures that produced errors undermining the panel's public credibility.'

"Pachauri told the committee's first review meeting that the panel's conclusions are valid, even in areas where mistakes were discovered. Pointing to the most glaring error, a claim that the world's glaciers will melt by 2035, Pachauri said glaciers are indeed melting, though not that fast. Nonetheless, glacial melt accounts for 28 percent of sea level rise, and the panel's assessment on glaciers contains "a lot of facts which we can ignore at our peril."

We should probably add a mention of the review panel in the article in regards to the IPCC. Mytwocents (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean [28]? I'm not sure. Is it very exciting? Maybe in IPCC? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I already added a mention of this in the IPCC article. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Dipole moment...

If I understand things correctly infra-red band energy from the sun is absorbed by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Part of this energy is stored in the bond angle energy (dipole moment) between the atoms of the greenhouse gases and the rest is converted to kinetic energy of the molecules moving around and bumping into each other.

Here is the problem that I have. By volume carbon dioxide has a specific heat of about 1.619 kJ per m^3 * Deg K, nitrogen is 1.299, and oxygen is 1.308. Taking 1 cu meter samples of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen and adding 1 Kilojoule of energy to each gives the following temperature changes (assuming standard temperature and pressure initial conditions):

Carbon Dioxide - .618 Kelvin temperature increase Oxygen - .765 Kelvin temperature increase Nitrogen - .770 Kelvin temperature increase

And so if the entire atmosphere were made of carbon dioxide, incoming radiant energy from the sun would result in a lower atmospheric temperature than if the entire atmosphere would be oxygen.

Now if changes in atmospheric thickness are the actual cause of global warming (more blankets no matter what they are made of) then my point is mute, but the fascination with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere seems misplaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.11.218 (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. Your premise is not in fact correct: it isn't IR from the sun that is absorbed by greenhouse gases, but rather IR emitted by the earth and by other layers of the atmosphere. Solar energy in the thermal IR region is small; most solar energy is in the UV, visible, and near-IR parts of the spectrum. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

But this still doesn't explain why the focus is on carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas and not oxygen and nitrogen, when for a given amount of energy input (no matter the source), the change in temperature is less for carbon dioxide than it is for oxygen and nitrogen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.11.218 (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The key to understanding this is that the sun emits mostly visible light, and all the gases that make up the bulk of the atmosphere are transparent to visible light. So the visible light from the sun hits the ground (ignoring clouds, which play a complex role on both sides of the equation) and warm it. The Earth emits most of its energy in the infrared part of the spectrum. Nitrogen and Oxygen are nearly transparent to infrared light, too, so they do not absorb this outgoing radiation. Thus there is very little energy input into them. CO2, on the other hand, is not IR transparent. It absorbs the outgoing infrared light. This is eventually re-emitted, partially towards the Earth, warming it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See Idealized greenhouse model and Greenhouse effect. --Nigelj (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

By coincidence, I recently added this as the last point in Greenhouse effect#Basic mechanism William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't have a firm grasp on the time periods involved between a greenhouse gas absorbing infra-red energy and then releasing that energy. Is the time-frame a day (absorption) / night (release) cycle like oceans (warm ocean breeze on a cool night) or something more complex like pressure / temperature conditions? Also, I don't know if the infrared absorption is a quantitized event. Does a given amount of carbon dioxide have a fixed limit to the amount of infra-red energy it can absorb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.11.218 (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The time period is a very tiny fraction of a second. If really you want the details look up something called the Einstein coefficient. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That is misleading. Obviously, some of the energy stored in the atmosphere during the day is released at night. While Boris is right in saying that the energy Greenhouse Gases absorb is lost in a fraction of a second, he did not explain that it is transferred to the atmosphere and not simply returned to the surface. As a result, the Greenhouse Gases do not store the energy returned to the Earth hours or months later. BTW, infrared absorption is a quantized event. Q Science (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Add Still skeptical? Reports document climate change by the US National Academy of Sciences

Add Still skeptical? Reports document climate change in the USA Today by the United States National Academy of Sciences &/or Scientists Reassert Man's Role in a Changing Climate? 99.29.184.183 (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

For this article, I would suggest to add pertinent parts of the NAS report itself (if it contains anything new), not reports on the availability of that report. It probably should go into global warming controversy, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything there which could possibly go in this article. However, it may be a good faith edit, although the IP is in a range which suggests edits emphasizing global warming, regardless of accuracy or suitability for Wikipedia, so I have doubts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the USA Today article - its sensationalism as MSM is wont. But the NAS reports may have a place, if not elsewhere, then to add additional refs to the basic conclusions about global warming, since they are newer than the IPCC's. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is User:Arthur Rubin attempting to break the link from Global warming to Environmental migrant? POV?

Why is User:Arthur Rubin attempting to break the link from Global warming to Environmental migrant? POV? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it doesn't belong. I made a mistake in removing Category:Climate change from Environmental migrant, after I proposed deleting Category:Climate refugees, as it would have left Envirnomental migrant uncategorized. It should link from climate change, if anywhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You trashed a list of works by Jeff Goodell too, which has been restored. So far not a concise clearly well-written book, but not a reason to delete. Are you on a rampage, hopefully not? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I deleted the Wikilink, not the book. If the list of books got deleted, it must have been an edit conflict. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You write like you are being reasonable, but what of your Chicago Climate Exchange deletions, also without explanation? Appears disingenuous: POV push by Bureaucracy tactics? Enough time spent in this spot, see Talk:Chicago Climate Exchange. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph I removed was unsourced and irrelevant, and the Controversy section was unsourced (by the time I removed it) and a BLP violation. If the [2] through [4] could be matched to actual references, it might be allowable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no diffs here, and the discussion is a bit terse to follow, but I do not agree that Environmental migrant should not be linked from Global warming, only from climate change. We have discussed in the past here that the two terms are mostly synonymous, with the current climate change being a global warming. The CC article therefore covers the whole history of changes, and GW focusses mostly on the current warming. Environmental migrant is largely about current migrations, with only two lines about the ones that accompanied past ice ages etc. Indeed, the lede there begins with a link to Global warming. If there is to be a link, it should be from here. Where was it? In the text? As a See Also? As a {main}? --Nigelj (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where it was. I think the anon was complaining about my removing the "Environmental migrant" from Category:Global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial" greenhouse effect

I've added tags to the section on greenhouse gases because of this section of text:

The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere are purported to warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.^[6] The existence of the greenhouse effect is a subject of controversy;^[vague] for example, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory^[7]^[8] has stated that "ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."^[9]^{[unbalanced opinion?]} The question in terms of global warming is how the strength of the presumed greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I see absolutely no reason for this scientist's views to take priority of the views of the majority of experts, as reflected in the IPCC reports, National Research Council reports, joint-scientific academy statements, etc. To include this scientist's viewpoint is therefore unbalanced and biased.

A fair treatment of so-called sceptic views is already included in the section views on global warming. Since "sceptical" views have such little scientific support, the amount of space given to them (two sentences) is appropriate. Actually, I think two sentences is rather generous. Enescot (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. I wonder how long that has been in. Yes, it should be chopped out as FRINGE. I will. We ought to have something in there to say "the direct RF is X w/m2; with feedbacks Y; the exact number Y is subject to debate". Perhaps pull something in from the RF article. William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been put in by some small communist agitator riding around on a large agricultural machine. I've wondered about it, but assume it's part of an experiment, maybe to see if any of the new "I agree with the science! Really! And I once was an evolutionist, too!" editors will fix it. Please delete this message after reading. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Astutely observed. The agitator appears to be writing for the enemy. Which one? . . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Commie scum. I didn't bother check his edits William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Commie scum" is not nice :( Torontokid2006 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject will be sufficiently understanding. Trust me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry: we're a bit inbred here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In my homeland we don't call it inbreeding. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misspelled Rodina. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oookay. Yes, it was a sincere attempt at "writing for the enemy". Specifically, I was trying to put myself in the place of someone who doesn't understand the topic and thinks the popular press should be used in preference to the scientific literature. Note my sources satisfied WP:V: major newspapers and magazines, non-self published books, and so on. Maybe it didn't work out that well, so roll back whatever you want. But there's a good chance this is what the future will look like. (And yes, I was a little surprised that the material remained so long without comment.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Too far?

This is all very well [29] but probably goes too far William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Torontokid2006 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite has made a useful improvement on that specific point, but our comrade's writing for anemone has left some unfortunate artefacts. Could someone more informed than myself review and undo unwanted changes? . . dave souza, talk 19:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I notice the Daily Mail citation has been removed in the diff provided just above. Radical commie pinko inbreeder Comrade Boris writes in a nearby talk section that major newspapers (which the Daily Mail is) qualify as reliable sources. But actually the WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS analysis doesn't stop there. For convenience, I'll repeat [essentially] verbatim a comment I submitted some months ago.

I would have thought it a given that the Daily Mail tabloid is an inherently unreliable source [for an article such as this, which deals with current science]. The policy WP:SOURCES plainly states in the first sentence: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Any number of background sources would confirm that the Daily Mail does not fit this definition of a WP:RS. See, e.g. The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids, by University of Oxford's Maxwell T. Boykoff, or this brief summary reporting of the Oxford study, or another brief review of Daily Mail "predictions" over the course of some 18 months, etc. And of course, the Mail is world famous as a tabloid that plays fast and loose with the truth, not for fact-checking and accuracy.

In a word, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for the views of the scientific community w.r.t. scientific issues. So, yes, I support the removal of popular literature and newspaper accounts that manufacture controversy where there is no genuine scientific controversy, at least not about the basics of this topic. The question whether GHGs account for all of observed warming in the 20th and early 21st century is about as more controversial among the relevant scientific community as the question "where do babies come from?" is among the general public. And the statement presently in the article summarizing the view of the scientific community as being that present-day global warming is caused by increases in GHG's due to anthropogenic activity is a reasonable statement to straightforwardly make in the article lead. ..... Kenosis (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The ideas should be reported. But I agree, the sources were rubbish William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Add Tokyo University's Yoichi Kaya formula F=Pgef ?

F = global CO2 emissions (Includes combustion,flaring of natural gas, cement production, oxidation of nonfuel hydrocarbons, and transport.)

P = global Population (Total number of human beings, about 6 billion)

g = Consumption per person (Gross World Product/Population)

e = energy intensity of gross world product (global energy consumption/gross world product)

f = carbon used to make all that energy (global CO2 emissions/global energy consumption)

[30] Wired (magazine) printed page 38, June 2010, by Julie Rehmeyer 99.54.142.111 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not clear how this adds to the article - unlike Y = C + I + G + NX this dosen't seem to say something interesting - in addition, the variables are less interesting than the "right" variables, which would be population, unit consumption per person, kwh energy use per unit consumption, and lb carbon emission per kwh energy use. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Good points, not clear enough. 99.88.231.63 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Unbiased please

I would like to suggest editing the current wikipedia page on global warming concerning the obvious bias towards the theory that global warming is caused by man. Wikipedia is a source for truthfull information not a venue for propagating a political agenda. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.108.51 (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

See scientific opinion on global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Politics of global warming (United States) &/or Politics of global warming of interest? Then maybe Climate change denial and logically to Climate change mitigation... 99.60.124.196 (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

An equation is documented at ^[10] that calculates average global temperatures since 1895 with a coefficient of determination of over 0.86. Anyone that can use a spreadsheet can verify it. Dan Pangburn (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, and, in fact, quite bad nonsense. If you think otherwise, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@69.5.108.51 what part specifically did you find biased? You're not saying the entire article is biased are you? Torontokid2006 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the summary, the article states: "There is no debate amongst the scientific community as to whether or not human-made global warming is real.[6]" The reference is to a 6 year old article, basing the statement on IPCC reports - an organisation that is under criticism itself for driving political agendas. It is furthermore not a statement that is true today as a report from 2009 from Japans JSER or Japan Society of Energy and Resources is openly criticising that we call the conjecture about man made global warming truth. The Register took time and translated a portion of the report: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/ 85.228.18.105 (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want more recent endorsements of the consensus, see scientific opinion on climate change or the recent US NAS report. As for JSER, see Talk:Global_warming/Archive_49#Recent_climate_change_is_driven_by_natural_cycles.2C_not_human_industrial_activity and Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_7#Japan_Society_of_Energy_and_Resources_.28JSER.29. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links about JSER. It did clarify a couple of things. I would suggest linking to the scientific opinion on climate change wiki page as a source rather than that weird article, it is much more clarifying on the subject. The sentence should also be rephrased to something like "There are currently no scientific bodies opposing the notion of man made global warming." Instead of that there is no debate about it - there is always debate about topics of science. 85.228.18.105 (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree about changing the wording. There are without a doubt intelligent persons with relevant scientific degrees who do not completely agree with the current opinions of Global Warming popular within the scientific community. And don't forget, science isn't a democracy (and neither is Wikipedia for that matter). Kerrow (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You cannot reason someone out of an opinion that they did not reason themselves into in the first place. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The wording should remain. According to the Wiki principles the article is fine. I don't recall a wiki principle stating that 6 year articles were void. If you can find another "meta-analysis" (an analysis of hundreds of random peer-reviewed scientific studies) that does NOT show such a conclusive consensus amongst the scientific community then please share it. Just saying, "There are without a doubt intelligent persons with relevant scientific degrees who do not completely agree with the current opinions of Global Warming popular within the scientific community" does not disregard the fact that there is a global SCIENTIFIC consensus. Neither does it disregard the fact that some scientists are paid by massive energy conglomerates to deny studies and to spread misinformation. The crux of wikipedia is the use of reliable sources. Are we going to start quoting fox news in this article? I sincerely hope not. Torontokid2006 (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

@ 69.5.108.51 - To my nameless friend. You said, "The reference is to a 6 year old article, basing the statement on IPCC reports - an organisation that is under criticism itself for driving political agendas." In a very short statement you made two large errors. First, you were wrong that this article was based on IPCC reports and second you have made an assumption that the IPCC is under criticism (not that it matters since the IPCC is not relevant to Oreskes' article) and that it is driving a political agenda. Please prove those statements with reliable sources lest you propogate misinformation which in fact is not what this talk section is for. Now I will continue responding to your non-factual remarks. First, it would greatly help your argument if you had correctly read the "meta-analysis" by Oreskes. I will post her exact statements here so you can read it again. Her article states, "The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change". The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." Please be more careful when posting on the talk section. Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Bad Job" header

Wikipedia has a "Good Job" header that features prominently on certain talk pages when some outside party compliments an article. What justification is there for removing a similar "bad job" header? One would think it would cause long-time editors on this page to reassess the page. Eugene (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, on a technical level, there is template: Good Job but not template: Bad job, and your edit simply broke the existing talk headers. Secondly, there are a number of individual problem templates. Or you can simply state your problems on the talk page. And thirdly, your complaints were nonsense. This article covers the breadth of the scientific opinion - it even gives a bit too much weight to the fringes. Constructive criticism supported by an informed opinion and reliable sources is welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a Template:Bad Job. Also, the header in no way "simply broke the existing talk headers".[31] And more importantly, I wasn't offering any complaints; I was merely posting a template that indicated how the article is percieved by an outside source. That's the whole point of the Good Job / Bad Job templates. Since all your rationales for the removal of the header were mistaken, I'm reinserting it. Eugene (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see no point in giving LS's opinion such prominence William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha...missed the capitalisation. Let me point out, for the unaware, that you (E.) just created that template less than an hour ago. And Solomon's opinion is well known here, but also known to be without any value. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) That's the whole point of the Good Job / Bad Job templates - you're being rather deceptive. The BJ template was created by you, today, at 2010-05-28T20:58:37. It should probaby be deleted as unwelcome William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the Bad Job template is awesome and should stay. It's the mirror image of the good job template and it can, presumably, serve as a corrective to in-Wiki group think. But since I'm clearly out-numbered I'll just add the article to the media mentions--unless even that is to be censored. Eugene (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, Inflation (cosmology) [32] and related AN3 etc discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Would Carbonated water/Soft drinks .. add to global warming ..?

Would Carbonated water/Soft drinks and other releases of carbon dioxide from Carbonation add to global warming, and if so, enough to be included in an article? 99.60.127.42 (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. But, if there's a peer reviewed scientific paper on that question, it may be worthwhile. Additionally, “Carbonated water/soft drinks” would have been a more appropriate heading for this thread. Unless you’re not into the whole brevity thing.--CurtisSwain (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Carbonated water, also known as sparkling water, fizzy water, seltzer, or water with gas, collectively called aerated beverages, and soft drinks, also referred to as soda, pop, soda pop, or fizzy drinks, are unlikely to be significant sources of additional carbon in the atmosphere. So, have a coke and a smile. Jonathunder (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

CO2 for carbonation sometimes is made from processes that produce a net input of CO2. Fermentation, on the other hand, produces CO2 from starches and sugars containing carbon that was reduced from atmospheric CO2 by plant life. As such there is no net input of CO2. So, beer is better for the environment than soft drinks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

EDIT WAR Needs To End

Me and WavePart are currently in an edit war and this thread will hopefully end this once and for all. WavePart, we need to compromise. I have found some really crucial sources that relate to the controversy of global warming and I think they are critical in the lead. Please help me to include this in the article. What is your issue with my sources??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is probably best to set up an RfC. Forming a compromise between science and pseudoscience would result in a misleading article, implying a parity of validity. TFD (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

what is an RfC? can you link it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RfC - it will attract other editors who can join the conversation. I will set one up but in several hours. TFD (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks! Torontokid2006 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in edit warring, nor issue with your sources. If you will note, my most recent edit actually includes all of your sources. I simply have issues with including statements which technically contradict those sources, or with statements which state more than is supported by those sources. WavePart (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please quote, and post here, the "contradictions" which you speak of. You have drastically reworded the 3rd paragraph therefore the burden of proof is on you to legitimize those edits. Quote the statements in the original edit that contradict with source information. If no contradiction exists we will revert back. And for the record, you are edit warring as you are making serious edits without reaching ANY consensus. Torontokid2006 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I already described it an hour ago in the immediately following section. See the comment that begins "The third paragraph in the summary". WavePart (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You must be mistaken. You have not QUOTED anything in the following section. You have merely said "the summary now states 'There is no scientific debate' and then in the very next sentence links to an article discussing a peer reviewed publication which is part of a debate between scientists." You have made a claim without proving it. Please prove it now before destroying hours or research and work. Please show actual evidence in the form of quotes from the source and I will respect it whole-heartedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I always thought quote marks around an exact copy of text constituted a "quote". The contradiction is between what I quoted, "There is no scientific debate" and, as I said, the second reference in that paragraph which states "wide debate in the scientific world" and "Climate Research, the small journal that initially published the study". I thought it would be fairly obvious upon actually reading that source. WavePart (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Torontokid, you may want to read the 3RR page. I'm pretty sure you had at least 5 full or partial reverts there in the past 24 hours, which is somewhat in excess of the accepted level. (For example, your most recent edit is mostly a revert, not a change.) The goal of editing should be to try to identify a common ground. I have been been attempting to do this, but simply reverting back to your own versions many times a day does not accomplish this (and is highly frowned upon). WavePart (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it. Please tell me the name of the article/source. I have been looking for it and I can't find it.

And thank you for the 3R rule. Did not know that. Torontokid2006 (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, second reference, third paragraph. WavePart (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you lying or did you not read the article? In no way, shape, or form does this article [33] lead to any evidence that there is a debate regarding the legitimacy of human-made global warming. The only debate in this article concerned the legitimacy of this flawed study! Please please please please please read it again. I have quoted it for you.

“I have not stood behind the paper by Soon and Baliunas,” Kinne said, according to the Times. “Indeed: the reviewers failed to detect methodological flaws.”

But despite wide debate in the scientific world over the study’s legitimacy, the research has become a hot document in Washington.

According to internal EPA documents leaked to the national media, the Bush administration tried to include references to the study in the agency’s report on the state of the environment."

Earlier the article states, "Four editors have resigned from Climate Research, the small journal that initially published the study. According to The New York Times, even the publisher of the journal, Otto Kinne, has criticized the study."

WavePart I am deeply concerned about your claims and your edits. Please be more responsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid accusations of lying, insults of other editors, and accusations of bad faith, as these are also in violation of wikipedia policy. I will try to pretend you didn't do that, as you have said you are new. WavePart (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Using basic parsing of English, I take the text "wide debate in the scientific world over the study's legitimacy" to be in direct contrast to "no scientific debate". One would be hard-pressed to choose more conflicting phrases than these, given that the contents of the Conclusion section of the Willie Soon paper mentioned in that source relate directly to the question at hand. (Please note that if scientific debate exists over a peer reviewed study's legitimacy, then by the literal definition of "debate" that means there are scientists supporting each side, even if one side has an overwhelming support. This by definition rules out absolute statements like "no debate".) I have already agreed there is not a LOT of debate, and if you note I even in a recent edit used the phrase "no substantive scientific debate" taken from Oreskes. But you can't possibly say "no scientific debate" and immediately follow it with a reference describing a scientific debate... That just makes no sense. WavePart (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

hahaha you can't be serious..... Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"faulty" research

Hi Thparkth instead of constantly editing the page why don't we decide here first. Personally I think your latest edit "research described as 'methodologically flawed'" makes the sourced article seem like an opinion editorial when it's in fact a published news article. Let's give this source it's true weight. Torontokid2006 (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC) As a tentative compromise can we both agree on the wording, "unreliable research"? Those were the exact words used in the article.Torontokid2006 (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine, or alternatively we could quote Michael Mann and call it "deeply flawed". I just think "faulty" is slightly stronger a word than that. Yes, I'm aware that I'm distinguishing between shades of black here ;) Thparkth (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you quoting Michael Mann the most epic director in history? lol I think deeply flawed is good too. You're right. Faulty was never used in the sourced article. Let's go with "deeply flawed" then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the summary now states "There is no scientific debate" and then in the very next sentence links to an article discussing a peer reviewed publication which is part of a debate between scientists. That is an unacceptable (and somewhat silly) self-contradiction. That's the problem with stating absolutes like that. There are obvious contradictions, and this makes the statements factually wrong. WavePart (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me also add that the Oreskes essay is specifically an analysis of the peer-reviewed literature (according to a keyword search), and should be presented as such for clarity, accuracy, and keeping people informed. WavePart (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are commenting in the wrong section. Please comment in "EDIT WAR Needs To End" which I have created just for you and I. WavePart there is no debate and there is no contradiction. Please refrain from filling this discussion with nonsense.Torontokid2006 (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I intentionally responded to the section discussing what I was editing. How about actually reading and responding to the serious points I made there before doing a blanket revert. My edits were done in both the direction of compromise AND adherence to the sources. Your reverting of them does not move in the direction of a consensus article. WavePart (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please comment in the section above. Thank you. Torontokid2006 (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This section is clearly titled, "'faulty' research", NOT "no debate". A consensus has been reached and dealt with in regards to the wording of "faulty" research. Again please comment in the section above which has been created just for us. Torontokid2006 (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(Two people agreeing on the talk page does not constitute an unchangeable consensus about article contents, as there are far more people than that who contribute here.) One cannot call something "faulty" (a value judgment beyond what the cited source makes) while supporting that statement with a source which describes only a conflict (the title of the source is "Warming Study Draws Fire" not "Warming Study is Faulty"), and which quotes one party as defending the research, and other parties as calling it faulty. You CAN, however, correctly point out the heavy amount of criticism it received, which is what I did. WavePart (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You have edited the article without reading the source. Why would you do that?

The source said:

Professor Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, who testified before the Senate Committee, denounced the study in an interview yesterday.

“Serious scientists will tell you over and over again that this was a deeply flawed study that should never have been published,” Mann said. “Scientifically this study was considered not even worthy of a response. But because it was used politically, to justify policy changes in the administration, people in my field felt they had to speak out.”

You are making edits without consensus. You are editing without reading sources. Please stop this. Torontokid2006 (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I did read the article, and never said that I didn't. It would be fine if the text of the article said, "Mann called the research deeply flawed", as the original source did. This is quite different from "deeply flawed research". The two statements are not equivalent or interchangeable. Proper journalists (like in the reference in question) describe who is saying statements that they quote, and so should encyclopedia editors. WavePart (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

2. No. While we should discuss and reach agreement, people do not need to stop making all edits until you agree with them, and you should not expect them to or demand that they do. That's not really how wikipedia works. See Wikipedia:Be bold. WavePart (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Honest question. Where in wiki policy does it say that I must quantify every statement so that readers know exactly who said what fact? If that is true then I am sorry but I don't believe that is the policy. It would be very cumbersome and deadly boring to read. I think it's find to say the research was "deeply flawed" followed by a citation. You're right that the wiki principle is to be bold but please be polite. I have spent many many hours researching the topic and editing the page. It would be nice to at least get a heads-up if you were thinking about erasing all of that. Not that I am attached to my work but it does hurt when someone comes along and gives absolutely no credit to your honest efforts and simply presses the delete button. You and I definitely need to discuss more and edit less. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to it being common practice in citing, it is described explicitly on the NPOV page. See the text, "An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides." You are in contradiction to this because you are presenting sources which describe a conflict, and then presenting one side of the contents of the source without attribution. Even if it IS a fact, that's not the NPOV way to present it. As the NPOV page says, you simply have to explain "who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common". There seems to be no debate here among us about who believes what, why, and which points of view are most common, so if you would agree to edit in that manner according to policy we would probably be done pretty quickly. WavePart (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, specifically the WP:WEIGHT section, "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all..... Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Scientists opposed to the mainstream view are such a tiny minority as to fall under the WP:FRINGE guideline, and in many cases those opposing specific majority views still acknowledge that human activies add to global warming, and are significant. . . dave souza, talk 08:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I do acknowledge you have spent time researching this topic and editing the page. It turns out I have also. These are frequent points of discussion which are talked about here in numbers 8 and 9 of a list of approaches we should avoid taking to articles. (A certain type of approach is needed to prosper in a collaborative editing environment.) WavePart (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was pleased to see the polemic taken out after my original comment. I'm less pleased to see it put back in. At the risk of repeating what others have said, it is not "According to a number of news reports" that oil companies have published "deeply flawed" studies. It is according to Michael Mann, who has been quoted, which is a different matter entirely. Before last week there was absolutely no mention anywhere at all of the adverse influence of oil companies in this article, which presumably means it wasn't considered very important to an article which is essentially about science. Now it's suddenly in the intro, given priority above things like the evidence for global warming, but with no attempt to expand it in the rest of the article. The extent to which oil companies have influenced public opinion is extremely controversial. I would assume media commentators who have no relationship with such businesses have far more effect on this. Why is this being dealt with so superficially? Why is no attempt made to assert the importance of this to the subject of global warming as a whole? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC: how should opposition to theory of GW be described?

There is a discussion at Global warming about how to describe opposition to the theory. Outside advice would be appreciated. TFD (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's to be included in the intro: the nature of the oposition (public opinion, media, possibly a limited number of non-peer reviewed scietists) and its extent can be rather dispassionately and concisely described. It should be balanced by a note about the extent of scientific agreement ("the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists... is incorrect" is not the same as "no scientific debate"). The current wording is too absolute for my liking. I would avoid sinister theories about oil companies bribing people. Certainly, they pay lobbyists. I doubt they drive public scepticism and their role may be marginal. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading this talk page it has become evident certain editors misunderstand/misrepresent the scientific method. The demand for "absolute" proof for X is a silly one. There are no absolutes. However, when the overwhelming majority of scientist (no not vox populi or other non-experts) declare something as scientific fact this essentially means there is "no debate." To include the emotio-political-driven hysterics as sciemntific "debate" is disingenious at best. Also, even if we find one scintist opposing a certain theory this does not a "debate" make. In science we only speak of "debate" when something is discussed through the appropriate scientific channels. A friday evening exchange of opininion during happy hour does not count.

Other denialist-movements are not given that much space: AIDS denialism, vaccine controversy, Flat earth, Intelligent Design.

In short, mention the absence of scientific debate.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the main article on the science, not an article about the debate, so all that is necessary is to indicate in one sentence that the phenomenon is no longer a subject of scientific debate (although of course many details are still being debated). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is no longer a subject of scientific debate then why are the royal society preparing a statement saying the debate is far from over? mark nutley (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact they are not. Read their announcement first hand. TFD (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are, please read Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism and The Royal Society is to issue an official guide on climate change to better reflect the uncertainties around the science. mark nutley (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. There is no scientific uncertainty that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the globe and is caused by man. The Royal Society is not about to dispute that. There are other uncertainties - about timelines, how much the ocean will rise, and what not. The Royal Soceity will likley comment on that. Your ability to divine what the Royal Society may do in the future is not reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Even for articles on a non-science subject WP:RS doesn't exclude non-peer-reviewed sources, indeed there are several within the footnotes of this article. The term "scientific debate" doesn't necessarilly mean only inconsistency in the peer-reviewed literature. For example, a published letter to the editor of a scientific journal would surely count as scientific debate but would not be part of the Oreskes study. What the abstract says, and what the article should therefore say is: "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC". That's a substantial part of the scientific debate but not all of it and there simply isn't a reliable source to support the idea that there's "no debate". --188.221.105.68 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would question the use of the phrase "recent analysis" to describe a report that must have been completed at the beginning of 2004. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way we get the graphs redone? Reconstructed Temperature uses Mike Mann's famous "Nature trick" of hiding inconvenient data behind a big, thick black line. Here is graph of the same data presented in a less partisan way. Kauffner (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The chart you call "less partisan" is the hockey stick graph and is taken from the article "Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong". The "Reconstructed Temperature" graph is a composite of data from 10 sources, including Mann's hockey-stick, which was invented in 1998, and is graphed in blue. The black line is based on later research. TFD (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant the second New Scientist graph, which a multi-line graph and uses data similar to the "Reconstructed Temperature" graph. The black line on "Reconstructed Temperature" is instrumental data. Instrumental data is from weather stations and reconstructed data is from ice cores, tree rings, and ocean sediments. So it is misleading to put instrumental data on a graph labeled "reconstructed data." By making the instrumental data line thicker and darker than any of the others, the graph lends itself to the type of misreading above, i.e. the idea the instrumental data represents "later research" or an update of the reconstructed data. Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since WavePart has now been blocked,[34] as the nominator I am closing this RfC. If anyone disagrees, they may relist the RfC. TFD (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Too opinionated

While I believe in global warming, I think the revisions to the intro in last day go too far. The current version just seems a little angry. The purpose of oil companies' PR campaigning, however wrong it may be, is obviously not to "confuse the public". That is ridiculous. They're trying to change public opinion. Besides, the reasons for public scepticism are actually far more complicated than this intro allows. To attribute this to a single cause, and in such colourful language, creates a problem of undue weight. I'd also question the use of the phrase "multinational oil and coal corporations". It's one of those clichés that have become popular in recent years, more resonant of campaign literature than an encyclopedia, and while it may be true in the case of oil companies, the largest coal companies are headquartered and trade in a single country with only limited overseas operations. Again, I'm not denying anything, I'm just suggesting that some small changes be made to the wording to make this sound a little calmer and more disinterested. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Egads, yes, that stuff doesn't belong in the lead section, and maybe not at all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My goodness, yes. The last few days of edits there undid years worth of NPOV work on this article. Torontokid, if you make your way back to this page, please see NPOV. Wikipedia is about documenting things, not about convincing people about what you think is true even if you are right. The goal is simply to provide neutral information. I'm doing a partial revert to the 24th, preserving PleaseStand's edits. Please do not undo this revert, and instead provide neutral edits for future contributions to this obviously controversial article. (This may require active self-restraint.) Thanks. WavePart (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your partial revert restored weaseling and extremist unreliable sourced material inserted by a communist agitator. I've restored the well sourced material showing the overwhelming majority view and left new sources in place, but removed the more polemical part. There is a good historical case that much of the contrarianism is a result of industry action and funding, but in my understanding it's not the whole picture and inappropriate for the lead. Carry on, dave souza, talk 21:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one cannot possibly source statements like "The global scientific community agrees..." for anything. There's no body which speaks for "the global scientific community". The text should state exactly what can be sourced to achieve neutrality. I've restored the sentence which properly cites the statement to the IPCC, while leaving out the other sources that you removed. Better to have less total text which is neutral, than more which is problematic. I've also removed the statement "There is no scientific debate", because such statements do not relate to the process of science. If one scientist somewhere expresses a disagreement, then one cannot accurately say "there is no scientific debate". Instead I've changed it to say that public and political debate, plus scientific research continue, since both are obviously true and should be non-controversial statements. I've also restored the summary that was removed of possible responses to global warming, since this makes more sense in the summary at the top than launching into an opinionated discussion about things the oil industry is funding. WavePart (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect, we may state that a consensus exists provided we provide a reliable source that it exists.[35] The fact that a number of scientists oppose the theory is irrelevant because they have not submitted their scepticism to peer-review and therefore their opinions hold no more weight than that of laymen. Also, we should avoid promoting fringe views in articles by pretending that they have any real acceptance. TFD (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This article suffers from far too much knee-jerk reactionism, which I think harms the editorial process. Perhaps you could read what you reverted? I encourage you to point out any specific "fringe view" in what I edited the introduction to state. I think it would be very difficult. WavePart (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And I still contend the statement "the global scientific community" is nonsensical here. Speak specifically about who has said what. For example, see this article which actually discusses the matter in depth. In the most recent of those surveys there are a very small (but non-zero) number of climatologists who disagree, and so you couldn't even say the whole community of climatologists "agree", just an overwhelming majority. But the statement doesn't even restrict itself to climatologists, but attempts to encompass the entirety of scientists. That very same survey shows only 64% of meteorologists "agree". (Yes I know, they're not specifically climate experts, but that's not what the statement says that you edited back in.) And again, even that's a significant majority, but that doesn't translate into a phrase speaking about the entirety of the scientific community. Speaking about the content of the peer reviewed literature would be fine too, just cite an analysis of it and state what they conclude, but this is not the same as speaking about an entire community of people. Replace it with something which cites a real fact, stating who has said what! WavePart (talk)

Part of what I removed was "Political and public debate, and scientific research continues regarding its causes...." The phrasing you reversed was "There is no debate amongst the scientific community as to whether or not human-made global warming is real. However, political and public debate continues, regarding the legitimacy of global warming." There is no doubt about the causes of global warming, and any theories challenging the scientific view are fringe. While it is quite correct to have articles that document fringe theories, they should not be used to create doubt where none exists. TFD (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks for reading and providing the feedback. I do not mean to breach NPOV guidelines- in truth, I am a noob to wiki. I'm a bit busy these days but when I have the time I will read the NPOV article once more and respond to your comments. At this moment I would like you to know that I do not think you were correct in reverting back to the 24th. I think you could have reworded my comments or at least discussed the changes so we could have at least discussed this! Isn't that what the discussion section is for???? Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WavePartI have taken your suggestions into consideration and spent time to form a compromise that I think we'll both like. Please let me know what you think so we can DISCUSS this matter. Please do not remove any more of my reliably sourced contributions without the community (and me) being notified of the factual statements you plan on deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've completely removed the text "one major reason being that some oil companies have funded public relations campaigns and faulty research[7] to discredit the global scientific consensus.[8][9]Almost identical public relations and faulty research[10] strategies were used leading up to the tobacco/cancer lawsuits in the United States and around the world.[11]" First, a discussion of tobacco doesn't really belong in the intro to global warming. (It serves a purpose of persuasion, which is undesirable here, rather than providing encyclopedic information.) Second, the sources do not support the strong claims made there. For example, the citation after the first "faulty" does not call the research faulty, it says the research "draws fire". The citation numbered 8 there also doesn't state that the studies are faulty, it says that a Greenpeace report states that groups are spreading inaccurate information. You cannot take an citation which makes a factual statement saying there is a conflict, and use it to write a statement drawing a conclusion supporting one side of the conflict described in the citation. That is an incorrect use of the citation process, and is necessarily injecting an original POV to the statements from the cited sources. WavePart (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We should keep the smear about the industry-funded studies. Balance it for NPOV by sourcing the total spending by the most visible alarmist groups such as the WMF and Greenpeace on global warming activism in a year. That would be an eye opener for some ill wager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.120.11 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Article protected

Protected for 24 hours due to the current outbreak of revert warring. {{editprotected}} can be used to request consensus edits until the protection expires. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 08:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Accidental Duplicate!

Hey everyone, if you haven't noticed already, the lead has a duplicate 2nd paragraph (obviously a mistake). Can we have consensus to remove the second 2nd paragraph? Torontokid2006 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

the lead has a duplicate 2nd paragraph would an admin please remove it mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but could you delete the other duplicate instead? The one you've deleted was the older version. Torontokid2006 (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think it's allowed. See m:The Wrong Version. Best to work something out here rather than reverting. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ocean warming

The Argo project has published the following snippet about ocean warming on their web: [36] and has a nice graph showing how the heat content of the world oceans have changed the last 50 years or so. I seems like it would complement the surface temperature graphs nicely, maybe it could find its way into the article somehow? Apis (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The full article is apparently Levitus, S. and Antonov, JI and Boyer, TP and Locarnini, RA and Garcia, HE and Mishonov, AV, Global ocean heat content 1955--2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems, GRL 36, 2009. It's been sitting for a year, been cited frequently, and at a glance I see no red flags. So yes, it looks fine. Are the plots produced by NOAA and hence PD? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer that, but I found this pdf [37] with the article as it was published and 17 additional pages with more graphs (in color and higher resolution.) The one in question is on page 20 in color, and in b/w in the article at page 2. If/how that affect its PD-status i don't know. Apis (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I created my own plot based on the one in the article, in case that one can't be used. (I hope that is ok). Any suggestions? (Or if anyone wants to make a different version, I can post the data somewhere.) Apis (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How does this relate to Lyman et al. [38], [39]? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the article, but based on the abstract there are different opinions on how to best correct for bias in some of the data. Taking all that into account there is still a statistical significant recent warming trend according to lyman et al. but they discuss 0-300m depth and their reported warming trend is also a bit higher (as expected). I'm not an expert just thought a second dataset, in some ways independent from the atmospheric dataset, to be desirable. Instinctively it seems like the ocean would be a good indicator of warming due to the relative vastness of the oceans and the high heat capacity of water.Apis (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Those oil companies

I've no objection to the closing of the RfC and I think "overwhelming consensus" is a very good summary. As yet there's been little discussion of the sentence about the role of oil companies that was recently added. If the intro is going to contain discussion about the reasons for public scepticism, and I'm not sure it's necessary, it needs to be a balanced one. Other possible reasons include media scepticism, a general public antipathy towards scare stories, recent events at the University of East Anglia, some very noisy dissent from a number of scientists outside the peer review process and a lack of public understanding. Clearly there isn't room for all that but I don't understand by what criteria these oil companies are singled out. The impression given is that the article was written by somebody who doesn't like oil companies. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mr./Ms. 188. This is not all down to the oil companies, and to say so represents a complicated dialectic in an over-simplified way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be in the lede, the lede should summarize the article, and the sentence on oil-companies is undue focus on only a very small part of the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To single out the oil companies for blame suggests that without them John Q. Consumer would be only too happy to give up his car, cut himself off from the electric grid, and climb up to his roof to clean his solar panels on a daily basis. To be perfectly honest, I consider even the worst-case global warming scenario preferable to living a world run by people with the totalitarian "no debate" mindset several editors express above. What kind of person could rise to the top in such a world? Not anyone with the imagination to deal with the challenge of the unexpected. Kauffner (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The main opposition to global warming science comes from oil companies, who have funded public relations campaigns, funded studies and lobbied politicians. While other fringe views have become popular without this type of support, they rarely have the same poltical influence. Of course scepticism is probably strongest among people who consume a lot of energy. TFD (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This tired old propaganda doesn't contribute to the discussion. Where have you been the past 10 years? Dikstr (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain your position and avoid personal attacks. TFD (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The main opposition who is funding hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to sway public and political opinion is in fact the oil industry. Please post a source that confirms your belief that the oil industry is only a small factor in the reason for so much public debate these days. It would help your argument greatly if you could show some evidence for strong grassroots organizations that have formed in opposition to the global scientific consensus. Additionally, you say that media skepitcism plays a role. But who has fueled that skepticism? Oh right, it's the oil industry again with its millions of dollars spent on making deeply flawed studies and documentaries. Look people, there's no mystery here. The oil industry will lose it's shirt if everyone starts cutting back on emissions. They are doing what any industry would do. Trying to save its bacon. Look again at the sources, they speak for themselves.Torontokid2006 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To say that a fringe view is popular is a contradiction in terms. Pew asked Americans to prioritize 20 political topics and global warming was dead last.[40] If you actually believed the claims put forward by IPCC so forth, wouldn't this be a higher priority than say, lobbyists? Seventy percent of Americans goes way beyond "people who consume a lot of energy." Kauffner (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A fringe scientific view can be a popular belief with the public (ie. vaccine conspiracy, creationism, sex with virgins cure aids).

In regards to your pew survey, there are infinite ways we could interpret the results, so be careful when looking at surveys and thinking that your analysis is the most appropriate one. Unfortunately, a survey does not explain why fewer people (38% is still a lot!) think Global Warming is a "top priority". Well one of the reasons is obvious. The US economy is crippled. Why did that happen again? Oh yeah, the sub-prime mortgage bubble popped [[41]] and took many the major US banks with it(along with the Auto sector and the whole world!!!). Shockingly (note sarcasm) it was corporate de-regulation that was the root of the problem. So of course the public is more worried about jobs and the economy. How can average people put Global Warming at the top of the list when they might not have a house to live in or a dinner to eat next week? Surveys are valuable sources for information but they lack explanation and causal statements. For all we know the public may view Global Warming as such a low priority simply because the public relations campaigns (funded by big oil) worked! Who knows? We can't tell from such undescriptive surveys.Torontokid2006 (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". The popularity among laymen has nothing to do with it. By the way, the US leads the world in warming scepticism. A 2007 poll for example found that only 2% of Canadians did not believe global warming was happening, although 12% doubted the science.[42] BTW I do not "actually believe the claims put forward by IPCC". Science is not about belief. And yes more than 70% of Americans do consume a lot of energy. Energy consumption is almost twice as high as Western Europe and 10 times higher than most third world countries.[43] TFD (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly a blockbuster admission. You don't actually believe in global warming yourself. In other words, its a myth of metals for the yahoos. A means to end. Perhaps a way to create a totalitarian state under which there will be no debate. Kauffner (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Science is not about belief, it is about forming theories that accurately predict future events. The proper sphere for belief is religion and values. Unfortunately people confuse these vastly different subjects. TFD (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So scientists don't believe or disbelieve anything, they just stoically forge ahead and record the data? It strikes me as a quasi-religious view of science where the practitioners develop their emotional detachment in the manner of Zen monks. How do you fit into any of this? I've read your posts, you know. I know you are not some kind of detached uber-science guru. Kauffner (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But it's Kauffner's belief that we all work towards a totalitarian world dictatorship! ;-) On a more serious note, common usage, if arguably incorrect, would support the claim that "I believe in AGW", even if formally "I recognize AGW as a well-supported and in its core very robust scientific theory that currently has no credible alternative and is unlikely to be overturned". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still stress testing the design, but I am confident I have a barricade that can stop the green juggernaut before it can deploy its giant solar panels to crush the last nuclear power plant. Kauffner (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Lucifer's Hammer is not a prophetic work! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear power does not cause global warming and US conservatives mention this when they demand massive government support and exemption from lawsuits for the industry. TFD (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To Toronto and TFD, regarding assertions like "The main opposition who is funding hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to sway public and political opinion is in fact the oil industry." I never said I believed the oil industry is only a small factor. I said there are other possible reasons. With respect, it is not necessary for me to prove that oil industry lobbying is a less important factor. It is for you to provide strong evidence that this is the one overwhelming reason for scepticism. So far I see evidence that the oil industry is carrying out expensive lobbying but not that it is "the main opposition". Frankly, the singling out of oil money seems arbitrary. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion changes as new evidence is received. In the 1970s climate scientists saw evidence of both global warming and cooling, but later observation showed that warming would have a greater effect and they have continually modified their predictions. Someone who "believed in" global warming would derive their belief from ideology or religious texts and then selectively use evidence to validate their belief. That of course is what climate change deniers are doing and what they accuse scientists of doing. Re: Oil. Whether or not there are other reasons for climate change denial, e.g., Americans love SUVs, the challenges to global warming science are coming from reports funded by the oil industry. TFD (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

it's odd that Kauffner seems to equate the lack of scientific debate on this issue with totalitarianism. There are plenty of other areas of science no longer in question. PrBeacon (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the challenges to global warming science come from blogs, the media and dissenting scientists. Certainly, oil companies account for a proportion of the funding in some of those categories but it is only a proportion. You may believe that the likes of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are being funded by "big oil". I don't and I've never seen any suggestion that this is the case. To say that the oil companies are driving all this is simplistic and obsessive. The problem with mentioning this in the intro is the peculiar priorities it shows: the first mention of coal, oil and fossil fuels comes three screens down. The possibility of reducing emissions is dealt with in fewer than 50 words. As for green taxes, carbon trading, offsetting, there's nothing. How can a superficial polemic about the oil industry possibly be justified in an intro that omits far more relevant information? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The challenges to global warming science are coming from reports funded by the oil industry is too sweeping. The oil industry has played a role, but the issue is far more complex. Much of the opposition comes from libertarian groups, with the logic being roughly "we're opposed to government interference in the economy; solutions to global warming will almost certainly require government interference in the economy; so we have to convince people that global warming is not a problem." They are mostly driven by their larger worldview, not oil company funding. Naomi Oreskes has discussed this to some extent as have a few other academic sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite, I've no objection to the inclusion of this information. It's just that its location in the intro makes anything but the most superficial treatment impossible and makes generalisations like this inevitable. Besides, I think that we all agree that these reports are pretty irrelevant to the science. So why are we writing about it so prominently? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

188.221.105.68 you said, "the challenges to global warming science come from blogs, the media and dissenting scientists. Certainly, oil companies account for a proportion of the funding in some of those categories but it is only a proportion." Although I like the fact that we agree that the oil companies have a hand in influencing all these channcels of communication, what bothers me is your lack of evidence towards the ACTUAL proportion of those funds. For all we know the oil industry could be the sole contributer to agencies like The Heritage Foundation (that received $3.3 million from Koch Industries). The fact is the any way you cut it, the oil industry is the largest contributer to climate change denial. That's a fact. If you can find larger contributors to climate change denial please do so. Torontokid2006 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the libertarian reference. Energy is the most subsidized industry in the US, both directly and indirectly. TFD (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As a recovered L. Neil Smith Galatin-world libertarian (I was young and needed the money ;-), there is a fairly large group for whom "libertarian" means "don't give money to things I don't use, don't tax me, leave me alone when I beat my children, but feel free to tax others to support my accustomed lifestyle to which I have an inborn right". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand the logic of libertarianism. What I do not understand is how an economy based on massive subsidies of energy and agriculture, that restricts free trade and where the government controls the economy is somehow libertarian. American "libertarians" argue that the government should pay for nuclear reactors, while real libertarians would let free enterpise build them and allow Americans to decide whether or not they wanted to pay for them. Somehow all of this is connected to "national security". Basicly, a libertarian is someone who was competitive enough to win a government contract. TFD (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I tookout the section on oil companies. It is a subset of politics. It doesn't belong William M. Connolley (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove huge pieces of sourced material without at least a heads-up or some sort of reasonable explanation. Please let the community decide what belongs and what doesn't. I'm putting it back up as it is a natural follow up to the lead. I am following WP:Style of internal consistency. Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with WMC. For a very long time, this article has concentrated on the physical phenomenon, and other aspects have been mentioned only briefly, with fuller treatment in sub-articles like Politics of global warming and global warming controversy. This has been very positively mentioned by external reviewers, so I would not give this up without very good reasons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it fits perfectly there. Look how that section touches on "public opinion", "political opinion" and "other views" (basically fringe theory). This article is missing the HUGE element which is "corporate opinion". It is finally included and very important for this article. I agree it shouldn't be too long though. Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly seems most are in favour of removing the line, which doesn't fit. I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning Toronto: I don't have evidence that oil companies aren't the overwhelming driver of public opinion therefore you are entitled to put something in that suggests they are??? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Big Oil influence

Hold on there, anon#188. Most want it out? apparently you're basing this conclusion on the current thread. But have you gone through the archives thoroughly? Even a quick search for "oil" and review of the results for easy hits like 'oil company/companies,' 'oil industry' 'oil money' brings up lots of discussion: archive 3, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 37, 41, 42, 56, 57, 58 -- a partial list not counting related threads on lobbying, politics, etc (btw, one could also check the index for thread topics to see which generated the most replies). Past discussion should factor into any decision about content and especially about the lead/introduction.

I also disagree with what some editors seem to be arguing about the scope of this article being limited to the science of GW. I think that the lead for this article should indeed cover the politics and controversy, especially the oil industry's influence. The body text already contains the section Views and reactions with subsections Oil industry reaction, Politics, Public opinion, and Other views, with links to (related) Main articles Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming. So the lead should represent those accordingly as a part of the entire issue. And to your question of evidence: just because you don't have it (or see it) doesn't mean it's not there. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying there's a clear majority in favour of removing this because there is. If you want to write about the oil industry funding "deeply flawed reasearch" there is, as you point out, a section ready. How do you justify the current wording in the light of the very clear guideline in WP:LEAD that "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"? "just because you don't have it (or see it) doesn't mean it's not there." Again, it's not for me to provide evidence to back up your unsupported claims. If you have evidence that the oil industry is the overwhelming cause of scepticism, as TK apparently believes, I suggest you provide it. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with removing it, IP. If you want to claim that the majority is on your side, then you should poll the other editors. TFD (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out that there was a majority, really. And there is. I'm not suggesting that this be decided by a poll. It just seems that a good lead was spoilt by some very eccentric additions about (among other things) curious parallels with tobacco companies, and that although this has mostly been reverted one part still remains. A question, and I don't mean this rhetorically, I want to understand. Is the reason for including this that you believe that the single overwhelming reason for scepticism is oil industry money? Or is there some other factor that makes this especially notable? And how can you be sure that you're right, I mean there are different views about this aren't there, why write about the oil industry to the exclusion of all other factors that may cause public scepticism? Have their been studies that have tried to assess the importance of oil money? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually since you are challenging the material, the burden is indeed upon you to provide sources to your counterclaims. Apparently you're not satisfied with the four citations given in the lead as well as others in the body text and subarticles (notably the first paragraph of Global warming controversy#Political pressure on scientists). Its not difficult to find more specific sources -- here's another Guardian piece with explicit reference to oil lobby influence on U.S. policy: "Ex-oil lobbyist watered down US climate research" --"A former oil industry lobbyist edited the Bush administration's official policy papers on climate change to play down the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, it was reported yesterday. ... Mr Cooney's influence on White House policy went further than manipulating documents, describing him as a 'gatekeeper' for White House policymaking on climate change, helping to determine whose views were heard. ..." (my emphasis in bold) Indeed, perhaps the summary section in the GW article needs to be improved to better reflect the subarticle on GW controversy. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

IP, I am not saying that "the single overwhelming reason for scepticism is oil industry money", merely that "some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns and deeply flawed research studies intended to discredit the global scientific consensus". If you know of other groups that are funding research at this level, then please provide sources. TFD (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon, actually I am not challenging the material only its relative importance and the sense in placing it so prominently. Again, it is for you to demonstrate this. TFD, I don't agree that a director of Greenpeace accusing George Bush of having an oil company acting as his "gatekeeper" can be considered entirely dispassionate. I also doubt that levels of funding are the best way of assessing importance (it's the blogs and newpapers that people are reading not the flawed reasearch) and while you may believe that the one factor that makes global warming different from other "conspiracy theories" is funding and that this must be the reason for public doubt (I think that is your argument) that is your own synthesis, not a fact. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that 188.221.105.68 and William M. Connolley always object to the mentioning of big oil and it's very known funding of climate skepticism and denial. Why are you folks so bent on cencorship? Why can you never provide sources for your claims that "other forces" are more powerful in climate denial while merely trying to delete the sources you dislike? why why why?????? Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be a well-known GW denier but at least when I bold a word I take care to spell it properly William M. Connolley (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Added tags

There is no longer any scholarly debate on this issue.[clarific] The scientific consensus is that human-caused global warming is real.[6][7][clarific] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues.[clarif][improper synthesis] Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10][pov-statement] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[pov-statement]

I think this paragraph is more something you'd expect to find on the Greenpeace website rather than on an encyclopedia.

There is no longer any scholarly debate on this issue.

What issue to do with global warming are we talking about?

Nevertheless, political and public debate continues.

I have a two criticisms of this sentence. Firstly, while there may be a broad scientific consensus about human-induced warming, the issue of possible policy responses is not purely a scientific question. This sentence does not specify what "debate" is about. If it is about purely scientific questions (e.g., the value of the climate sensitivity), then it should say so. If it isn't, i.e., it refers to debate over policy, then it should not imply that scientific consensus favours a particular climate change policy. My separation of "scientific" and "policy" views, is, of course, a simplification to some degree. This is because scientific confidence levels in this field have important policy implications.

Secondly, as I've stated previously, saying that there is "debate" is a fairly vacuous statement. Debate over science and policy issues will always exist. What matters is (a) what the opposing viewpoints are, (b) how important these differing viewpoints are, and (c) who supports these differing viewpoints.

Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10][pov-statement] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[pov-statement]

This is an exceedingly weak sentence, and is clearly POV. This article should present information in an objective and neutral fashion. This sentence fails to do this. It is an analysis of oil companies intentions. Analysis should not be included unless that analysis is explicitly attributed to a particular source. It is not appropriate for the article to implicitly be aligned with a particular source. This is unless that source represents a consensus view, e.g., as supported by science academy statements or authorative scientific assessments.

I would prefer that the paragraph I've highlighted be removed entirely. It should not be included in the intro. The intro should present the most important and strongest points to do with the article's subject. It should not be used as a way of favouring particular viewpoints which do not necessarily represent a consensus view.

Views section

I've added neutrality and undue weight tags to this section. It is entirely inappropriate for this section to place so much weight on particular viewpoints. It is basically advocating particular policy viewpoints, and places undue weight on views in rich countries, solely focussing on the US.

Bias

Implicitly, the section attempts to convince the reader that inaction on climate change can be blamed on oil companies. This is biased in several ways:

1. It assumes that people agree with criticisms of these organizations. This is done implicitly in the way that criticisms are not explicitly attributed to any sources.

For example:

Source X has linked efforts to avoid regulation of emissions to the activities of oil companies

That would be acceptable, since the article is not aligning itself to source X. Rather, source X is cited since some editor believes that source X's views are important in some way.

2. The section promotes a particular interpretation of oil companies and related companies. It is implied that their activities are wrong.

To put it differently, it is assumed that the reader agrees with the interpretation of the activities of these oil companies which an editor has put forward. This is unacceptable. The article should be neutral with respect to different points-of-view. It is not acceptable for the article to implicitly align itself with criticisms of oil companies.

3. The section places undue weight on certain viewpoints

The views presented are entirely US-based. This is unacceptable. The article's title is global warming. It is not "US views on global warming." Therefore attention should be paid to maintaining a even and balanced coverage of all world views. Disproportionate weight should not be placed on views that are US-based.

Disproportionate weight is placed on the views of Oreskes. There are lots of publications on global warming. It is unacceptable for this article to cite one book over all others. A balanced treatment would cover all publications in all countries, and not just one book.

Split-up

Due to the excessive length of this article, focus should be on quality and importance. Popular books are important, but are less important than the scientific literature. Popular books are also less important that the views of particular countries and important organizations.

The issue over split-up is also clearly related to my points above on bias. If you were to offer an overview of the popular publications on climate change, it would require an expansion of an already over-long article. Also, to counter bias towards US-views, you'd need to give a proportionate amount of space to views in other countries.

To sum up, my view is that all of this content should be removed. It can be put in a sub-article. Efforts should be made to cover all views, and that includes views of those outside of the US, i.e., international viewpoints. Neutrality should also be maintained with respect to national viewpoints. On both of these counts, the existing section fails completely. Enescot (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this entire section is redundant as many editors have already weighed in on this topic in previous discussion sections. Please read above so you may catch up on the debate.

Look above and you'll notice that we have even opened an WP:RfC just to discuss the points in question. Unfortunately you have misquoted the said sentence which raises some concerns about your accuracy or intention. Please be more careful when quoting the sentences you have issues with so you do not mislead other editors. You wrote: There is no longer any scholarly debate on this issue.[clarific] The scientific consensus is that human-caused global warming is real.[6][7][clarific] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues.[clarif][improper synthesis] Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10][pov-statement] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[pov-statement]. This is incorrect.

The current 3rd paragraph of the lead says, "There is no longer any scholarly debate in regards to the legitimacy of human-caused global warming. The scientific consensus states that this phenomenon is real and happening today. Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns and deeply flawed research studies intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.

As you can see the first sentence is totally legitimate as it states clearly that it is "in regards to the legitimacy of human-caused global warming" and NOT what you're insinuating (ie. in regards to political action on the issue). Thank you for your concern and comments but please be more careful next time. Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Enescot, you are currently disrupting this article by making it appear as if the paragraph in question was formed out of haste or "Greenpeace" agenda. This ridiculous and frankly insulting. If you took the time to read the reams of discussion that has occurred in the last week you will notice that the sources are reliable and communicated appropriately in the lead. I will remove the citation needed templates you have unilaterally placed in the lead until you have sufficient evidence for doing so. So far I do not see any compelling reason for you to have them up. Until you posted this section no other editor had used citation needed templates. Please stop your misleading and disruptive edits. Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Enescot`s points raised are valid, and you do not ned consensus to add tags to an article, please wp:agf and do not accuse other editors of disruptive behaviour mark nutley (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We are no longer living in the Dark ages where scientific theory is questioned. Tags should only be added if it becomes apparent that there is a dispute. TFD (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only are Enescot's points invalid, they are insulting to everyone who has spent hours and hours debating the issue in the sections above. Please take a bit of time to review the recent discussions including the WP:RfC, "RfC:how should opposition to the theory of global warming be described?" Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

TFD your right we no longer live in the dark ages, which is why everything can and should be questioned, the removal of tags breaks policy do not do so again. There is still debate to say there is not is pov pushing, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years Siegfried Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery just two scholars who debate it, there are plenty more mark nutley (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you have not taken the time to read the recent debate just a couple paragraphs above this one. I will post it for you.

1."Reading this talk page it has become evident certain editors misunderstand/misrepresent the scientific method. The demand for "absolute" proof for X is a silly one. There are no absolutes. However, when the overwhelming majority of scientist (no not vox populi or other non-experts) declare something as scientific fact this essentially means there is "no debate." To include the emotio-political-driven hysterics as sciemntific "debate" is disingenious at best. Also, even if we find one scintist opposing a certain theory this does not a "debate" make. In science we only speak of "debate" when something is discussed through the appropriate scientific channels. A friday evening exchange of opininion during happy hour does not count.

Other denialist-movements are not given that much space: AIDS denialism, vaccine controversy, Flat earth, Intelligent Design.

In short, mention the absence of scientific debate.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

2. (Sorry for repeating myself, apparently replies part of the way up go unnoticed...) That's a straw man question. "Debate" obviously does not only occur in peer-reviewed journals, and thus you cannot claim "no debate" among a community by looking only at peer-reviewed articles. You can make plenty of OTHER claims by looking at peer-reviewed journals, but "no debate among scientists" is not one of them. You could perhaps even say "No debate in climatology journals", but you certainly can't say "no debate" among scientists, as if the entirety of their lives are constrained to journal article writing. It's just a factually incorrect misrepresentation to state one thing as another in that manner. WavePart (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but there is no scholarly debate at all about whether humans influence climate, there is debate on other issues within climate change, but for that particular one, there is none. Here of course there is the caveat that there (as in all fields) are some individuals who will dispute anything (see WP:FRINGE). This is not limited to the literature - it is simply "inconceivable" from a scientific point of view, to paraphrase Christy again, that we haven't influenced climate. -Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC) My objection there, which I still stand by 100%, and have repeated many times, is on the claim that there is no debate in the scientific community. Communities are made of people, and you cannot make sweeping claims about a body of people based on analysis of a body of literature. That just fails the test of basic logic, which I would prefer if we could uphold here. It would be like saying, "All members of American communities think people should be allowed to have guns" and citing the constitutional amendments as proof, and then arguing that it's a valid statement because the constitution is the supreme law. It doesn't quite work that way. WavePart (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC) There is no statement made about all of the community (at least not in any version i've seen). But if you want community responses, then see Scientific opinion on climate change, which cooks down to: No scientific body disputes anthropogenic influences to climate, and all major national and international scientific bodies support the current scientific assessment. That there is no scholarly debate over whether humans are influencing climate is a simple and accurate statement, which reflects the literature as well as the direct statements from scientific bodies. We can't invent dissent.. Sorry. That would be promoting a WP:FRINGE viewpoint... and stating that there is debate about whether we influence climate is a very fringe viewpoint. Consensus is not unanimity (although it comes extremely close on this particular item of climate change) You will have to provide evidence of debate if you are going to argue down this road - since otherwise you are trying to get us to prove a negative --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC) So you are admitting that there is no proof? Then the claim should be taken out of the article. Does the Christy quote represent peer-reviewed research? Kauffner (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) The inability to prove a negative is precisely why you don't write an article which goes out of its way to claim negatives are proven. We should simply write the things we CAN specifically document, for which there are plenty. WavePart (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC) It is documentable. Christy's statement is one of many that does so (and do take into account that Christy is one of the more well-known sceptics). The opinion of the community can be assessed by both assessment reports, but also by the statements from scientific bodies. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC) So after all this interesting discussion, we still have one editor aggressively editing to keep the phrases "There is no debate amongst the scientific community"[25] (instead of "There is no substantive debate") and "The scientific community agrees that..."[26] (instead of "The scientific community largely agrees that...") in the article. I'm sure this is being done in good faith, but I'm not sure that it reflects a consensus from the discussion above. I would like to establish if there is a consensus for this wording, versus some (any) less absolute statement.

I know there are a thousand other issues that arise from this, but I'd like to have opinions specifically on whether we should say "there is no debate" and "the scientific community agrees" or whether these phrases should be qualified to make them lest absolute. Thparkth (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And I'll go first. I do not support the absolute statements. There is debate, although it is almost entirely not happening in peer-reviewed publications. So let's say "no scholarly debate" or "no debate in scientific journals" instead, since that's apparently what we mean. The scientific community is not 100% in agreement if there is even one dissenter, and there are quite a lot more than that. Let's say "the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that" or words to that effect. Thparkth (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit warring to remove tags is disturbing, i do not care about what you just posted, the simple fact is there is still debate over the cause of the modern warming, so to say there is not is pov pushing, you are also on about 5 reverts now on this article, self revert your removal of the tags or i will have no option but to file an enforcement request mark nutley (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have followed the letter and spirit of wikipedia principles. At least 2 of those reverts were for a user that was vandalizing the page. In terms of edit warring I'm quite sure that you are the guilty one. I am defending the quality of article by looking at the discussion and consensus. Something you have not done. Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No you are not and sadly left me with no option but to file an RFE. I am not edit warring as i only did one revert here, you are now on about 6. The simple fact is the statements are pure POV pushing and as such your removal of the tags is not on mark nutley (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually what's sad is that these discussions go round & round and editors create new sections with overlong posts and replies, instead of orderly contributing to existing threads. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a wiki policy to deter this?? If it does please share this awesome policy!!!Torontokid2006 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there is. I was a Wikipedia contributor for several years. The only AGW-related edits I ever made were to technical, statistical areas, about which I've had some professional contact. In controversial articles like this, usually sensible compromise proposals get lost in dissembling and dense circularity and the "consensus" is just a matter of luck. In the end, it didn't seem I was doing much good and it got rather boring. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There are guidelines like Be concise and Read the archives but some folks apparently see them as optional. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I did check the archives but what I saw was a muddle of conflicting viewpoints with very little sign of "consensus". Also, they aren't really that relevant here. They would be if I were asking for the rewording of a carefully agreed consensus intro but I'm actually talking about an something that was written about a week ago to satisfy the whim of one person. It's too recent to be archived. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm extremely unhappy that my templates and tags have been removed. My impression was that you could add tags to an article provided that you gave a reason. I did give a reason, which has been ignored. The fact that the issue has been debated among editors here is frankly of no interest to me. Other editors may think that the views presented on oil companies in the article are unbiased. I think this is a poor reflection on the objectivity and judgement of these editors.

The main issue to do with climate change is in assessing the costs and benefits of climate policy. One cost is that faced by energy-intensive industries. To try and make out that this is the only consideration of policymakers is basically a conspiracy theory. If true, we wouldn't have the UNFCCC, or individual countries implementing aggressive policies to reduce emissions.

You also wouldn't have had developing countries pressing developed countries to reduce emissions significantly. If the malign influence of oil companies was so bad, they would presumably not be at all concerned about climate change. It would also be inconsistent with the actions of most countries in approving the various IPCC assessments.

In terms of the popular literature on climate change, I see no justification for concentrating on Oreskes' work over other authors. Ignoring international views (works by Chinese or Indian writers, for example), you could possibly cite Bjorn Lomborg's work on climate change, or Pilmer's or Singer's. A balanced overview of the popular literature in English-speaking countries would include mention of such viewpoints. Choosing Oreskes' analysis over these other viewpoints strikes me as blatant political and literary bias. Enescot (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

^ http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/ Geophysical Research Letters
^ http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-moreinfo&issn=1520-0442 Journal of Climate}
^ Ramanathan, V.; Chung, C; Kim, D; Bettge, T; Buja, L; Kiehl, JT; Washington, WM; Fu, Q; Sikka, DR (2005). "Atmospheric brown clouds: Impacts on South Asian climate and hydrological cycle". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102 (15): 5326–5333. doi:10.1073/pnas.0500656102. PMC 552786. PMID 15749818. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |first1= and |first= specified (help); More than one of |last1= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Ramanathan, V.; Chung, C; Kim, D; Bettge, T; Buja, L; Kiehl, JT; Washington, WM; Fu, Q; Sikka, DR (2005). "Atmospheric brown clouds: Impacts on South Asian climate and hydrological cycle". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102 (15): 5326–5333. doi:10.1073/pnas.0500656102. PMC 552786. PMID 15749818. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |first1= and |first= specified (help); More than one of |last1= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Peter Bruckschen; Susanne Oesmanna; Ján Veizer (1999-09-30). "Isotope stratigraphy of the European Carboniferous: proxy signals for ocean chemistry, climate and tectonics". Chemical Geology. 161 (1–3): 127. doi:10.1016/S0009-2541(99)00084-4. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |author-separator= ignored (help)
^ Weart, Spencer (2008). "The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect". The Discovery of Global Warming. American Institute of Physics. Retrieved 21 April 2009.
^ link
^ photo
^ [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0
^ http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true

[1] ttp://www.agu.org/journals/gl/ Geophysical Research Letters

[2] ttp://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-moreinfo&issn=1520-0442 Journal of Climate}

[3] Ramanathan, V.; Chung, C; Kim, D; Bettge, T; Buja, L; Kiehl, JT; Washington, WM; Fu, Q; Sikka, DR (2005). "Atmospheric brown clouds: Impacts on South Asian climate and hydrological cycle". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102 (15): 5326–5333. doi:10.1073/pnas.0500656102. PMC 552786. PMID 15749818. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |first1= and |first= specified (help); More than one of |last1= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[4] Ramanathan, V.; Chung, C; Kim, D; Bettge, T; Buja, L; Kiehl, JT; Washington, WM; Fu, Q; Sikka, DR (2005). "Atmospheric brown clouds: Impacts on South Asian climate and hydrological cycle". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102 (15): 5326–5333. doi:10.1073/pnas.0500656102. PMC 552786. PMID 15749818. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |first1= and |first= specified (help); More than one of |last1= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[5] Peter Bruckschen; Susanne Oesmanna; Ján Veizer (1999-09-30). "Isotope stratigraphy of the European Carboniferous: proxy signals for ocean chemistry, climate and tectonics". Chemical Geology. 161 (1–3): 127. doi:10.1016/S0009-2541(99)00084-4. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |author-separator= ignored (help)

[6] Weart, Spencer (2008). "The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect". The Discovery of Global Warming. American Institute of Physics. Retrieved 21 April 2009.

[7] ^ link

[8] to

[9] [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

[10] ttp://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

Tony's proposed wording of FAQ 22

Rewrite of attributed and expected effects, and other changes

Adaptation

Edit semi prot

GISS update

Attributed and expected effects

Solar Variation

Solar variation, models, and Scafetta

Solar variation II

Adaptation

"Unequivocal" warming

Global warming graph attacked by study

Why isn't recent acceleration of warming mentioned in the lead?

Broken Links

Impacts on ecosystems

More interesting than Adolf Hitler but not as good as Jesus

O RLY?

Attributed and expected effects

Another article linking global warming to seismic activity

"Debate and skepticism" section

Melting ice amplifies Arctic warming

Definition

See archives

Rv: why

Charts

Off-wiki evaluation of this article by subject matter expert

Clouds error

Other stuff

Archives

Breathing

How the sun infuences the local climate in Europe

Responses to global warming

UN science chief defends work, welcomes review

Dipole moment...

Add Still skeptical? Reports document climate change by the US National Academy of Sciences

Why is User:Arthur Rubin attempting to break the link from Global warming to Environmental migrant? POV?

"Controversial" greenhouse effect

Too far?

Add Tokyo University's Yoichi Kaya formula F=Pgef ?

Unbiased please

"Bad Job" header

Would Carbonated water/Soft drinks .. add to global warming ..?

EDIT WAR Needs To End

"faulty" research

RfC: how should opposition to theory of GW be described?

Too opinionated

Article protected

Accidental Duplicate!

Ocean warming

Those oil companies

Big Oil influence

Added tags