Talk:Climate change/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

EPA scientists revolt

It's a press release, but a pretty shocking one: More Than 10,000 EPA Scientists File Mass Petition for Action on Global Warming, November 29, 2006 Simesa 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And a pretty inaccurate one. The actual document is a letter from 22 union bosses representing a union with over 10,000 scientists and support staff. The so-called "petition" makes no actual mention of a petition anywhere. Entry 306(b)(i) in my Guidebook to the Real World is "Never trust a press release." Raymond Arritt 04:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The press release reads as follows : "In an unprecedented action, representatives for more than 10,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists are calling on Congress to take immediate action against global warming [...]. The is letter (sic!) signed by presidents of 22 locals of five unions". I can't find a misleading statement in there which would differ from your explanation. Hardern 17:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
What about the headline? Narssarssuaq 17:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right about that. Hardern 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The headlines for Global Warming hysteria articles are often like that. It would be same as saying if a US President opposed radical action on Global Warming saying "300,000,000 American opposed to action on Global Warming" because the leader says so.

Neutrality Of the Article

The neutrality of this article is disputable.

Allow me to put away any preconceived ideas I hold in regards to Global Warming.

From reading the article, and having explored various points of view in regards to global warming (specifically, the two sides of the debate) I think that there is substance to both points of view.

Therefore due acknowledgment of the arguments against Global Warming could be included with either a criticism section or perhaps an NPOV label.

Note:

"Often, authors can view "their" articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is. Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral — or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. The salient point is that one side — who cares enough to be making the point — thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#How_can_neutrality_be_achieved.3F

Although the arguments against global warming have been previously presented I believe that there are grounds for a more substantial presentation of the case. Alternate theories that identify different, supporting causes of the same issue, do not replicate outright dispute of the entire issue as a whole.

Below is an interesting article to assist with the creation of a criticism section: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml

Also: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

And another good one: http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

The above links may help, although further research into the 'against' arguments is recommended.

Thank you,

Ben.yrps 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Ben.yrps

The issue, to my understanding, is that there really aren't that many coherent alternative explanations for collected observations. What there are in the way of complete theories are presented in the "Alternative Theories" section. The rest of the criticism is mostly picking at particular points, studies, or issues, and all the various nitpicking cannot actually be collected into a coherent theory, indeed much of it is mutually contradictory. So, in summary, where actual alternative theories exist they are presented, and the remaining criticism is simply to scattered and mutually inconsistent to be presented in any reasonable way in an article such as this. Leland McInnes 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that this whole section needs to be rewritten. The articles should be split into at least 2 separate pages:

The 'Global Warming' page should consist of the observed facts regarding the Earth's temperatures. This would include geological temperatures (including methodology of calculation, confidence, etc). As well as more recent temperature trends - Middle Ages, 'mini ice age' and 20th Century warming.

The second page should be titled something like 'Global Warming Theory' and should present both sides of the argument to whether or not humans are responsibe for the observed warming of the planet and possible future events.

As it stands, this article is biased and doesn't even come close to a NPOV. There is not even a warning at the top of the page warning that the article is disputed. I have read through the comments in this discussion and I can't believe how arogantly the editors are behaving. I have a geochemistry degree. There is no way that the 'theory of man made global warming' is as accepted as the 'theory of gravity'(as some people are trying to claim, in order to push their own agenda). 'Global Warming' is theory that can't be tested in any way. Which planet are you proposing to use as our 'control'? If we cut CO2 levels and the temperature of the Earth also falls, does that 'prove' the theory? What about if we cut CO2 and the temperatures still keep rising? How about we maintain our current levels of CO2 output, but the temperatures fall? What does that 'prove'?

At present we have an observed fact (the world is getting slowly warmer) and we have a theory as to why this is happening (greenhouse effect). Nobody has proved this to be the case. There is not a total scientific consensus, or anything close to it.

In order to acheive a NPOV, the article must be split into at least 2 sections - scientific fact and theory. Grimerking 13:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, good thing that no-one proposed that the 'theory of man made global warming' is as accepted as the 'theory of gravity'. What some have tried to do is show that a "theory" is not a guess, but a coherent explanation for a set of facts that allows us to create testable predictions. And of course 'Global Warming' theory can be tested, both temporarily (as e.g. by Hansen's 1988 predictions) and spatially, by predicting certain not-yet observed effects and testing if they are true. And if you think science can "prove" anything in an absolute sense, i.e. outside the bounds of an assumed theory, you should contact your university for a refund. --Stephan Schulz 14:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not get side-tracked into a debate on the theory of climate change. My main point still stands. This article is biased and should be broken up into 2 or more articles. At least that way, the theory wouldn't pollute the facts.
I fail to see why the editors are so determined to stifle this debate and prevent any opposing views from being heard.
Because there really is no significant debate. There are thousands of scientists on one side (a consensus), and a few corporate funded scientists, CEOs, and investors on the other. If we are expected to over represent this "debate" on this page, then perhaps the Earth page should have a big section on the Flat Earth Society.nut-meg 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
i think you are being selfish in taking a position of opposition to global warming...many people on the planet would greatly benefit such as in canada or russia...i think you need to recognize that many scientists are taking a position that global warming is occuring...yet it helps many people out...it can actually be a good thing...we just need to figure out what to do with the polar bears...Benjiwolf 10:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (moved from User talk:Nut-meg
What is the benefit? Huge swaths of land are flooded, millions displaced and killed, famine, hurricanes, and disease, mass extinctions of animals and marine life, the collapse of the food chain... All of this is ultimately possible if nothing is done. But I guess who cares as long as Canada and Russia get to enjoy a few more sunny days. Who is being selfish?nut-meg 22:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What should have been an article dealing in scientific facts, has been hijacked by people pushing unproven scientific theory. It has then been locked down to prevent anybody else expressing a differing scientific theory, which the editors disagree with. Grimerking 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

    I am somewhat startled to find that the controversy section of Global Warming is so covered in bias and conspiracy. I

have just finished reading Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear" and I now question the validity of the arguments made by so called global warming specialists. Crichton makes a wonderful agrument through a fictional book that global warming is overstated and not as thoroughly studied as it has been suggested in the media. Though his books are fanciful, he has many references and seems to have done good research in so much that he seems to be able to back up his statements. I would be interested in peoples comments on Crichtons book and the views which he has stated. 

    As a side note; those who would say that there is "No controversy in global warming" sound like zealots who have lost the

point of debate and are no longer able to make noteworthy comments. A theory in science is always debated and there are always those who have dissenting views unless that debate is fake, dictated and otherwise worthless.24.10.167.243 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If we accept Michael Crichton, MD in his interpretation of climate science, then those of us in climate science should be allowed to practice medicine. Leave a message at my talk page to schedule your exploratory surgery. Raymond Arritt 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no controversy about the existence of global warming and there is no controversy that the answer is significantly reduced global emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 and methane. At the start of 2007 these are now mainstream accepted facts. In Europe they have been generally accepted for a few years.
There is no controversy among climate scientists who have had peer reviewed papers published. Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Oreskes.2C_2004
There is no controversy among national governments on the existence of global Warming. This can be seen from the List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories
There is no controversy among the science academies of the G8 countries, Brazil china and India. [7]Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Joint_science_academies.E2.80.99_statement
Major corporations including General Electric, DuPont, Alcoa, and also Caterpillar (manufacturing) Duke Energy, PG&E, FPL Group,PNM Resources (four energy utilities) BP (multinational oil company) Lehman Brothers (finance) are calling for a firm US limit on carbon dioxide emissions that would lead to reductions of 10 to 30 percent over the next 15 years. [8]
It is acknowledged that some issues are still being debated:

  1. the methods by which such reductions should be achieved
  2. the degree of cuts in emissions by high per capita emissions countries
  3. the limit on increased emissions of developing countries such as India and China which have large populations but low per capita emissions
  4. whether there is any role for increased nuclear power
  5. the degree to which renewables like wind and solar can be efficiently deployed
  6. the economic costs of action versus inaction although the Stern review is the iconic investigation of this issue and concludes that it is cheaper to act now.

dinghy 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


My addition of a Controversy section linking to data from the article "Global warming controversy" has been reverted within the first five minutes of being posted. This leads me to believe that this article is being watched "like a hawk" to say, by some people. Mainly, I would like to point out that this article shows a very one sided and supportive view of the global warming theory and that a section showing criticism from the crtitics (yes there are critics) namely those displayed on the "Global warming controversy" is desperately needed to maintain a balanced article. While there is link to the article "Global warming controversy" in the see also section, it is buried amongst twenty or so other links. To maintain balance there needs to be a promintent section of this article showing the other view. Can we have this section or will my edits be thwarted with reverts? The machine512 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I could have told you that. There are some hard leftists on here (they'll remain un-named; they know who they are) who are not interested in a true academic discussion but rather in squelching the voice of those with whom they disagree. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that 'hawk eyes' are now an epidemic of gigantic proportions in the wiki system and these ‘hawk eyes’ are now a serious disruption to the Wiki-spirit and Wiki-process.

Article after Article have been subsumed by groups of people who are completely one-celled and hell bent on squelching the voices of dissent. There almost seems to be an organized effort to ensure that dissenting opinions do not find place on the main wiki pages.

Eg:

  • The Moon landing Article – the ‘hawk eyes’ refuse to even acknowledge that some people suspect foul play in moon landing videos. No, they would rather revert the postings.
  • The AIDS Epidemic Article - the ‘hawk eyes’ refuse to acknowledge that there may not be an epidemic after all. In Africa, the only way to get treatment for common diseases is to say that you got AIDS. The only hospitals in remote areas are ‘AIDS Hospitals’. so AIDS numbers come out inflated.
  • The Compact Fluorescent Lamps Article – the efficiency formula are actually wrong. [CFLs have terrible power factors] but the ‘hawk eyes’ refuse to change them because it makes the CFLs look less good, and that goes against their agenda. It is actually a pollution amplifier.
  • The Solar energy Article - the ‘hawk eyes’ refuse to acknowledge that solar cells are not all that efficient, and that huge amounts of conventional energy have to spent to manufacture solar cells. It is in fact a pollution amplifier.
  • The Hydrogen Economy Article- the ‘hawk eyes’ refuse to acknowledge that hydrogen doesn’t occur in free form in nature and that it requires more energy to manufacture hydrogen than what it given out by burning it. In its current form Hydrogen economy is a pollution amplifier.
  • The free energy Article – The ‘hawk eyes’ refuse to acknowledge that people have been experimenting with perpetual motion machines. They may not get anywhere, but outright removal of postings is not acceptable.
  • The Nuclear Energy Article - The ‘hawk eyes’ refuse to acknowledge that there actually may be clean nuclear energy.

And on and on the list goes. Some very monotonic epsilon minuses have taken over the wikipedia system. It is now very close to sabotage.

Have you thought that your arguments and sources could actually be flawed and that this is why you're being reverted? If you find scientific or other reliable sources for your arguments, I agree that it's sabotage if you're constantly reverted. If, however, you spread dubious, unencyclopedic claims without any citations, I'll support that you're being reverted. Narssarssuaq 08:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The section you have added seems to have been just cut and pasted from the Global warming controversy article. Other than being a listing of names, it is very critical of those who claim to be skeptical of global warming, and doesn't seem to add anything to the article. Netherless I'll leave it there for others to comment on. --Michael Johnson 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. It is upsetting that the Global warming controversy page is more critial of the critics than critical of global warming. The text that I've added is just about the least "critic critical" section I could find from the article. I agree that this would be a section that would need work, but nevertheless I do feel it is an important addition to the article and that what I have given would be a good starting point. The machine512 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The global warming page describes global warming to he best of out understanding, i.e. it reflects the broad scientific consensus. Global warming controversy is there expecially to highlight the (mostly political) controversy. Of course critics get more space there - both for their positions as for a discussion of the same. --Stephan Schulz 08:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted again, sigh. I don't understand your reason for reverting, you stated:

"Reverted again. There is a link to the controversy from the lead section. Duplication of content is no good, use summary style!"

It seems like you are using two very different reasons for the reversion. By lead section I am assuming you mean the subtopics box at the very bottom of the page as otherwise controversy or criticism is not mentioned anywhere else throughout this entire article. And if you are referring to the subtopics box, many of the main articles such as Mitigation of global warming are summarized in this main article just as I did with Global warming controversy. And in terms of duplication, I did the same system of summary as is done with mitigation. So what is the problem?? Is there something wrong with presenting both viewpoints in the article? Please explain further.

It amazes me, the wikipedia article on the United States doesn't get this much scrutiny. The machine512 10:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the subtopic box, but to the last paragraph of the introduction, which states (in part): "However, the uncertainty is more significant regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate (This links to global warming controversy) over implementation of policies that deal with predicted consequences, what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to deal with the predicted consequences." And, wether you belive it or not, all notable viewpoints are represented adequately in the article. What you added was not a summary, but an excerpt. The summary of the dispute, as far as there is anything to summarize, is in the section I quoted and in the "Alternative hypotheses" section. --Stephan Schulz 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that this is allegedly an encyclopedia -- a supposedly authoritative source of information. To relegate other viewpoints to a secondary article instead of including it in the main one gives the impression that the information is somehow less important, accurate, or relevant. This is all-the-more important when one considers that most readers do not go to the trouble of going through the entire article that is putatively academic in nature to read the links at the bottom. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure this doesn't surprise you, but I greatly disagree with your claim that "all notable viewpoints are represented adequately", and apparently I am not the only one, seeing that others have brought this issue up before and have been knocked down by the unfortunate clique of editors here. And as proof for my claim not one of the scientists from the section "Opponents of the global warming theory" under Global warming controversy is mentioned at all in this article. That is balanced? This is what I tried to bring into the article, a summary of the to say "least critical of the critics" section of Global warming controversy article (considering that whole article is pretty much biased against them), and you've reverted it, as I am sure you've reverted this topic in the past and will continue to. Why can't the opinions of the critics be expressed in this article?? The machine512 11:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the ony scientist we name explicitely (i.e. outside of referencing a publication) is Svante Arrhenius. The alternative theories section is excellently referenced. If you have reliable sources on the science (i.e. peer-reviwed scientific publications), by all means add them. But editorials in the Wall Street Journal or publications by political think tanks do not confer any scientific legitimacy - see WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The scientific consensus is supported by thousands of scientists and by the vast majority of people in the field of climate science. The critics' position isn't one at all, but a collection of shifting and incoherent talking points. Most have now given up on "there is no warming" (for any number of alleged reasons), and there is an increasing move from "it's not anthropogenic" (but caused by any of several unlikely mechanisms) to "it's not bad for us" (for another rambling collection of suggestions). --Stephan Schulz 11:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so can I show the names of the notable scientists and their "incoherent talking points"? We are mirroring summaries of just about every subtopic article except the Global warming controversy Why? I don't know (bias, agenda, who knows), but to bring balance we need it. Why are you ingoring such a large article with a significant number of scientists and views?

Also "alternative theories" won't suffice (and you've stated why) because many of the critics do not have alternative theories to present! But rather they take stances such as, that the data is too inconclusive to project the many ideas and theories that the others present, that the testing methods are wrong, etc.

So I ask you, can I please bring some balance into the article or are you going to revert me again? The machine512 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cut-n-paste volumes of text from the Controversy article is obviously not a good idea. Furthermore, you seem to equate "controversy" with "anti-GW"; you only pasted in "aginst". Thats not so - controversy is both sides. I rather like your Also "alternative theories" won't suffice (and you've stated why) because many of the critics do not have alternative theories to present! - this is all too true: what they have are a collection of shifting and incoherent talking points. Which is why they aren't in this article William M. Connolley 13:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact sir, I pasted text (which is exactly what was done in the mitigation section, so excuse me if this is illegal, apparently not in that case (by the way you may want to update the main article from which it comes, it is out of date) (any edits I make will likey be reverted) ) which contained a list of critics and a very large section criticizing the critics, so to be fair that was left in. Also I wouldn't call the criticism "a collection of shifting and incoherent talking points", there are some valid points from reputible scientists which should be displayed.

You sir are presenting a lame excuse for not displaying the other side because it objects with your view.

It is really sad for the whole ideology and foundation of wikipedia, when there is an abuse of power and abuse of the system as is going on here. If anything conflicts with your views it is reverted. This issue has been brought up many times within this article and surrounding articles (neutrality and presenting fair viewpoints) and ingored and reverted.

Maybe this is why the trolling tag exists on this discussion page? Because of all the pissed off editors?? The machine512 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I always like helping the minority view so here goes: it is true that there IS a link in the lead section to the contraversy (aka "Canute's") page but the anchor text confuses the link. Given the WP habit of barely relevant links to dates etc putting the Global Warming Contraversy link until anchor text saying "a political and public debate" makes it look a little like the link might be to an article about public debates. In that regard it might be improved slightly for clarity if the link was in parathesis with explanation after the words, even though its messy. (But I am not inclined to support bringing any content over). --BozMo talk 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The Wikepedia Global Warming read is based on the simple principal of democracy at work. Reporting and building the Global Warming consensus is a self fulfilling prophecy as the consensus builders build the article which can be misleading relative to the science involved.
From a geological view it is clear that climatic change is the rule, not the alarming exception, except if your time frame is instantaneous. And the instantaneous timeframe is a universal human and political frailty. This effect is compounded by how long the human global view from a scientific perspective and approach has existed: since the earth was considered flat? Or round? Since the first time the earth was photographed in a single frame? Or when the first real time global weather maps were produced? How long ago were these events? What have we learned since they happened? How has our view of the world changed? The current clamor to document, understand and believe in global warming as written, could, in retrospect, echo back to the chicken little tale about the sky in the not too distant future. Science is not democratic Massachusetts running on shadows and testimonies about cats to feed fires with humans, unless it becomes a movement and misses it's point. If the news was news and not entertainment, the real global warming story would be the debate about global warming and where it would lead, if it were pursued.

Something should be added to the controversy section, unless there is no controversy, and like it or not, without controversy there is no science, just opinion about how conclusive it all is. You know, the burning human effect. Sounds a bit like rel....., is it religion or relationships I'm looking for? It's not all the science it’s proclaimed, the article, or course, that is. (ScaleIsTheIssue) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.100.223.152 (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Neutrality

This article really, really needs to mention the heavy influence of politics on the issue and the negative effect this has on good science. It is unfortunate that something so important cannot be studied without the effect of business and political forces skewing the results, and everything you read- for or against global warming- needs to be taken with that grain of salt. Mingusboodle 02:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the neutrality tag to this article. This article does not express the views of critics of global warming. Any attempt to add such critics views have been reverted many times by a certain group of editors watching this page. All edits on this page and other global warming subtopic pages that to not conform to the bias of these editors are reverted. This is an abuse of the wikipedia system.The machine512 05:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What views do you believe should be added? Please be specific. Dragons flight 06:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Having read the article, I think it is quite appropriately balenced, given my (non-professional but academic) understanding of the science. I'm not sure I would dedicate as much space to Ruddiman's view (although I have only a passing familiarity with it). Generally balenced. I don't think a neutrality tag is a good idea. --TeaDrinker 06:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated above in the "controversy section" of this talk page, I've tried bringing the views and names of the numerous critical scientists into the article from the Global warming controversy page and my edits (and others) have been blindly reverted for many irrational reasons. There is a large article Global warming controversy that should be discussed at least in small part with a subsection in this article. Not all views are being expressed here, but rather the minority critical view is being seemingly hidden amongst other pages. Others have made this remark numerous times on this talk page and all have been ignored by the group of editors watching this page. Please see what I've witten above. I am losing faith in the fairness of wikipedia, when seemingly biased editors and admins will revert edits made because they do not approve of the crtitical viewpoint. I don't know what can be done. The machine512 07:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you not agree that there is a lot of controversy around this subject? If not, why is there a large controversy article roughly the same size as this one? And why is that article not being reflected here? The machine512 07:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what I brought into the article:

Is there something wrong with this?

Controversy

Main article: Global warming controversy

The global warming controversy is an ongoing dispute about the effects of humans on global climate and about what policies should be implemented to avoid possible undesirable effects of climate change.

Opponents of the global warming theory

Main article: List of scientists opposing global warming consensus

A small number of climate scientists and scientists in related fields have expressed opposition to the scientific consensus on global warming. Several of the most prominent are the following:

Some prominent opponents from outside the climate science community have been:

Some organisations were formed to further the opponents' views:

Many of these opponents to anthropogenic global warming theory have links to the fossil fuels industry. [11] For example, Patrick J. Michaels and Frederick Seitz have both been linked to the George C. Marshall Institute--Michaels as a "visiting scientist" and Seitz as "Chairman Emeritus.".[12] The Institute has received numerous large grants from ExxonMobil and from petroleum-related organizations such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Carthage Foundation. [13][14][15]Similarly, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has received several large grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and from ExxonMobil.[16][17]The CEI website lists both S. Fred Singer and Robert Balling as "experts," while Ross McKitrick headed up a CEI project called the Cooler Heads Coalition.[18][19] Many observers critical of these connections between global warming contrarians and the petroleum and coal industries as suggestive of a conflict of interest, if not of outright corruption, since many policies which might be used to combat human-caused global warming might adversely affect the profits of these corporations. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

Scientists critical of some aspects of the discussion and their donors dispute the validity of this guilt by association argument, and the scientists are also themselves part of government, state college and university systems, the scientific organizations listed in the proponents section, or some mix. Most have been considered skeptics or at least somewhat skeptical of certain points since long before the funding was provided. For example, according to the Forbes story [28] listed above, The Intermountain Rural Electric Association of Sedalia, CO (IREA) funded Patrick Michaels because according to their GM "'We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists,'" and said although he "...believes global warming is real just not as big a problem as scientists claim, <he> acknowledged this is a special interest issue. He said the bigger concern is his 130,000 customers, who want to keep rates low, so coal-dependent utilities need to prevent any taxes or programs that penalize fossil fuel use." In that same article, Donald Kennedy of Science said " 'skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers' " and that " 'I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical,' " and that " ...donations to skeptics amounts to 'trying to get a political message across.' " This tends to further refine the entire dispute as being one of a political nature.

Other criticisms of funding are made by groups known to be in direct opposition to either corporations in general or energy ones in particular, such as the Mother Jones criticism of ExxonMobil donating to groups such as the American Council for Capital Formation [29]. They complain that the ACCF presented an appendix that focused only on the uncertainties of a 2001 NAS report when the ACCF testified in front of the U.S. Senate. Mother Jones’ complaint seems to be only that although the ACCF usually focuses on economic critiques of policies, this time they wrote something one-sided about the science involved in the debate to support their economic position on the Kyoto Protocol. Doing that, according to Mother Jones, puts them in the skeptic camp.

Some opponents to the anthropogenic view of global warming have also been criticized for using incorrect information or flawed analyses in support of their opposition. For example, in April 2005 David Bellamy published a letter in the journal New Scientist in which he claimed that, of the 625 glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service, 555 of them were growing, not shrinking—a statement which, if true, would cast a good deal of doubt on the existence of global warming. It turned out, however, that Bellamy's figures were incorrect: the vast majority of the world's glaciers have been retreating for the last several decades. George Monbiot of the Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer's website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but to date this article has not been found.[30] Similarly, before starting JunkScience.com, Steven Milloy belonged to an organization called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which was paid by tobacco companies to cast doubt on studies about the dangers of secondhand smoke.[31][32] However, most of the authors of these editorials, their websites, or the publications themselves are almost universally extremely critical of the role of industry and government in environmental matters and focus almost entirely on negative aspects of the debate [33] [34] [35] [36].

The machine512 07:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's repetitive (we already have an article covering the controversy), it's unbalanced (there could easily be a much larger list of supporters, especially as anybody disagreeing with any part of the consensus is listed as a sceptic, and hence anybody agreeing with any part should be listed as a supporter ;-), it does not contribute to the science this article concentrates on (there are no references to peer-reviewed papers in the section), it is fairly poorly sourced in general, it is too long (this article already is 2.5 times the recommended length), it gives undue weight to the small group of critics and it gives undue weight to the debate itself in that it suggests that a serious scientific debate about the core consensus exists when it does not... --Stephan Schulz 08:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I agree with you: the tag is unwarranted and the article is pretty balanced. --BozMo talk 10:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, in response to your many statements.

1. "It's repetitive": Having a summary of the controversy article in this article is not any more repetitive than (again) having a summary of the mitigation article. Having summaries is something done widely throughout wikipedia.

2. "It does not contribute to the science this article concentrates on" It does not need to. Neither does the section "Global warming in popular culture" in this article. And neither does "Censorship" section in the article on the Internet contribute to the technology of the Internet.

3. "Undue Weight" You raise a good point here. And I would like to quote that article if I may.

"None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."

The second bullet point "if a view is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" would label the critics in the Global warming controversy as being a significant minority just because they are easily named scientists (quite a few which are known reputable activists, over a dozen) and organizations.

Being that the large article Global warming controversy exists:

1. proves there is a serious scientific debate over many aspects

2. proves it is also not "undue weight"

All of which should be summarized in this article, and currently is not. The machine512 10:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is broken down into sections, and is fully referenced. Why not search dissenting views and reference them, rather than just cut and paste a list of names. If there is any serous scientific dissent it should be included in the article. I havn't come across it (dissent I come across usually comes from conservitive polititions and media commentators) so I'd welcome the infomation. How about tracking down those peer-reviewed articles? Fact is global warming scares me stupid. I'd love to be reassured. --Michael Johnson 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Michael summarises it pretty well. Adding a huge section of text does nothing to improve the article in terms of readability or accuracy. Listing the opponents creates undue weight - the only way to balance the list of opponents would be to list supporters. The thousands of scientists who support the majority position on GW. That would, of course, make the article into unreadable garbage. Including the opponents without including the supporters creates the undue weight. Presenting a fringe position lacking supporting publications on equal footing (or anything near equal footing) with the scientific position creates undue weight. Simple enough. Guettarda 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary Edit Break

512, your proposed section is not a summary, it's an excerpt. The mitigation part is both a summary and a (near) except. Having a summary is fine, however, I claim that we already summarize the controversy adequately.

For the rest: Your logic is unsound. "If a view is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" does not imply that the ability to name prominet adherents implies the existance of a significant view. More general, just because A implies B, you cannot soundly deduce A from B. Moreover, the people in your list do not hold a particular view. They hold different views that only have one aspect in common.

And finally: A significant scientific debate does not take place in newpaper editorials, think tank publications, or on web sites. It takes place in the peer-reviewed literature, at conferences and in journals. To show such a debate, bring scientific references. The global warming controversy article does not prove that "there is a serious scientific debate over many aspects". It shows that there is a public debate, not a scientific one. It's telling that e.g. Shattered Consensus was originally published not by a scientific publisher, or even a popular science publisher, but, of all things, by the Marshall Institute [37]. --Stephan Schulz 20:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Stephen, in response to your response of my response to your response:

1. "Excerpt": Then I suppose there is a very fine line between excerpt and summary then? A long summary is an excerpt, and a short excerpt is a summary?

2. As for my "Unsound Logic": You said " "If a view is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"does not imply that the ability to name prominent adherents implies the existence of a significant view" " So isn’t the sentence’s purpose to check for undue weight?? If not what is the point of the sentence? How would you clarify this (if you can) for me and my unsound logic?

If I am in New York City, then I am in the United States. If I am in the United States, then I am in New York City. One of these is always true, the other is not always true. Brusegadi 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
OK, look at the first statement, Jimbo is talking about substantiating (proving) the existence of a majority view with commonly accepted referenced texts.
So you are saying that the purpose of the second statement is not to do the same substantiate (prove) the existence of a minority view with a list of adherents? If not, again I ask you, what is the purpose of the second statement? Or all the statements for that matter? I think both of you are underestimating the worth of these points, and are claiming that his statements do not clarify anything about giving undue weight. The machine512 08:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You said "Moreover, the people in your list do not hold a particular view. They hold different views that only have one aspect in common." Right, they do have one aspect in common "opposition of the consensus" But sharing in this is not an adequately unified view, and should therefore be omitted?

A devout catholic and an atheist both do not believe in Allah. Should their views be placed in parallel in an article about the existence of God? Brusegadi 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Because, Allah is not even worth mentioning, it is a specific type of God. The article questions the existence of all Gods in general. If Allah was needed to be mentioned, then why not? Just state why.
But this article is not about the *existence* of global warming. It is about global warming. Should the *existence of God* be brought up on the page about God? Well apparently it is. So what is the difference here? The machine512 11:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is only a short summary paragraph about the existence of God on God and then a link to another article. And of course that article is not in any way recognised or featured to make it a precedent for this one. --BozMo talk 16:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

3. "Debate": There are plenty of scientific debate points on that page. Therefore I don't see how you can claim "there is [only] a public debate, not a scientific one".

The machine512 14:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anthropogenic global warming

Also look at this survey.

"Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade."

If this holds true then why is so much weight given to anthropogenic global warming in this article? The machine512 16:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess, "Surveys aren't science" or "They are funded by ExxonMobil" The machine512 16:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Because its old (you noticed that, didn't you?) and because the US state climatologists are... well, only US; and not clearly appointed for climate-science-research expertise William M. Connolley 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahem... Please note that the study was done nearly ten years ago by Citizens for a Sound Economy, a "free-market", "anti-environmentalist" advocacy group in the US, polling then-government-appointees. There is no longer any significant mainstream debate about the influence of anthropogenic factors on global warming. So, to be frank, it's a junk science poll, one which implies there still was a fundamental substantive debate in the scientific community even ten years ago. And, it's attempted use to influence the WP article's content today is even farther away from the facts of the matter. ... Kenosis 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
...and the question was formulated really badly: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement "The overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory but now a fact, that global warming is for real. There is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the global climate..." Would you agree or disagree with this statement?. I could certainly disagree with that statement, not only for grammatical and stylistic reasons, but also because "disrupting" is undefined, and because it implicititely misinterpretes "fact" and "theory" as degrees on a scale when they are very different things. And the sample is very small. And CSE is indeed sponsored by Exxon[38]... --Stephan Schulz 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

1997 is too old eh?

Yes, 1997 is too old. The IPCC SAR was published 1995/1996, and stated the then current position as "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". Note how the CSE question was asking for the overwhelming balance of evidence and disrupting the global climate, i.e. a much stronger position than presented by the IPCC. --Stephan Schulz 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK what about this survey by Dr. Dennis Bray of Germany in 2003 surveying scientists from around the world [39] (PDF)...

"To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? A value of 1 indicates "strongly agree" and a value of 7 indicates "strongly disagree".

Frequencies:

  • 1 strongly agree 50 (9.4% of valid responses)
  • 2 134 (25.3% of valid responses)
  • 3 112 (21.1% of valid responses)
  • 4 75 (14.2% of valid responses)
  • 5 45 (8.5% of valid responses)
  • 6 60 (10.8% valid responses)
  • 7 strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of valid responses)

"These results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong and only 9.4% of the respondents "strongly agree" that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes."

The machine512 17:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say this is truly remarkable stuff, this assertion of a mainstream scientific "debate" in the year 2006. Not far around the corner is a day when no person who wishes credit for rationality and responsibility will want to admit to having taken such a position as is implied by the assertion that there is a real debate about anthopogenic influences involving overconsumption and other widespread abuses of the planet. (Among the likely excuses would appear to include "the evidence wasn't in yet", "I was misled", and "that wasn't what I meant".) Yet, here we are arguing about it. ... Kenosis 17:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"overconsumption and other widespread abuses of the planet" Uhhuhh. What does overconsumption have to do with global warming? You aren't a biased agenda pushing editor are you? The machine512 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Resorting to personal attacks should have been predictable based on the recent assertions made on this talk page and in other global warming related WP articles by User:The_machine512. I hereby retract my prior assumption of good faith. Have a nice day. ... Kenosis 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It could be pushing it too far claiming that there is a consensus about there being an "over"consumption and that there are widespread abuses of the planet (the latter as compared to the benefit this has to humans). I guess that is a centre-left point of view as of today. Some might hold that an economic depression due to mitigation of global warming to decrease consumption would be so uncomfortable that its impact might be worse (for humans, of course) than the reduction in warming. --Also, some may argue that the pollution/energy problem could be solved through massive construction of nuclear and solar power plants. Just speculating, I don't know a lot about these things. All this is outside the scope of this article anyway - Mitigation of global warming would be the correct place to discuss it, I guess. Narssarssuaq 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Kenosis, I am concerned about this article, as I do feel it displays a biased position. Is being concered wrong? I have essentially stated it before that I feel (and others feel) that the people watching and editing this article are biased agenda pushers! I'm sorry if this surprises or upsets you, but we feel its true, and there is nothing we can do about it because we are being reverted. The machine512 18:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Look I've been personally attacked for having "Unsound Logic" on undue weight, so don't feel so bad. The machine512 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
What was attacked was what the logics of what you said, not you. Pointing out particular fallacies in other people's reasoning is never a personal attack, as long as it's in good faith. Narssarssuaq 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The statement by User:The machine512, specifically "You aren't a biased agenda pushing editor are you?" was an obvious attempt to frame the issue as one of political or ideological predisposition on my part rather than on the merits of the issues being discussed. The substantive issue of overconsumption and "abuse" vs. mere "use" of the planet, if that was the issue intended to be discussed, is one that should be discussed on its merits. The personalization of the issue in terms of a new question whether Kenosis is a "biased agenda pushing editor" was plainly not merely an "observation" of a logical flaw. As to whether there is a logical flaw, I would assert that each of the observations I made about rationality, being out-of-date by nearly a decade on a topic that has gotten the attention of most of the scientific community only within the past two-to-three decades, about the socio-economic political bias of the organization conducting the poll and the political standing of those polled, as well as the observation about likely excuses for some of those persons' past participation in a scheme to defraud the public about the facts of global warming in order to further their highly selfish and myopic economic agendas, are all highly relevant to this talk page discussion, and all very demonstrable even if not part of the scientific consensus per se. That said, I agree that as far as choice of which WP article is most appropriate to cover such issues, the material regarding "overconsumption" and "abuse of the planet" is more relvant to policy discussions covered in mitigation of global warming than it is to this article. ... Kenosis 19:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So if 30% disagree, and 15% are "not sure" that global warming is anthropogenic why does this article give so much bias toward anthropogenic global warming? The machine512 18:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Brays 2003 survey was not published, you'll notice. In fact it was rejected. I don't know exactly why, but I would reject it for lack of control on who could participate. The design of the survey prohibited them from knowing if people sent in multiple replies; or any knowledge of who replied at all; and it was posted on skepic mailing lists William M. Connolley 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd assume Bray's "survey" is unpublishable because it's a methodological disaster. It was posted online with no attempt to verify respondents, no attempt to obtain a random sample, and only the crudest attempt to detect duplicate submissions (by looking for responses that gave exactly the same answers). It's worse than useless for its intended purpose. Raymond Arritt 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at that survey before. The full data is here. From the survey:
  • "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway." is 82% vs. 12% (median of 2)
  • "There is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions." is 15% vs. 80% (median of 6)
  • "The IPCC reports accurately reflect the consensus of thought within the scientific community." 72% vs. 20% (median of 2)
The question you (and other sceptics) like to pick out is actually misleading, as few people claim that "climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes". The current episode of global warming is, but there are 4.5 billion years of climate change without any human intervention (and before you misinterprete me: "Listen, your honour, people have been dying withour my intervention for 50000 years. Even if I did shoot him, there is no reason to believe that that was the cause of his death!"). --Stephan Schulz 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2)I don't know - what about the survey? Where was it published? What methodology was used? The pdf you linked to references a "survey", but there's no information about the survey. The fact that they (apparently) couldn't be bothered to publish this survey makes it very suspect (especially from such an unreliable source). Guettarda 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So essentially what you've all said is that "Surveys aren't science" (none of the ones I can present) or "They are funded by ExxonMobil". What surveys will you believe? The ones in your favor? The machine512 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That rather suggests that surveys are desirable. They aren't, always - it very much depends on the survey, those surveyed, etc. In this case, a survey of noted climatologists conducted by an independant research group would probably stand the best chance of being 1) relevant and 2) neutral. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You do have a point when citing "Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade". Present global warming has not for many years been thought to be anthropogenic. However, there has for a long time been a concensus about future global warming, which is the main point. Narssarssuaq 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
A survey or two does not decide the scientific consensus. What does decide the consensus is the results of scientific research (don't say duh! Read the paragraphs above!). For example, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all publicly announced that 1) there is global warming, 2) it is a serious problem, and 3) human activity is a primary causal factor.
Instead of mucking around with surveys, find articles from peer-reviewed science journals which argue that global warming is not human-caused. Do these exist in large numbers? The now-famous Oreskes study suggests that they do not. If someone can provide three or more examples of such articles from peer-reviewed journals published within the past decade, there might be reason to doubt the solidity of the scientific consensus. Otherwise, forget about it. When a body of over a thousand scientists from over a hundred different countries which has been convened specifically to look at global warming science comes to the near-unanimous conclusion that it is, in fact, human caused (I'm talking about the UN's IPPC), a few Michael Crichtons and Steven Milloys here and there don't amount to squat. Dicksonlaprade 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to forget the 2005 Joint Statement by the Academies of Science of the G8 countries plus China, India and Brazil. Hardern 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. One is the general utility of surveys (or lack thereof), but in this specific case there's also the issue of reliable sources - this is a second-hand reference to an unpublished survey. It isn't something we can use to write an encyclopaedia article. Guettarda 20:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

From the article "Only a small minority of climate scientists discount the role that humanity's actions have played in recent warming." I suggest changing the loaded wording from "Only a small minority of climate scientists discount the role... to "A minority of climate scientists discount the extent of the role..." This removes the "only" and "small" words that are already implicate in the word "minority" and notes that the disagreement is to the extent of human contribution. IE, a single, human produced molecule of methane may add to global warming but its extent is minimal. The inclusion of these words "only" "small" serves as an attempt to enhance the extent of the minority when there is no clear refernces as to said extent. 70.90.102.194~~

You can't change it, you'll be reverted. Speaking of reversions, this has got to be the most reverted article on wikipedia. Just look at the history. The machine512 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree "Only" should go, for the reasons stated. "Small" is needed for accuracy. Without the qualifier, "minority" could go all the way to 49.999%. Raymond Arritt 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the way it is right now, "Only a small minority". Hardern 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps 'A very small minority'? I don't know how many - would even one percent of climate scientists be disputing AGW?

Modifications to intro

I believe that it should be mentioned in the introduction on this article that certain aspects of the "Global Warming Theory" are still in dispute. I proprose a well rounded, non-contradictory or inflamatory statement to that affect be posted as an addition to the first paragraph. I already posted one, but the administrators suggested I discuss it first, so, does anyone have a problem with that. Remember that my contribution can of course be edited after I make it. Any problems? Suggestions? I have no problem with splitting the article, as long as the intro mentions that. ----Borghuman 09:56, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Sorry, but your proposed addition is very much out of line with the current (and indeed the last 30 years) state of knowledge. The Oregon Petition is essentially worthless (less generous people would call it fraudulent), you are confusing weather and climate (climate is much easier to predict, and can, under reasonably assumptions, be predicted to a reasonably degree of accuracy decades in advance. The plot on globalwarmingart shows (reconstructed) local temperatures, and has a 300 year resolution, while the current episode of global warming is only about 150 years old. I'm not aware of any published peer-reviewed literature that contradicts the IPCC consensus (and you give no good reference to any). In short, this is not an improvement. If you think you can argue any of the points to a reasonable level of verifiability and weight, please argue them here.--Stephan Schulz 05:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I also noticed the way you bolded "Theory". As it has been mentioned repeatedly in many many forums, websites and wikipedia talk pages, a theory is not automatically dismissable as being "only probably true". On the contrary, a theory is usally assembled from established facts. That is, if you are using the scientific terminology, and saying the "Global Warming Theory" would be it's scientific use. Specusci 18:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Is global warming a bad thing?

It is widely reported in britain that water shortages are becoming more and more common such as the shortages in Essex. Surely gloabal warming and melting of the ice caps will result in a wide supply of liquid for commercial and recrreational purposes. This will reduce the need for hose pipe bans and as a result the general morale of the nation could rise. Also many areas of the world that will be affected are poor such as mexico and pakistan. Drowning these places could clense the world of poverty and the unaffected areas could start a fresh uniting in the need to survive resulting in a global frienship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.5.247.66 (talk • contribs) 16:45, December 12, 2006 (UTC).

Ever seen "The day after tomorrow"? It might not be that rapid, but thats pretty much what will happen. You might actually have less water, because it'll be locked up in more ice. Not only that, but you'll pretty much have a canadian winter...all year. (Canadian winters are typically -30/40 degrees celsius). Specusci 18:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not what will happen, rapid or otherwise. --Spiffy sperry 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There would be less ice if there was a global warming. Global warming means the Earth warms everywhere, not just in certain places (then again, the warming right now is only mostly going on in the Northern hemisphere isn't it?). It seems like there would also be a higher albedo due to much more water vapour in the air. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You wrote, "Global warming means the Earth warms everywhere, not just in certain places...". Actually, that's not true. That's the great thing about GW; cooling in certain places doesn't falsify the theory. --Spiffy sperry 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, water vapour decreases the effective albedo (it is itself a greenhouse gas). Clouds (i.e. condensed water droplets or frozen crystals, not water vapour) can increase the albedo. But cloud formation depends (among many other factors) on relative humidity, not on absolute humidity. And I'm not aware of any current research that claims that warming is restricted to the Northern hemisphere. --Stephan Schulz 23:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


For a short period cloud cover warms things up, however, too much for too long and you start getting really cold. I think this was one of the brilliant theories that made $$$ for scientists back a few decades ago. Too many kids going to college creates theories on which we can spend $$$$ - my personal theory. Non-college related jobs tend to create polluters not thinkers - they are too busy to notice .1 degree one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 January 2007

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the same thing as Anthropogenic Global Cooling, just with different words

Global Cooling was a theory that all prominent climatologists allegedly embraced, but now they say "it was just a theory that never gained wide acceptance", despite what the articles of the 1970s said. Soon Global Warming, which is now said to be accepted by all climatologists as fact (even though the evidence proves otherwise), soon it will be dismissed as a theory that never gained wide acceptance. All we need for that to occur is a downward trend in temperatures, much like what occured from 1940-1995. Then Global Cooling will become fact, and Global Warming will be "just a theory that a few fringe climatologists embraced, unlike Global Cooling, which we embraced all along". Then the story will change back to pollutants blocking out the sun causing cooling, rather than greenhouse gasses causing a rise in temperature. Just to let everyone know, whatever global warming is going on (as opposed to the theory, Global Warming) is mostly caused by a chemical called Dihydrogen Monoxide, also known as DHMO, and more commonly known as H2O, or water.

Please add a neutrality dispute tag to this article, this is the most biased article I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and one of the most biased that I have ever read on the internet. It consists of opinions intermixed with the occasional rigged statistic, and makes a complete strawman out of the opposition, and that's being far too kind. The above facts aren't even mentioned, and the Little Ice Age is mostly given the brush off, and I see NO mention of the Medivel Warm Period, where temperatures rised farther and more rapidly than they have been today. This article makes CNN and CBS seem fair and balanced by comparison.

PS: If you really are concerned about Global Warming, I suggest privatizing third world land and going with clean, efficent nuclear power, instead of allowing the Sahara Desert to expand and coal and oil power plants to throw out pollutants left and right. According to the Global Warming theory, that is what needs to be done. And also recognize that third world nations are the biggest contributers to pollution and environmental destruction, NOT first world nations like the United States. The Kyoto legislation was nothing more than an example of leftist greed to punish the United States and line their pockets, since afterall, third world nations aren't rich with money like we are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.186.136.109 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Veuillez ne pas nourrir les trolls. Raymond Arritt 06:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite. A quick look at the other edits done by this IP in the same session and move on...--BozMo talk 10:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Un sous-produit normal de démocratie et de discours libre. ... Kenosis 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Sadly true. With free speech comes the responsibility to be vigilant concerning those who abuse it. -Amatulic 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Troll? I'm not a troll, I've done nothing wrong, although some have who share my IP, I'd like to hang them from the highest tree. If that's what you meant by the "troll" comment, that wasn't me. However, if you mean I'm a troll for not accepting the propoganda by the media, then I guess Gallileo, Columbus, and so on would be trolls by today's standards. The world is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth, and if you don't agree, then you're going against what "everybody knows to be true", right?
The simple way of disassociating you from them is to register an account and use it. This actually increases anonymity (as the IP is easier to trace than the arbitrary user name), and helps with personal accountability. Accounts are free and do not require the disclosure of any private information. Registration takes about 1 minute.--Stephan Schulz 12:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is biased, get over it. No amount of namecalling your opponents isn't going to change the fact that this is just a more sophisticated version of making a sacrifice to the thunder gods, hoping that they will grant us a stable climate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.224.118 (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Biomass

Just noticed the bit on Biomass seems to imply that only plants growing on land matter matter. Given that growing plants in the sea has been looked at as a deliberate carbon sink and in the 80s was looked at as an alternative fuel source perhaps the wording should be a bit more general (e.g. "Soil or sea nutrient levels") etc. Views?--BozMo talk 11:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this (Plankton), there was an interesting article in last week's Nature (just to let you know):
  • Nature Abstract: doi:10.1038/nature05317
  • News @ ScienceNOW: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1206/2
  • News @ NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/warm_marine_multimedia.html
--Hardern 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Tipping point

(1) The "tipping point" mentioned in one of the external links at the bottom isn't mentioned in the article. However, one often finds that it is referred to, mostly quite casually, in the media. Maybe we could include a sentence or so about what is known and what isn't known about this subject. I would guess that some readers are interested in sorting out the facts about this. (2) Also, regarding this link [40] - it says, "The new research adds a third component, by calculating the likely contribution of carbon dioxide released from natural ecosystems such as soil as temperatures rise". -- Is the contribution from soil (and thus also bogs, I guess) really not part of IPCC's models?! I find that hard to believe. Narssarssuaq 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I recommend http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/ William M. Connolley 22:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to remember - this is just a THEORY

Global warming is a theory - albeit with a lot of supporters, vested interests, and mounting scientific evidence - but still just a theory. A lot of theories don't pan out, and until they do, they should not be presented as fact. In all, this article is well balanced, but it is still describing what we *think* is happening, based on the evidence, and the distinction between fact and theory is a very important one here on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:84.9.253.132 (talk • contribs)

Actually I kind of agree with this comment. The article describes scientific consensus (which is accurate) but the reader is left to judge whether scientific consensus is likely to be right or not. There are a few recent examples like the millenium bug where mankind put huge resources into something possibly unnecessarily as a result of a (hyped-up) consensus of interested scientists. How I wish it was the same for Global Warming... --BozMo talk 13:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ad 1: A scientific theory is the best you can have in science. See the "Theory of Gravity", the "Theory of Relativity", and the "Theory of Quantum Mechanics". A theory can be well-supported or less well-supported or even refuted (with AGW being rather well supported, but not on the same level as e.g. relativity). As often, the term "Global warming" is used for both the observable fact (temperatures are rising) and the scientific theory explaining this fact (i.e. mainly the increased greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic greenhoues gas emmissions, +several higher-order effects).
      Gravity is a Law and not a Theory.69.241.40.207 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Theories are not all of the same certainty. The theories that global warming is compared to in the above statement have been demonstrated by scientific experiments, and do not have evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, the observed global warming is based on complicated numerical models incorporating measurements from around the world for a geologically short period of history - not from repeated experiments. As for the theory of the cause of the observation of increasing temperature, that system is even more complicated to model. The qualification of calling global warming a "theory" is to remind everybody that there exists substantial uncertainty in the observations and in the mechanisms by which it might occur. --Gabeh 08:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ad 2: I'm not aware that the year 2000 problem ever was a serious scientific one. It was an engineering problem, a lot of resources were thrown at it, and it was solved (or at least contained). It's quite possible that too many resources were thrown at it, but we don't know what would have happened had we used less. --Stephan Schulz 13:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Nothing like stating the obvious I suppose (although of course you could argue there are also some axioms in Science which are better than theories). But are you suggesting that Computer Science should more properly be called Computer Engineering? As a mathmo I'll leave you to slug it out. ;) --BozMo talk 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Computer science is just discrete maths. Computer building is mostly EE nowadays. The year-2000 trouble was IT... ;-). --Stephan Schulz 23:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The millenium bugs where fixed in time by a lot of programmers and software engineers (not by scientists) because of that "unnecessarily waste of resources". Had they not been fixed, a lot of problems would have occurred. As an example: some of my company's clients did not upgrade (our economic software) in time and they had big problems with invoices and statistics after 2000 didn't show up (I fixed many related bugs in that software myself). It was a real problem. Kricke 23:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I essentially agree - note that I said "quite possible", not "a lot was wasted". And while this is veering off-topic: There was quite some science (and scientists) involved, too. As an example, a couple of rewrite- and logic-based systems were developed that automatically went through large code bases and fixed them to a reasonable degree. --Stephan Schulz 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So what's going to happen? Is the world eventually going to become like Venus— too hot for any living thing? Or is it just a spike in temperatures that are likely to simply go down again? Is this whole thing the reason our winters are getting nastier and nastier (little or no snow; mild temperatures)? Please tell me, I'm dying to know! Scorpionman 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Most likely this is just a spike, but a spike that could be with use several 100 to several 1000 years. Short on a geological time scale, but long on a human one. Whether any particular weather event is a result of globa warming is hard to say. But yes, in many regions of the world, the winters will become warmer and possibly nastier... --Stephan Schulz 23:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The anon IP user User:84.9.253.132 above wrote: "Global warming is a theory". Well as I (a non-scientist) understands the article - the actual warming of the Earth's climate is observed fact, not theory. The theories relate to explaining why this warming is occurring, and if it is doing so at an unnatural, perhaps disastrously rapid rate. Even George W. Bush has publicly accepted that global warming is occurring and that this is a serious problem (but he denies or ducks the question of how much man-made emissions are a crucial factor)[41] [42]Bwithh 00:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. See my comment above. Global warming is an overloaded term, used for both the fact and the explanation (i.e. the theory explaining the fact and allowing us to predict further changes in the future). --Stephan Schulz 00:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I also find this article to be biased. Clearly there have been cooling cycles within the last 50 years, so to say we are unarguably warming is false, unless you limit your observation to a period - such as "over the last 10 years". Because there was a cooling cycle well after we became industrialized, it's further unreasonable to explain warming as being caused by the growth of industry. Finally, a consensus among like-minded individuals (IPCC), does not make the theory fact. 65.160.201.88 02:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...the IPCC authors are not a group of "like-minded individuals", but the cream of the international climatology community. The global temperature over the last 150 or so years is well understood and can be explained to a very high degree of precision by looking at natural and artificial forcings, with the temporary downward trend starting in the mid 1940s or so being mostly caused by sulphur aerosols. There is not serious doubt even among deniers that the climate is warming. --Stephan Schulz 19:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Skeptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as some have suggested, "obfuscate" the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the "consensus" argument, and they compel necessary corrections... --The Outhouse Mouse 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and we can be absolutely sure that it will destroy the world (give me a break). More research is need, Stephen. MORE RESEARCH. A spike in the global temperature is not evidence of global warming— how do you know that this hasn't happened in the past 2,000 years or so? The "Little Ice Age" that occured from the 1300's to the 1800's was no doubt a result of volcanic activity and the fact that there wasn't much methane emissions. Of course, methane has caused some warmup, but it's probably affected by a natural fluctuation occuring on the sun (like a series of solar flares or some such thing). If you are as worried as you appear to be about this "fact", then stop farting so much. That's where a lot of the methane comes from— cow and people flatulence. It's not vulgar, it's the truth. Scorpionman 13:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
More research is something that every scientist will consent to. But that does not mean we do not already have a reasonably good understanding of the climate - sufficiently well to understand the core mechanisms of global warming. "A spike in the global temperature" is the very definition of global warming. An observed spike in the temperature is not by itself sufficient evidence to induce the theory of anthropogenic global warming. But then, the core of this theory has been around since long before we could observe the warming. The observed warming trend confirms the theory that is based on a reasonably good understanding of the radiative and absorbing properties of the Earth and atmospheric gases. The "little ice age", if it existed as a global phenomenon, was correlated with both some volcanic activity and a reduction in solar activity (see e.g. the Maunder minimum), and so your "no doubt" is misplaced. This is the first time that I hear about reduced methane emissions during that time - do you have a source? And yes, human flatulence does produce methane, but in negligible amounts compared to ruminants and other sources (losses in natural gas production and transport, rice paddies, termites, ...). And of course, something can be both vulgar and the truth. --Stephan Schulz 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Help! Our planet is doomed! Within a couple years, the world's climates will grow too hot to live in. People everywhere will drop dead because of the heat! The icebergs and glaciers will melt and the oceans will flood and cover the continents. Then we will be plunged into the next ice age, which is due soon, and everything will freeze over and Earth will become lifeless like Pluto! What will we do? We are doomed! Ratso 14:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, now let's fix up Global Cooling, so that it's recognized as the official climatological statement of the 1970s, and not just brushed aside as some cockamaney theory, like Global Warming will see happening to it as soon as we go into another cooling trend.

Apart from your misrepresentation of global cooling assessment in the 1970s: Would you bet some money on that the world is going to cool "soon"? Hardern 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the Y2K problem should not be used as an example of a supposedly unjustified scare. The reason why bad things didn't happen on 01/01/00 was because smart people took action (reprogramming software) to stop them from happening. JohnDziak 23:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I might note that the mere consensus amongst certain left-wing academics with an axe to grind does not make something true. There used to be consensus that the earth was flat but we now know that's not true. When it all boils down, there can be no science when consensus is involved. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I wish you would at least stop using this worn-out cliche. There never was a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat. There probably was not even a popular consensus ever since Ugh, Ogh, and Krork looked over Lake Tanganyika. It certainly has not been a consensus or even majority position among educated people in the western tradition in the last two thousand years. --Stephan Schulz 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Everybody, please. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. That's how this whole section started. I have added the appropriate warning at the top of this section. -Amatulic 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's so much easier to call someone a name than to engage in an intellectual discourse. --The Outhouse Mouse 16:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You mean as in
?--Stephan Schulz 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As the OP for this section, can I just advise you, Amatulic, that not everyone who happens to disagree with your POV is a troll. That is one of the most inane and immature comments I've ever seen posted by a regular on here and I suggest you think out your responses before resorting to mere abuse like that. My point was that Global Warming - as the consensus has it right now - is still a theory. I'm certainly not trying to rubbish the theory, but would have preferred to have seen it in proper context: the evidence is compelling, but not conclusive - and we probably won't know for decades... at which point we can look back and either validate it or be able to say it was all, indeed, a spike. The long term history of the planet has encompassed far wilder temperature and climate changes than anything we can expect, so very important questions remain regarding what seems to happening now actually represents (and more pertinently whether *we* have caused it and indeed whether we can do anything about it by reducing emissions or raising taxes).

Apart from your own completely unproductive comment, the responses in this section have been measured and interesting: I think the Y2K bug scare analogy is a good one - did we actually stop a disaster through our actions, or was there really no disaster actually in the offing anyway? We may never know.

What's important here, for nayone who comes to Wikipedia to learn more about this subject, is that it's presented not as a "set in stone" fact, but as a theory. Gaining ground, yes, with growing evidence, yes, but still just a theory - especially as the term itself now encompasses a far larger environmental and political meaning than "the world has been getting hotter" (which may be scientifically correct in itself - it's the causes that are at issue).

So with respect sir, I would ask you to be a bit more circumspect when it comes to throwing terms like "troll" around. I raised this point, after all, in the discussion section, rather than tamper with the actual article as it stands.

Apologies for sounding flippant, but to be honest, I have gotten sick and tired of these "just a theory" comments from people who have no understanding of how science works, who use the word "theory" in the sense of "speculation" or "conjecture."
"Theory" has a precise scientific meaning; i.e. a consistant explanation for observations of fact. Gravity is "just a theory" too, but I see nobody debating it because it doesn't skewer anybody's sacred cows, or intrude on closed minds.
Using the word "just" (as in "merely") implies that the writer has no knowledge or scientific background concerning what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. And therein lies my point: the phrase "just a theory" is a sign of a troll, or at least someone interested in promoting an ignorant POV.
Note that none of what I wrote above relates to global warming. My comment is directed solely to the misuse of the word "theory" by trolls on this page. -Amatulic 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Skeptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as some have suggested, "obfuscate" the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the "consensus" argument, and they compel necessary corrections... --The Outhouse Mouse 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As User:Stephan Schulz has eloquently stated, global warming (a positive long-term trend in global surface temperatures) is an observed fact, not a theory. Strictly speaking, the theory in question is called the "greenhouse effect." We know that so-called greenhouse gases (CO2, etc.) absorb infrared radiation, but are transparent to solar radiation (this is also a fact), but the introduction of other potential feedback mechanisms within the earth system greatly complicates the modeling of this. All of this is independent of politics (thank God). LotR 18:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Name-calling (e.g. childish overuse of the word "troll" for anyone who urges caution or offers a slightly different POV) is a form of bullying and has no place in this kind of debate. It is laughable for someone whose first resort is to label a new voice a "troll" and then talk about promoting "ignorant" POVs.

We live in a fascinating time - we are extrapolating given current facts into future trends that may have grave consequences for us all. "Global warming", though, has come to mean more than specifically just the undoubted heating up of the globe in the last few years. What is debatable, however, is the future - will it continue? This is where fact meets theory. Supoose next year the earth starts to cool again for several decades, then warms again, then cools again. What are we to make of it? We are trying to make sense of this as we go along, but we cannot call a future event a "fact" just yet. That we have got warmer is a fact. That we will continue to get warmer is a theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.253.132 (talk • contribs). 07:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a Theory?. The Global Warming/ Climate change trend is a concrete fact and the evidence points to it. Why do people insist on denying reality? Does denial comfort you? The fact that a vast majority of the world's greatest scientists, including Stephen Hawkings, are warning us about what will happen doesn't even budge you? People that are denying the reality of this phenomena are implying that we should wait it out. But don't you see how dangerous that idea is? Even the slim chance or idea that Global Warming is real should prompt us to do something because failure to do so will prove to be our biggest mistake, ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turbo Ronin on 02:12, December 31, 2006
I believe the topic-starter meant global warming, it's anthropogenity, and the estimated future effects of any of several continuations. This I believe is the normal, everyday meaning of "Global Warming." And that, I believe is not in the theory realm. We have observed a global warming, but are still guessing to the effects and talking out how much or how little the warming had/has to do with human interaction in the climate systems. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation format

Are there any objection to changing inline link references to use <ref> tags and Citation templates? —Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not from me. Anybody else? Hardern 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Not from me, but I know others object - [43] and [44]. --Spiffy sperry 15:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the archived discussions. I don't think there is any thing I can add to the discussion, and nothing has changed technicality. So I'm not going to change it unless the people who original opposed the idea have changed their mind. Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 12:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You can do a ref/Harvard hybrid, such as the one on Charles Darwin. It's harder to set up, though. Titoxd(?!?) 22:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, for some of the web reference on the page you have to click 3 times to get to open the link, and 5 to open the link in a new tab, and return to where you were in the text. It's over kill. Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 12:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For which ones do you need three clicks? And why do you need more clicks for tabbed browsing?? Hardern 09:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example: ref number 91 (can be found in the section Reaction to the publication in the 4 paragraph. First you click on [91] link, you get taken to Citations section. Then you have to click on "Bartholomew 1976", which takes you to the References section. Only then can you click on the link which take you the the web version of the text.

I did not say you need more clicks just to open in a new tab. I said:

...and 5 to open the link in a new tab, and return to where you were in the text.

Been able to do this with one click is the main argument for keeping line links.

Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 10:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that now. Yeah, that IS annoying the way it is done there. Hardern 14:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming

I just thought that the headline 'Nomenclature' should be replaced with something a little simpler, such as 'Terminology' or 'Naming'. Any thoughts? I'm all for using the most precise words possible, but where simpler ones exist that convey the same meaning, we should try and use those. This is an encyclopedia after all, not a journal... Mostlyharmless 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "Terminology". --Stephan Schulz 08:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Why not just link it to an existing wikipedia article for the less knowledgable? Or at least, a dictionary definition? Specusci 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiation and cooling

I'm surprised that anyone objected, but cooling via radiation is a valid point of view of the process. All purely thermal equilibrium are a mixture of concurrent heating and cooling. That is just the definition of equilibrium. I think that if you have a problem with that wordage then you're getting hung up on the verbiage and not the concept. Mathchem271828 03:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified it a bit. I have no serious problem with it, but I don't see it as a huge improvement, either. Maybe we should add something about equilibrium and radiation balance to make it clearer for laymen? --Stephan Schulz 08:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a tiny bit of info on negative feedback effects on Effects of global warming. I couldn't find that in the global warming article right now. Narssarssuaq 09:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I would have guessed that radiation is the primary negative feedback mechanism. Bye the way, has anyone seen long term predictions (with suitable assumptions) to an equilibrium point? Chrisnumbers2000 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by an "equilibrium point" -- there are lots of different kinds of equilibria. Most models have done so-called 2xCO2 runs; i.e., long runs with CO2 concentration set at double the pre-industrial value, in order to establish the equilibrium response to doubled CO2. Is that what you mean? Raymond Arritt 05:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. What is the general outcome? I have only seen projections of the planet's transient response to 2100. Chrisnumbers2000 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this representative of what you have seen? http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/fig10.gif For Southeastern US it roughly shows a +5 and +10 degree change for a respective doubling and quadroupling of CO2 Chrisnumbers2000 15:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of 2xCO2 usually is to compute "climate sensitivity" (jargon for the global temperature increase expected from a doubling of CO2). Results from the previous IPCC assessment are in this chapter. Here's a nice little cookbook for setting up a 2xCO2 run, if you're interested in that sort of thing. (NB. We're straying a bit from the intent of the Talk page, which is to discuss the article rather than the topic.) Raymond Arritt 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, good article! Cheers, bye the way. I will take a look. Chrisnumbers2000 15:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has problems (RFC responses)

I came here from requests for comments about an edit war.

From my perspective there are more important things to tackle in this article than reverts.

  • The writing style appears turgid (if not moribund with inaccessibility). (This article has one of the worst intros I have seen so far in Wiki).
  • The use of SI units is inconsistent.
  • Headings do not seem to accurately reflect the contents

Candy 06:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the intro should be rewritten into something much more concise, and leftover info should be moved into paragraphs. However, the article is so long that there is use for an abstract or overview in the beginning. Narssarssuaq 13:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm also watchlisting this article from the same RFC, although I'm mostly away till Jan 2nd. I'll try to be useful here and help out, if the editors are still in conflict at that time. Not really time to do much now, though. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I remember the German sister page to this article seemed to do a nice job. (Chrisnumbers2000 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

Do you think it would be appropriate =

Do you think it would be appropriate to start a Wikipedia entry for Climate Project Presentors to list those trained to present locally?

The page could be subdivided by country and state.

Thoughts? Better title?

SweetGodiva 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what they are supposed to be. Can you elaborate a bit? --Stephan Schulz 15:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a good idea but doesn't belong in Wikipedia. See WP:NOT, especially "Wikipedia is not a directory." Let me know when you get around to implementing it and I may well sign on as a presenter. Raymond Arritt 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
These are the 1000 people to be trained by Al Gore from around the nation and world. http://www.climateproject.org/
Perhaps they will ave a list to point to on that site or http://www.theclimateproject.org
05:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Global warming in popular culture

I strongly recommend deleting this material or putting it elsewhere. The main article already is long and tends to sprawl over a wide range of subtopics. I'll wait a few days for comment and then delete it, unless there's a clear opposing consensus. Raymond Arritt 18:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it, it's an excellent source of information and it's down past the references so it doesn't take away from the main article. --Calibas 03:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete it. These "popular culture" sections tell us nothing about the subject in hand. They just attract trivia, bloating the article size. No-one looks up "global warming" to find out how many times it has been mentioned on South Park. --Michael Johnson 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I surely understand the wish to remove such a section, being as it is closely related to such things as urban myths, popular science, popular culture, junk science and a host of other cultural phenomena that can involve major distortions of fact. The juncture between empirically based insights about global warming and popular conceptions that affect policy and action on a global scale, though, is important insofar as it allows a meeting place between the popular views and the views based on extensive research by the scientific community and others familiar with scientific methodology. Offhand, I'd think some connection between the two should remain visible in this article. ... Kenosis 04:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There are far too many things that could possibly be listed William M. Connolley 11:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If it's to be kept, it should be in a seperate article. Simply because the article is too long. Narssarssuaq 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I say keep it. Someone might want this information for various purposes; if it is not to be kept in the article, then a seperate entry should be made for it. Specusci 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of this question if the article is too long what else can we spin off into another article? --BozMo talk 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, taking all responses into account, I've spun it off to Global warming in popular culture and added a link to it in the last sentence of the intro. This actually is a worthwhile topic for the reasons mentioned by Kenosis -- such references are important in shaping the public debate. It just doesn't fit with the main article. I'd be interested in seeing someone flesh out the pop culture angle. Raymond Arritt 02:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to Global warming in popular culture. So we now also have our "connection" between empirical and popular views referred to above, which, I would hope, will serve as a convenient place to refer users who wish to dwell on such views. ... Kenosis 03:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues

Well, I am very displeased with this article and with wikipedia for not wishing to ensure that all sides of the issue be reported on this sensitive topic. The integrity of this article is only about a 50 out of 100. I too have added information to the introduction of this article lending mere existance to the fact that global warming is still disputed by some, and it too has dissappeared or was even removed by wikipedia. I believe that enough discussion has occurred here, as per their request, to warrant that tiny tidbit of informaton being sited fairly in the INTRODUCTION of this article, alongside the rant in the INTRODUCTION that argues for global warming. If Wikipedia cannot do something so simple and fair and chooses to support silencing those whose views are contrary to their own, as a supposedly fair, balanced, and factual encyclopedia, I will have to boycott further use of this resource, because it's no resource when the information in it is purposefully skewed and where the encyclopedia takes actions that blatently support the skewing of information and the omission of facts. Wikipedia monitors this article has has repeatedly removed such additions that alter the single-sided position of this article, for one my own addition. Therefore, wikipedia, I request once again that this information be added and it's evidence for that sited, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT DEMEANING LANGUAGE, in this article, as this is only fair and factual. My previous changes are on file and I would not mind them being replaced. The controversary section isn't enough because it's language is clearly demeaning to any idea that does not support global warming and the introduction starts out stating it as a fact without lending weight to other views. I don't have a problem with calling global warming a fact, I simply want it stated that it is a fact that many people still dissagree and have good evidence to support that idea. Just because Al Gore thinks we're headed for death doesn't make it so, as was pointed out in the last post here that just because a leader says that everyone agrees with him doesn't make it true. I remind you that plenty of action groups, left wing radical groups and individuals, non-existant scientists, and other disreputable groups and people have also supported global warming, and therefore, I want to state for the record that just because an oil tycoon signs against global warming doesn't mean everyone who does isn't credible. You never hear about the 10s of thousands of scientists that dispute it, but 1 that agrees with GW, he makes the front page. Anyway, I come down hardest on wikipedia because they're the host of this article and it is their responsibility to make sure its' integrity is maintained, and there they have failed in my opinion. ----Borghuman

Nearly all of the articles on Wikipedia that are also in the Democratic National Committee's Talking Points Handbook are completely protected by Admins here. Any attempt to neutralize articles is thwarted by a fractional number of Admins who have a political agenda to push.
This means no conversation, no contrary scientific facts, no dissent in conclusions.Ymous 20:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Undue weight - although I personally have no problem with mentioning that there are people willing to deny facts, it's on about the same level as ignoring claims of people who still believe the earth is flat. A mention would do no harm, however. Why don't you propose some wording here, and specify exactly where you would want it to go? -Amatulic 18:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"Borghuman" Wikipedia does not ensure the accuracy of the articles here, the editors, meaning me and you, do that. If you have specific gripes with the article that are sourced, please by all means edit the article. The above litany does not help improving the article because it is too vague. JPotter 18:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article, the point is that every time I do, the additions or edits are immediately removed. The rest of this talk page contains complaints to the same. That is my problem, whoever is doing it, and wikipedia has too, citing the issue should be "discussed," and I believe that the issue has been discussed enough, and the additions should be left alone, whoever is removing them. Wikipedia touts that they will confirm additions to articles before they become permenant and they regularly flag information, making them editors despite the claims to the contrary. Furthermore, as per the earth is flat comment, what you call facts are disputed by thousands of scientists...I liken it to the hysteria surrounding events where people believed the sky was falling-such as during meteor storms-the Titanic being unsinkable, the omission of books from the Bible, or the 1800's disregard for the U.S. brutal relocation of millions of Indians-America touting freedom and equality while ignoring the outrage of millions who dissagreed. To deny that a multitude of people find that the global warming theories are flawed is merely foolish and bad for science.

The good scientist has to always accept the possibility that he may be wrong, and realize that other explanations cannot be ignored. (Something rarely realized-remember how they treated Einstein) To do otherwise produces the risk of a hypothesis falling further into obscurity.

That is all I have to say on the matter, I'm done arguing it. I've made my point, let's just leave it at that being my opinion on the issue. ----Borghuman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.81.143.25 (talk • contribs) 01:39, December 22, 2006 (UTC).

I think you may be confused about global warming. Global warming is a fact, the average temperature of the earth has been steadily increasing, there's not much room for arguement there. You'd have to think our measuring equiment is flawed or there's some vast liberal conspiracy to belive global warming is a lie. It's currently the cause of gobal warming that's under dispute. The temperature of the earth natuarally goes up and down over time, but for some "strange" reason it suddenly spiked up at the same time we started letting much more CO2 into the atmosphere. 10 years ago there was a lot of debate about what caused global warming but after the temperature kept going up with the CO2 levels, as predicted, more and more scientists changed their minds. Today nearly every scientist believes global warming to be man-made, according to our references.
If tens of thousands of scientist really do deny global warming then you should have no problem proving me wrong, please cite references. --Calibas 03:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Dear Borghuman,

"The integrity of this article is only about a 50 out of 100." What exactly are you basing this upon?

"I too have added information to the introduction of this article lending mere existance to the fact that global warming is still disputed by some." I'm not certain I would find any serious scientist who would dispute global warming. The evidence is quite clear. However, the interpretation of cause and effect is quite a different matter. Yes, the intro is quite poor (see my comment above) but I don't feel what you are adding with your comment here.

"I believe that enough discussion has occurred here, as per their request, to warrant that tiny tidbit of informaton being sited fairly in the INTRODUCTION of this article, alongside the rant in the INTRODUCTION that argues for global warming." There is honestly no need to shout. It tends to deafen me (and other readers I suspect) to your cause.

"If Wikipedia cannot do something so simple and fair and chooses to support silencing those whose views are contrary to their own, as a supposedly fair, balanced, and factual encyclopedia" I think this has been covered by the responses above. "

"I will have to boycott further use of this resource, because it's no resource when the information in it is purposefully skewed and where the encyclopedia takes actions that blatently support the skewing of information and the omission of facts." That's your choice.

" The controversary section isn't enough because it's language is clearly demeaning to any idea that does not support global warming and the introduction starts out stating it as a fact without lending weight to other views. I don't have a problem with calling global warming a fact, " Clarify what you mean by demeaning langauge please?

"Just because Al Gore thinks we're headed for death doesn't make it so, as was pointed out in the last post here that just because a leader says that everyone agrees with him doesn't make it true." Just remember, some people, like myself, have been studying environmental changes for over 30 years. Honestly, many of us have noit just jumped on the bandwagon!

"I remind you that plenty of action groups, left wing radical groups and individuals, non-existant scientists, and other disreputable groups and people have also supported global warming," You realise you don't make sense here? Perhaps you are talking about cause and effect again?

"You never hear about the 10s of thousands of scientists that dispute it." Probably because they don't. I think it's cause and effect time again.

Candy 14:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I would have torn your addition out as well. I read it and it needs substantial rewriting in a clear and concise manner to be acceptable. Also, as you added it to an intro that I consider to be extremely unweildy (see my post above) that would have been a second reason. If you want to add information like that fI suggest you find an appropriate style and place for your addition. Thanks!

Candy 14:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Swedish Chemist

It is unusual in a namespace article to have an anchor link to a Category Page rather than a list. I am not sure if it is explicitly in a style guide but anyone else think we should take it out?

--BozMo talk 10:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral. I see little value in the link, but also no problem. Whoever added it possibly had an opinion on this, so I'm not motivated to remove it. If you are, go ahead! --Stephan Schulz 10:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Broken link suggestion

Near "The warming is primarily a result of variances in solar irradiance, possibly via modulation of cloud cover [26]"

The [26] links to

http://spacecenter.dk/cgi-bin/nyheder-m-m.cgi?id=1159917791%7Ccgifunction=form

This link should perhaps be updated to

http://spacecenter.dk/publications/press-releases/getting-closer-to-the-cosmic-connection-to-climate

which describes a link between cosmic rays, the sun's magnetic field, cloud formation, and global warming, or maybe

http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/

which contains details about the experiment itself.

The press release from the Danish National Space Center is talking about cosmic rays, something completely different than solar irradiance. I am unaware of any research associating the variation in cosmic rays reaching Earth with the variation in solar radiation reaching it, so I think the link between the Danish research and solar irradiance is unsupported. Regardless, I do think the theory on the relationship between cosmic rays and low-level cloud cover is worth considering in any discussion of global climate.

Sethwilson 23:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

See this article: Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Go for it! -Amatulic 00:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the link Calibas 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Global Warming

Ok, so not every single person on planet Earth may agree with Global Warming. Whoever doesn't obviously has a right to disagree, but I think everybody knows the majority always wins. In this case, the majority apparently goes to the ones that believe about global warming. I read part of the "It's Just A Theory," Section. It made me a bit angry but it was understandable. However, to say global warming's just a theory does not mean anything. Gravity was a just a theory, and I wonder what scientist (or person) in this world would disagree with the fact that gravity is what draws a object closer to a planet or star. It is almost 2007, and it seems that there are still some people that still deny global warming. Ok, there is nothing wrong with that, but it seems that those who deny never pay attention to the evidence. The other thing I can't seem to get over is the fact that there is all this info, and yet not much (other than a book and/or movie or two,), especially on wikipedia has been done to raise awareness of global warming. Even if this article was featured already, and that this article has been a success, I am very sure that there is a huge chunk of people all over the world that may not have even heard the words "Global Warming." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.29.184 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Argumentum ad populum Bentzi 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should include Flat Earth theory for balance as well? I mean it has wide support from thousands of scientists: why ignore them just because they are all dead? --BozMo talk 23:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Gravity, at least as to what causes it, still is a theory. --Calibas 03:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Consensus, in science, does not mean a thing. One person can still overtake one million with valid scientific data and reasoning. It would be quite unscientific to ignore somebody's theory or hypothesis just because it is not the right one. You have to at least prove it wrong before you ignore them. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not how science is done. The burden of proof falls squarely on the one who proposes the hypothesis. Raymond Arritt 21:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
"It's just a Theory ..." more often than not actually means that the writer is an ignoramus and is regurgitating masculine cow excrement. Candy 14:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no way to proove any scientific theory. The best you can hope for is it agreeing with experiment, and making predictions which come true. A good indicator of whether a theory is good or not comes from whether it is generally accepted by the scientific community. The scientific peer review process generally works well in discovering if a theory is true, is an approximation that needs updating, or is false. This consensus approach is not perfect, but it's the best system we have. Consensus generally picks "the best theory we have", but if someone comes up with a better theory, it is very likely that it will replace the old theory.
Confusion sometimes occurs around the terminology for "theory" against older words meaning the same thing. For example, scientific "laws" are still just theory (in fact many, like Newton's laws, don't agree with experiment, and are now considered approximations or limiting cases). As an example, technology in your computer is heavily based on many different theories (on semiconductors, etc) - but your computer hardware works. --h2g2bob 15:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Denial

Can someone please cite some of the articles from the "thousands" of climate scientists who deny that global warming is human caused? Since there's so many, it should be easy to find various references, but for some reason the only global warming denials I can find are from scientists who's fields have very little to do with climate studies. All the groups of climate scientists I can find say that global warming is human caused and CO2 emissions need to be slowed or stopped immediatly. And please, cite recent studies. 10 years ago there wasn't much consensus about what's causing global warming but there sure seems to be now. --Calibas 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, what exactly are you talking about? Why did you put thousands in quotes? William M. Connolley 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone said earlier that there's a huge number of scientists that deny global warming but I can't find anything to back this up, hence the quotes. Since people keep saying this page isn't NPOV I'd like to understand where they're coming from. Also, to those of you who think global warming denial is simply funded by big oil, even Exxon is recommending that we curb CO2 emissions. Here's a quote:
Exxon Mobil has long rejected environmentalists' calls for major changes in energy use in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yesterday, Mr. Spellings acknowledged that global warming represents a threat.
"Rising carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use pose risks for society which could prove significant," he said. But he added that many proposed solutions would be both unduly expensive and ineffective.
"To be effective, we must try to identify the best options to mitigate CO{-2} considering both the cost and the scale of those options," he said. Among the most promising solutions, he said, are clean-coal technologies that capture carbon dioxide from power plants and store it underground.[45]
--Calibas 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure if you'd like to find it, you'd find it. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure I would, but what I'm trying to do here is open a discussion on global warming denial. --Calibas 20:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
One source of dissenting views is from Professor Lindzen at MIT (see [46] for an easily viewed article). Another is McIntyre and McKitrick's published work [47]. These people are not necessarily skeptics, though they call into question common misconceptions, and find flaws in fundamental elements of the academic discussion of global warming. Furthermore, if one would like to cite funding sources to discredit the skeptics, one ought to also look at the funding sources of the proponents to demonstrate lack of bias on their part. Everybody wants security in their job, after all. Climate change is certain - it has always changed, and always will. The cause is not. It is a massively complex, random system that can only be approximated, an ability that is at the cutting edge of science. I'm not arguing for or against CO2 control, or the existence of global warming. I would like everybody to do a sanity check. How well do you know what goes into the research? Researchers are all human, this is a new field, and there exists substantial uncertainty. --Gabeh 08:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Has Lindzen published on the topic of Global Warming? (I'm talking about peer-reviewed scientific journals here, of course—the Wall Street Journal and the Cato Institute don't count.) Note, from the Richard Lindzen article:
The November 10 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[1] Climatologist James Annan,[2] who has offered multiple bets that global temperatures will increase,[3] contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet.[4] Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only accept a bet if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor and that no bet occurred.[4]
Lindzen replied to Annan "The quote [at Reason Online] was out of context. I think the odds are about 50-50. I said that if anyone were willing to give warming much higher odds than that, I would be tempted to take the bet."[5]
Doesn't look as though Dr. Lindzen is very confident in his skepticism, does it?
Finally, concerning your suggestion that "one ought to also look at the funding sources of the proponents to demonstrate lack of bias on their part": I believe you have it backwards. If you believe that the proponents have a conflict of interest, you need to demonstrate it—presumably based on the massive funding they've received from deep-pocketed environmental organizations (if such sources even exist). The conflict of interest of the prominent skeptics has been demonstrated. Now the ball's in your court.--HughGRex 11:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Lindzen has published on the topic of Global Warming, in peer-reviewed journals, as found in the publication list at [48]. McIntyre and McKitrick published in a peer-reviewed journal as well.
As for analyzing Dr. Lindzen's willingness to put money on the topic, as I understand, he claims that the future is very uncertain. The fact that he isn't willing to assume the risk of losing money (by taking odds that are close to even, as he claimed) indicates that he is a conservative gambler, not that he doesn't believe in his own statement. Note that I am not personally familiar with him, so my statement is based on the prior quotes in this page, and on the fact that I'm a conservative gambler myself (to the extent that I don't make bets for money without large odds in my favor).
Finally, in order to demonstrate that a conflict of interests is reason to discredit work, one ought to demonstrate how the money influenced a scientist to lie about data and/or analysis and conclusions. To simply point out the funding source is not enough. It is perfectly reasonable for an energy company to fund research to determine if their primary income source is a bad product for the world, as suggested by many researchers. In fact, it would be irresponsible for them not to invest some research money. When one accuses the scientists they fund of lying in order to obtain research funds, one must also consider that the larger scientific community is funded through largely public money, funneled through political channels. The more imminent the threat, the more interest the public has in further investigation, and hence, the more research money available. The motivation to lie and cheat is certainly there for scientists receiving public money. I would not dare accuse them of doing so - just as I would not accuse scientists funded by energy companies of foul play without finding clear faults in their work.
--Gabeh 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works that contains all kinds of evidence against the theory of global warming: [49] 2404 15:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You misspelled "propaganda" there. Political press releases are not peer-reviewed science. --Stephan Schulz 16:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

The article should be merged with Global weather effects (which is not yet created, all there is is a template) (Global cooling has also been suggested to be merged into that page) because they are both topics on severe changes in the Earths weather. To discuss the merge, leave a note on Global weather effects talk page so we can reach a consensous on what to do. Kamope 14:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW. Why not merge all Wikipedia into Human Knowledge? Seriously, these are complicated topics with very different foci (global cooling has some historical interest, global warming is a current, well-researched subject with huge scientific literature), and at least global warming already is much longer than recommended. Moreover, article names should reflect the most common name used to reference a topic. The googlewhack is 70 to 53700000 against your suggested name.--Stephan Schulz 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the GWE talk page. This merge proposal is dead; don't comment on it! William M. Connolley 14:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The numbers: metric units and probability intervals

What do you mean by 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celcius and 25 ± 10 metres? Does it represent uncertainty? What is the actual number for each of those numbers? How did you decide to measure in metric? Isn't this a controversial topic? Thanks. AstroHurricane001 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The expression "0.6 ± 0.2°C" indicates that the best or average measurement is 0.6 but it has an uncertainty of 0.2 in either direction, meaning it can range between 0.4 and 0.8, with 0.6 being the most probable. All measurements have some level of uncertainty, whether you realize it or not. This is especially true when you're dealing with measurements over a large area that contains variations, or projections of measurements based on modeling and simulation.
"meaning it can range between 0.4 and 0.8" --- with a probability of 95% - so there's a 5% probability that the value is outside this interval. Narssarssuaq 08:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of style recommends using SI units of measure (i.e. metric) for science-related articles. And yes, global warming is a controversial topic, but the way scientific measurements are expressed isn't really relevant to the controversy. -Amatulic 18:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Not only does the the Manual of Style recommend metric units of measure for science-related articles, but also a Wikipedia goal is to present a world-wide view, see:
Because only Burma, Liberia, and the United States have not adopted the metric system as their official system[50], it seems appropriate to use the Metric System (with the US Customary Sytem in parentheses) in Wikipedia articles.--Lesikar 18:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the US has officially adopted the metric system in 1975 and reinforced this in 1988, designating the metric system as the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce. It's just lagging in the conversion (ok, lagging a lot ;-). --Stephan Schulz 18:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the United States Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 designated the metric system as "the preferred system". But it calls for a voluntary conversion: the legislation states that the Federal Government has a responsibility to assist industry in voluntarily conversion.--Lesikar 18:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That, and probably most of the world's science establishments use the SI system. NASA just recently converted to metric, for example...Specusci 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Could it be possible to have the "±" link to standard deviance or -- whatever's appropriate? I guess everyone outside the scientific community wonders what it means. Narssarssuaq 08:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Roses

Re [51]. Its pretty well impossible to say that any one winter is warmer or not due to GW - the interannual variation is large. See [52] for the central england temperature series (only up to oct 2006 :-() or [53] for some pix. Yes it *has* got warmer, but as far as a rose is concerned its just one warm month. Also [54] may be interesting William M. Connolley 17:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The bears in Russia didn't even hibernate till the new year. Other areas of the world have warnings being issued because normally hibernating bears are becoming aggressive. Not only that, but endangered species are even beginning to thrive in the new conditions (Whooping Crane, as described in a recent scientific paper). I don't know where you live, but for most of the northern latitude countries, you'll have a hard time trying to convince locals that this is "A normal phenomenon". Specusci 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Still, no single warm event can be proven to be an effect of global warming, just as a single cold event does not prove the sceptics right. Only a longer term average eliminates individual outliers. That said, I just returned from volleyball wearing nothing but cycling shorts and a sweater. I've been cycling without gloves for the last few days. This is very unusual for Germany in January....--Stephan Schulz 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we've only just have had lasting snow here in Ottawa this january. All of the previous snowfalls melted before the day ended, or disapeared in RAIN storms in december. Rain...in december...Specusci 18:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotect again?

The recent level of vandalism have made it hard to pick out constructive edits from subtle (or not-so-subtle) vandalism. Is it time to request semiprotection again? Raymond Arritt 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Implausible SLR

I don't like this para:

World net carbon-emission rates would need to be reduced approximately 60%–80% by 2050 to keep global temperatures within 1°C (1.8°F) above present[6]. A 1°C rise would likely raise sea levels by no more than approximately 5 meters (16 feet) over the next 200 to 1000 years[7]. A projection of current trends—as represented by IPCC scenarios A1B or A2—gives temperatures 3°C above present by the year 2100 or soon afterwards[8]. A 3°C rise would likely raise sea levels by 25 ± 10 meters (82 ± 33 feet) [9] Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming is expected to continue past then because CO2 has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 50 to 200 years.[10]

Because it exaggerates SRL based soley on the work of Hansen. Projections of SRL to 2100 are quite modest; asserting 5m of SRL by 2200 is an outlier; mentioning 25m without giving any time period is deeply misleading.

Adding in-line comments based on no consensus isn't acceptable either.

I also don't see why we need Oreskes in the intro - its too much detail.

William M. Connolley 19:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph starts off with what needs to be done to slow global warming but then goes off on sea level rise. It also gets the data wrong, Hansen never says that a 3°C rise would raise sea levels 25 ± 10 meters, he says: "In contrast, sea level was 25–35m higher the last time that the Earth was 2–3°C warmer than today, i.e., during the Middle Pliocene about three million years ago". Hansen's article is useful for his list of references but it looks like it doesn't contain any original work. I recommend removing this paragraph since it doesn't belong in the introduction and the sea level rise is already mentioned in other places. --Calibas 03:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
With time, projections beyond 2100 should be added, however. And btw, there is a slightly annoying tendency that new useful info is simply being added to the introduction. Narssarssuaq 08:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The intro also self justifies which is no good for an intro e.g. "A December 2004 study—of the abstracts of the 928 refereed scientific articles identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published 1993-2003—concluded that 75% of the articles explicitly or implicitly accepted the scientific consensus. The remainder of the articles did not take any stance on recent climate change. None of the articles accepted any other hypothesis.[3]" is not introductory and should be somewhere else. --BozMo talk 12:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. How about you Just Do It then? William M. Connolley 13:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay but the syntax of references on WP is beyond me. How can I get the reference summary to appear on the list? --BozMo talk 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to do anything other than remove that text. Its already in the article elsewhere (another good reason to remove it) William M. Connolley 18:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I caused a stir regarding the Introduction. I didn't realize how much expertise was focused on and contributing to Wikipedia articles, so I didn't realize that a paragraph based on my limited foray into the global warming literature wouldn't find much acceptance.
My primary concern that led me to add to the intro was that the Global Warming article was periodically getting modified—even deleted—by those unaccepting of the evidence for likelihood of dangerous levels of anthropogenic global warming. I hoped that by adding a brief summary of Oreske's little study up front in the intro, potential nay-editers would be put off.
My other concern is that most people don't know the extent to which carbon emissions would need to be reduced (60%? to 80%?) to prevent dangerous levels of global warming. I felt that the possible advantages of having such a statement in the intro would be to stimulate people to read further about global warming, and to take vigorous actions to mitigate anthropogenic warming.--Lesikar 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
These are noble objectives but I doubt any skeptics will be put off. In the meantime, we need to avoid overloading the intro with detail (indeed the whole article with stuff that belongs on sub pages) William M. Connolley 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Argument

Although i am a relative novice on this subject, and my view may be overlooked, the basic reason for global warming is because of the human race. It has been going on for centuries before polution i know, but back then the climate changed 3 degrees in millions of years. Recently the climate has changed 1 degree in just 20 years. I'm only 14 but that is a MAJOR difference. Many of the people here, no offense intended, may be dead or almost dead when the results of global warming hit. I may still be alive to recieve these results along with my children. All this was learned from my science teacher who has worked in my school for over 35 years and is very knowledgable about the subject. User:Chris Gonzalez Not currently signed on.

What point does your argument serve? This is an information site, not a debate forum. The talk page is ONLY to discuss any possible or recent changes to the article. Specusci 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested Edit

I know i can just do it, but I'd like some opinions first. I'd like to add a link to the external links list. It is the website for Al Gore's DVD, An Inconvenient Truth. You can go there and tell me if it is appropriate. Thanks! If you'd like to talk to me on my talk page, click the blue "Guy" in my sig. RyGuy Happy New Year! 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. It adds nothing to the science William M. Connolley 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't want it to be considered vandalism, so thanks for telling me. RyGuy Happy New Year! 12:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial global warming

The article says in hidden text that there is a debate about whether global warming for other planets should be inculded. I couldn't find this anywhere. It is happening on other planets, such as Mars. Where is this? The article is about strictly Earth's global warming. The article's name is therefore confusing. Is it mentioned anywhere on wikipedia? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Old stuff. Needs taking out. Will do... William M. Connolley 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"needs taking out"? So this article is purely about Earth? Is there any article about global warming on other planets? Is it included in the other planets' articles? Is it not important enough to be notable? Is it because the importance of global warming on Earth is an infinite number of times more significant than global warming elsewhere? Thanks. (P.S. sorry if I added too many questions.) AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it was decided that when people say global warming it goes without saying they're talking about earth. All other planet's temperatures rise and fall with the cycles of the sun so they all experience a global warming and cooling. The other planets with atmospheres, Mars, Venus, and moons like Titan, experience the greenhouse effect so if the amount of greenhouse gases were to rise they should experience a global warming effect like ours. I dont think there's a page but you could make one if you want, Global warming on other planets. Here's some info: [55] --Calibas 06:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Political implications

Without going into the scientific arguments about whether global warming is actually ocurring, what is causing it, and how much of it is going on, can we make a section on the POLITICAL implications of the global warming propenents? So many regulations have been put into effect as a result of this that it surely should be documented here. It is practically its own political movement. While the article does refer to the Kyoto treaty, there is no other discussion. Jcc1 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, Global Warming has huge impacts on politics. Alot of politicians talk about it, and handling it in a wrong way would cost a politician votes in an election. Specusci 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Expected effects

The expected effects section of this article is longer than all of the rest of the article combined. Expected effects already has its own page -- we just need to briefly mention that there are a number of expected effects. Jcc1 18:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this line:

Some scientists have concluded global warming is already causing death and disease across the world through flooding, environmental destruction, heat waves and other extreme weather events. (Reuters, February 9 2006; archived)

Can you name one scientist who actually said this? I don't think so. It would have been in quotes in the Reuters article. The Reuters article is an interpretation of a report. That report, what scientists conducted it, what credentials those scientists actually have, what field of science they even study, and what those scientists actually said is conveniently not mentioned anywhere in the Wiki article. Reuters writes headlines for newspapers. They dont do scientific research. Jcc1 21:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I just torched that bit -- the "some scientists" has to go per WP:WEASEL, and overall it rings of hyperbole. Better to replace it with specific examples, such as recent studies that have linked heat waves with global warming (see esp in the context of the European heat wave of 2003). I'll add an example or two later. Raymond Arritt 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's validly sourced. Probably no single scientist referred to all of those effects, hence there's no quote. To soften the appearance of hyperbole, the sentence could be prefaced with "according to 2006 Lancet report..." KarlBunker 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Defining dangerous climate change

I removed:

Although global warming has been seen as potentially dangerous for some time, the first international attempt to define what constitutes a 'dangerous' level occurred at the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change scientific conference in February 2005. This took place in Exeter, United Kingdom under the UK presidency of the G8 [56].

At the conference it was said that increasing damage was forecast if the globe warms to about 1 to 3 °Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 °Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels [citation needed]. It was concluded that the stabilization of greenhouse gases at the equivalent of 450 ppmv CO2 would provide a 50% likelihood of limiting global warming to the average figure of 2 °C (3.6 °F) [citation needed]. Stabilization below 400 ppm would give a relatively high certainty of not exceeding 2 °C, while stabilization at 550 ppm would mean it was likely that 2 °C would be exceeded [citation needed].

It was stated that unless 'urgent and strenuous mitigation actions' were taken in the next 20 years, it was almost certain that by 2050 global temperatures will have risen to between 0.5 and 2 °C (0.9 and 3.6°F) above current levels [citation needed]. With carbon dioxide levels currently around 381 ppm and rising by 2ppm per year, without such action greenhouse gasses are likely to reach 400ppm by 2016, 450ppm by 2041, and 550ppm by around 2091 [citation needed].

I don't think this conference was important or notable enough to deserve its own section here. Sorry I don't know who put this in. Jcc's fact tags are a bit silly cos there is a link to the conf pdfs. William M. Connolley 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea whether or not the article is relevant - nor if the conference was important or notable. But every fact that is asked to be quoted is in the executive summary (at least those few i checked before William put it here :-)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
Those are alot of "citation needed" tags. Specusci 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"In spite of such strong evidence"

This is a leading statement, and gives undue weight to one side of a debate. It is not the job of wikipedia or any encyclopedia to take a position. How about presenting evidence and letting the reader decide how stong it is or isn't? Jcc1 03:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. David 14:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml
  2. ^ http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/
  3. ^ http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/3-more-non-bets-on-climate-change.html#comments
  4. ^ a b http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/betting.html#lindzen
  5. ^ http://www.reason.com/rb/rb060805.shtml
  6. ^ [1] [2]
  7. ^ [3]([4]Section 6.1.1)
  8. ^ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, eds. Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
  9. ^ [5]([6]Section 6.1.1)
  10. ^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Non-CO2 Gases Economic Analysis and Inventory, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes (Years)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HughGRex (talk • contribs) 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Add a criticisims page?

I would say 99.99% of scientists beleive in global warming. What, do you want some street preacher listed as a critic? How silly. I am a Republican and totally beleive in the subject. The only critisisim comes from the uninformed and I beleive that Global Warming should be taught as a science in Public Schools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.43.144 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Effect of incident angle of light on reflectivity

The contribution '(at low angles of incident light, such as early morning, late afternoon and near the poles, water is more reflective than ice),' was replaced by modifying the previous work by adding the word 'average' to the sentence. Average is also true but hides the insight of the steep rise in reflectivity at shallow incident angles of light. The relation refers only to the angle between the direction of the photons and the surface of the water so 'direct beam (cloudless skies)' is not relevant. The issue of waves has been addressed [57] and is accounted for. At the scale of the wavelength of light, the reflectivity of water is always specular. The local angle of the (wavy) water surface is what must be used in the Fresnel calculation. Real (wavy) water reflectivity beyond about 60 degrees latitude exceeds the average reflectivity of land. Accounting for the extreme effect of the incident angle of light on reflectivity of water is mandatory for rational assessment of the effect of added water surface on global warming. Dan Pangburn 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Consistent graph orientation

The "Carbon Dioxide and Temperature Records" graph has time increasing to the left on its x-axis, in opposition to convention and the rest of the graphs on the page. Perhaps it could be replotted? Dk2 20:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The beauty of having it in SVG instead of a PNG is that we don't need to replot it: it is easy enoug to simply directly edit the SVG in Inkscape. I've done that to reverse the x-axis. Leland McInnes 00:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Need for long-term geological perspective

Two facts which the current debate ignores (everywhere, not just in Wikipedia): (a) the Earth is currently about 3 C° cooler than its average for the last 550M years (and there's likely to be another glaciation in the next 2000-10000 years - edited per Stpephan Schulz' comment below); (b) the current CO2 level is the lowest of the last 550M years, and the last time it was nearly as low as to-day was 300M years ago, at the Carboniferous-Permian boundary (see for example the diagram at [58]). If you compare the same diagram with the record of major mass extinctions, there's no visible relationship - which is surprising, considering how often global warming is mentioned in discussions of mass extinctions. That does not mean there's nothing to worry about. The scaling of the diagram mentioned above would not show abrupt but geologically short-term rises in the CO2 concentration (less than 5M years), which might have destabilising effects on other planetological systems, e.g. by producing oceanic anoxic events. And more care in the use of fossil fuels would be economically sensible, since easily accessible oil and gas reserves are currently expected to be exhausted in 20-30 years. But the geological evidence shows that we simply do not understand the earth's climate well enough to predict developments over the next few centuries.Philcha 12:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is ignored "everywhere", we cannot include the discussion per WP:OR. However, climatologists are aware that we currently are in an ice age (although the next natural glaciation currently seems to be expected in 10000-20000 years, so you are missing a zero there). Also, you are mixing up very different time scales here. Glaciations seem to be mostly driven by orbital influences, on the time scale of several 1000 to several 10000 years. Ice ages are probably very much influenced by geologic configurations (land masses in high latitudes, the Americas blocking circumglobal east/west currents...), on the time scale of millions to many millions of years. Global warming is driven by greenhouse gases on the timescale of decades to millenia. Even if we knew nothing about ice age cycles (but we do), we could still have an excellent model for CO2-driven global warming.--Stephan Schulz 12:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the current cold era began about 55 MYa, not so coincidentally around the time when the Indian (Indo-Australian) plate began slamming into Eurasia. It's not likely that plate tectonics will have a major role in climate change over the next 50-100 years. Raymond Arritt 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, I said "the current debate" ignores paleoclimatology, including the "global warming" article, i.e. most of the publicised debate is flawed because it's based on very partial data. The paleoclimatological points I mentioned are not "original research", paleontologists have known about them for decades. A quick search of the Web turned up: "our understanding of modern and future climate is only as secure as our understanding of past climate. It is risky to predict future global warming without testing climate models in the past" (a paleoclimatologist's "research interests" page); "Ancient Climate Change May Portend Toasty Future"; "Dinosaurs' Climate Shifted Too, Reports Show" (by up to 6 C° in the Cretaceous, apparently without causing a mass extinction); references to Alley's book "The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future" (apparently highly-regarded); "The mid-Cretaceous Period ... does represent a recent geologic analog ... that can be used to predict future greenhouse conditions." (plus references to published papers). And this is the first time I've ever searched for material on paleoclimatology, as I'm more interested in paleontology and have previously treated paleoclimatology as a set of footnotes. Bottom line: there appears to be plenty of published research; it has received little publicity; but it's relevant and Wikipedia should not ignore it.Philcha 14:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote: We are aware of many aspects of the paleoclimate, and understand some, if not all, causes of variation. Paleoclimatology can certainly help us to understand the climate system better. But it is not directly relevant to the current episode of global warming, as very different influences over very different time scales are involved. The temperature throughout the Cretaceous may well have varied within a 6 degree C window, and the Apian may have had a particular cold spell or two. But the Cretaceous spans 80 million years, and the Apian 13 million years. Even just extrapolating last centuries trend of 0.6 degrees C per century means we will have a 6 degree change in a millenium. There are 5 orders of magnitude there...--Stephan Schulz 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Now we're starting to have a reasonable debate. We agree that paleoclimatology can help us to understand climate mechanisms better. We disagree about: (a) whether it is relevant to the current situation; (b) how well scientists currently understand climate changes in geological time. Re (a), I'm surprised that you think paleoclimatology is irrelevant - see for example Huber's "It is risky to predict future global warming without testing climate models in the past" (reference above). The test of (b) how well we understand past climate change would be whether there are any models which successfully "predict" climates over a wide range of geological periods. And as I said in my previous post, the study of mass extinctions may show whether sharp changes in the CO2 concentration are more important than the absolute level - and it's hard to see how that question can't be relevant.
Your last sentence, "Even just extrapolating last centuries trend ...," raises the fundamental question: is something completely new happening? On that point, I'd take issue with your linear extrapolation. For one thing, world population has grown by a factor of nearly 4 in the last 100 years, and it's very doubtful whether that % growth rate will be maintained for another century, let alone another millenium. For example, some European countries have birth rates below the replacement level and their populations are only growing because of immigration; and IIRC Japan has concerns about declining birth rates.
If the "global warming" article summarised the paleoclimatological data / issues and discussed the impact of past and probable future population changes, it would have a considerably stronger scientific basis.Philcha 10:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

and there's likely to be another glaciation in the next 2000-10000 years - edited per Stephan Schulz' comment below - probably not. In the absence of human forcing, 50kyr would be closer. With human forcing, who knows William M. Connolley 15:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Positive and Negative Feedback

The article clearly mentions positive feedback, but no negative feedback is mentioned. It is a well-known fact that increased levels of carbon dioxide lead to increased planet growth. Dr. Sylvan H. Wittwer (director emeritus of the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station at East Lansing) has written the following article (pdf) http://www.heartland.org/pdf/23297z.pdf which argues that increased levels of carbon dioxide stimulate plant growth and therefore act as a negative feedback loop. No mention of this fact is in the article. I am seeking group consensus to change the positive feedback section to a simple feedback section with both positive and negative feedbacks mentioned.200.121.111.113 18:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

An old non-peer-reviewed essay isn't a particularly good source. Plant uptake of CO2 is a climate-scale negative feedback only if the resulting biomass is prevented from re-entering the atmosphere (e.g., by burying it or other means). Otherwise, the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere when the plants die and begin decaying. Raymond Arritt 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've never much liked that section. And it repeats what is elsewhere. Also, the whole "effects" section is enoooooooooooorrrrmous despite having a seemain. Can a lot of it be cut? William M. Connolley 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a lot of it could be cut out. I vote for ten line summary of the whole section. As to this remark on negative feedback I think saying "net" positive would do. --BozMo talk 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Its done. Complaints...? William M. Connolley 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Good, well done (I was on my way back to try). Corrected a little grammar thing. But there I think are still two parallel reference systems in the article and they need making consistent some time. --BozMo talk 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a list somewhere of the most significant positive and negative feedback mechansims for global warming? This might be helpful. (Chrisnumbers2000 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
Seriously, what are the mechanisms of positive and negative feedback listed in order of significance? (Chrisnumbers2000 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC))
No such ordered list is possible since the answer depends on the time scale and on the part of the system you're interested in, not to mention the fact that the processes interact nonlinearly. In the short term the most important feedback is the water vapor feedback, which is positive. Raymond Arritt 04:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

Just wondering what people think about this site ...com/fightingthewaragainstglobalwarming? Anyone think that we should place a link to this site from the Global warming article? Why or why not? Have a nice evening,

Eric 00:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just looking over it, I don't think it is a particularly notable site for global warming. It also uses the graph without attribution, which may be a copyright violation. --TeaDrinker 00:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not a copyright attribution to use photos from Wikipedia because all photos from Wikipedia are free for public use anywhere. I think I agree with you maybe this link would not be the best for Wiipedia. Eric 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure your interpretation of the license is quite correct. The image on the website allows for GFDL license or non-commercial share alike. Both have restrictions on or requirements for use. Here an attribution of main authorship is needed (possibly a link to Wikipedia is sufficient). See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. What you may be thinking of is Public Domain, which is some, but not all, Wikipedia images. Some images are even used under fair use, meaning they have a purpose which may be limited even on Wikipedia (permitted on only some pages), and require a legal justification for use. --TeaDrinker 06:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cooling Trends

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2704.htm said cooling trends are considered a mere "speed bump" peer-reviewed, etc. I feel it should be included in some form. 200.121.111.113 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is interesting. The graphic of global T quite clearly shows year-to-year variations already William M. Connolley 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please exclude the word "concensus" from various sections, and revise.

The problem here is that either "consensus" or "scientific consensus” is being used even in the presence of alternative points-of-view or even conflicting evidence. The result of this is that it makes it more difficult for scientists to inject updated evidence, theories, hypothesis, etc.. when it might differ with the majority-view. While I agree that the there is a high percentage of climatologists and meteorologists who support the idea that this phenomenon exists, there are enough members of these disciplines who disagree that it cannot be considered a consensus. Please consider revising the article to show that it is a "popular" or "majority" view, but not a consensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.144.55.6 (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

We've been through all this fairly often before. We need a GW-talk-FAQ William M. Connolley 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hohoho! Talk:Global warming/FAQ. Now fill it with life! --Stephan Schulz 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Why would I fill it with life when you're just going to delete what I say? You may think the Oreskes paper stands for a scientific consensus, but when the conclusions and methodology of the article are called into question, you just delete them? Why don't I publish an article that says there's a scientific consensus that global warming was created by purple sea monkeys? Then when you call me out, I can delete your comments too! After all, I found a consensus! Oh and you also ignore the fact that the IPCC has been accused of bias when stating that the "IPCC position has been derived using a consensus process." What does that even mean anyway? JQLibet 23:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I fear the people who most need to read Talk:Global warming/FAQ will not. We've had plenty of people who have criticized the main article with no evidence of having actually read it (claiming it says things that it doesn't, etc). Raymond Arritt 23:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least there is a repository of answers for copy&paste. And we can polish them over time, so there is less work and a better result than re-explaining the same stuff over and over again. I certainly have discusses water vapour 10 times already... --Stephan Schulz 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no POV tag on this article?

I think the comments show that the neutrality of this article is clearly in dispute. It is disheartening to see Wikicontributors harboring the same alarmist view shared by the media. I'm all for a full and fair debate on the existence and causes on global warming....but why is it relegated to the discussion section? There is a substantial segment of the scientific community that strenuously disagrees with the premise that global warming is dooming our planet, and has called out the media for its unbalanced and frankly dangerous portrayal of the subject.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e

With respect that URL doesn't seem to have anything to do with any scientific community: its just political and the content doesn't even pretend to be balanced does it? --BozMo talk 21:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't intend this link to be treated as fact. I intend it to show that there are several legitimate sources out there disputing the "facts" presented in the Global Warming article. This link simply presents a bunch of them to help show that there is healthy debate on the subject.JQLibet 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It would help if you brought any legitimate sources here to discuss. I missed any in that article but you are quite right that if there are significant voices of dissent they should be reflected. BTW ignore the last edit: it will probably get reverted soon. --BozMo talk 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
For one example: "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605::::For more, you need look no farther than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic. There's a big ol' list.JQLibet 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe there should be a POV tag added to this page in the hopes that a balanced view of the subject can be made available to all Wikireaders. Thoughts? I'm getting the impression from reading all the discussion that there are several people who share my viewpoint and have tried to make changes, but have been thwarted. I've even read some implications that Wikiadmins are involved??? The sheer amount of argument on this page screams for a neutrality tag.

And no, simply responding that "global warming is a fact and anyone who disputes it is clearly stupid" is not a thought. If supporters of global warming want to continue stifling critics and ignoring skeptics, that's their prerogative. But it has no place here, where the whole point is to fully educate readers on a particular issue. The DEBATE about global warming is what's important, and needs substantially more representation here. JQLibet 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's why. Because whenever someone tries to moderate this piece of agitprop, there's a gang of editors, including some wearing admin badges, who will tag-team revert and refuse to discuss. It stinks to high heaven, but the fact is, unless you have such a gang yourself, there's no point in trying to improve anything here. Arker 21:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Highly upsetting to hear that. Any admins want to help us in forming a counter-gang?JQLibet 21:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why there is no POV tag on this article? Because there is no POV dispute that is motivated by climate science. Similarly, there is no POV tag on the article about evolution. This does not mean that there are no disputes about the neutrality about that article. It only means the creationists don't dispute the science behind evolution, they just reject it entirely.

Like the article on evolution, this article gives the scientific perspective on global warming. This means that we don't take posting on right wing anti-climate science blogs seriously. These people, who constantly complain about "alarmist views", often applaud right wing politicians who argue that we need to stay the course in Iraq or else Bin Laden will become the next US president :) Count Iblis 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that isn't true. The evolution article is quite good. The creationists come by and try to deface it periodically, but they've never achieved critical mass to be able to takeover the article. Here the situation is opposite. Arker 04:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, the greenhouse effect and global climate change are both far better understood phenomena than Darwinian evolution. LotR 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You know what? In a sense, that's correct. It's not a *relevant* sense, but it is a conceivable one. The difference here is that there is _no_ competing theory to neo-darwinian evolution which comes close to meshing with the available evidence, while there are alternative theories to the catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warning-theory that could reasonably explain the data. Arker 07:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that these complaints are strawmen. Its no good saying For one example: "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming when the article says nothing whatsoever about doom or catastrophe William M. Connolley 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Count, the argument that this article shouldn't be tagged because an article about evolution is not tagged doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. But since you brought it up, the Evolution article on Wikipedia proudly features a section entitled "Social and Religious Controversies." Yet it's too much to ask to include the scientific debate on Global Warming here? And there are several prominent scientists that don't reject global warming, but simply reject the contention that humans have caused it. You're telling me this has no place in the Wikipedia article? You claim this article gives the scientific perspective on global warming, while completely ignoring the fact that there are several perspectives that contradict each other. Your comments about right wing anti-climate science blogs or staying the course in Iraq are completely outside the bounds of any meaningful discussion and I will not address them.
Mr. Connolley, I believe you are trying to convolute the issue. The Global Warming article clearly speaks to doom and catastrophe: "Some anticipated effects include sea level rise, repercussions to agriculture, Shutdown of thermohaline circulation, glacier retreat, reductions in the ozone layer, increased intensity and frequency of hurricanes and extreme weather events, lowering of Ocean pH, and the spread of disease." The full Wikipedia article on the Effects of Global Warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming) goes into great detail about economic damage and deaths attributable to or potentially created by global warming. Sounds pretty catastrophic to me.
I think the paragraphs and paragraphs of intellectual comments and debate above speak for themselves. Global warming is a scientific theory with outspoken advocates and critics. Both deserve representation. JQLibet 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The GW article should *not* speak about D+C. If if does, that needs to be fixed & I will be happy to help. The intro sez Other consequences include higher or lower agricultural yields, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. Warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events; however, it is difficult to connect particular events to global warming (my emphasis on the higher). Do you think that list is unreasonable? glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows is definitely reasonable. And I notice you omit the para immeadiately following your quote: The extent and probability of these consequences is a matter of considerable uncertainty - doesn't that answer much of your problem? I've weakened the THC bit.
As to the controversy: there is a link to it in the intro: Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and especially how changes will vary from region to region across the globe. A hotly contested political and public debate has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming, or to deal with the expected consequences. - and there is a whole section on alternative hypotheses. I don't really see what more you could ask for William M. Connolley 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
JQLibet is right, and the article as written is seriously compromised by POV language. I'm tagging it, and hopefully someone (maybe you or JQLibet) will come along and clean some of the POV up. CleanHarry29201 02:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me just say, that i do not agree that this article needs a POV tag. there is a legitimate body of thinking on global warming. It is the job of this article to present that body of thinking. It is not this article's job to present that thinking, and then to say, "Oh, and by the way, this could all be nonsense." Let me also just say that this not in any way the only topic I write on, so I do not have any axe to grind.
Also, i agree with the insightful writer who noted above that the evolution article also does not need to state that it is not NPOV. In fact, (just to give alternate viewpoints their due), that is obviously contained within the body of the topic. thanks. --Sm8900 02:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The article includes this blatantly POV passage: "The main cause of the human-induced component of warming is the increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2). This leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases are released by activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, and agriculture." Many scientists dispute that there is any human-induced component of global warming. Sorry, sentences which state a "fact" that not everyone agrees with are POV by the very definition of "point of view." CleanHarry29201 03:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The POV issue has been extencively discussed in the past, and always dismissed. As no new issues have been raised here, I am removing the POV tag. --Michael Johnson 02:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Guess I have no idea what "disputed" means. I thought it meant disputed. JQLibet 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The POV tag merely indicates that there is a dispute about POV material in the article. There is a such a dispute. Removing a POV tag under such circumstances is counterfactual and improper. CleanHarry29201 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Clearly if the majority of people who edit this page don't acknowledge the viewpoint of the rest of us, no dispute can exist! Brilliant! JQLibet 03:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Removing a POV tag when there is clearly a neutrality dispute is vandalism, in my opinion. CleanHarry29201 03:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


You cannot just go around putting POV tags on articles you disagree with. You have to demonstrate how the article is POV in relation to Wikipedia policies, particually WP:V, and also due weight policies. All you have done is say "I think this article is POV". Further the POV of this article has been discussed many times before. I suggest you review the archives for this page. --Michael Johnson 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Way to keep missing the point. All we've done is say we think the article is POV? Why don't you read a little bit first. Oh and by the way, since you referenced WP:V, why don't you take a look at number 3 right there in big bold letters: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." Maybe YOU should read the policies before criticizing others. JQLibet 03:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to see why I think it is POV, scroll up a little. The third or fourth sentence states that it is factual that there is a human component to global warming. A variety of scientists disagree with this statement or, at the least, say the evidence does not conclusively prove that humans have caused any global warming. That this is included as a fact, when it is disputed by a great many members of the scientific community, is POV. And I appreciate your assumption that I have not read anything previously, just as you assumed JQLibet had not read WP:V. I might suggest that instead of attacking people and claiming they are uninformed, you should consider the fact that others might be right. And a review of your talk page indicates this is not the first time you've been accused of substantial bias in an edit dispute. CleanHarry29201 03:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I have been attacked by a couple of neo-facists and religious extremists, if you want to put yourself in that category go right ahead. The invitation stands - provide the science that contridicts the article, and it will be put in the article. Oddly, even Exxon have given up looking for it, though. --Michael Johnson 03:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What does this have to do with religion or neo-fascism? Wow, you're really off your rocker. As you have steadfastly refused to engage in a good faith discussion on this point, and have resorted to petty insults, you do not merit a response. JQLibet's Global warming skeptics reference is quite sufficient to prove that there are scientists on both sides of the factual question of whether human activity causes global warming. This article is thus blatant POV, and your removal of the tag is vandalism. CleanHarry29201 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You are the one who decided to bring up my talk page. --Michael Johnson 03:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well please explain how the list of scientists in Global warming skeptics does not destroy your argument. The Global Warming page states as fact that warming is occurring and it's caused by people. But Global warming skeptics indicates that there are scientists who disagree with both of those propositions. So how can an article be neutral when it presents something as factual (i.e. that global warming occurs and is caused by people) when members of the scientific community dispute this alleged fact? Please explain that to me. Or perhaps you could post more anti-religious graphics on your talk page and attack other people's character instead; you certainly seem to prefer that. CleanHarry29201 03:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The article states The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. A dozen or so skeptics doesn't change this, and the article does not need to give undue weight to a very small minority. There is a link to the skeptics page. If you wish to demonstrate the article is POV you would need to demonstrate that there is no scientific concensus. And you are the one who seeks out peoples talk pages to try and use that to attack them. Further there is nothing attacking religion on my user page, there is a graphic attacking creationism, which is quite a different thing. --Michael Johnson 03:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. When you have scientists that support Global warming arguing one side, and scientists who are Global warming skeptics arguing the other side, how can you say a dispute doesn't exist? This willful blindness is downright terrifying. The global warming article is clearly slanted in favor of the former camp and barely acknowledges the existence of the other. The neutrality of this article is clearly in dispute. JQLibet 03:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to provide some citations that more than a tiny minority of climate scientists dispute global warming JPotter 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
How many do I need JPotter? 20? 50? 100? How much constitutes an actual dispute? I certainly didn't see anything about a numeric requirement in the Wiki policies, but hey, why not create new ones when we run out of other arguments. And we'll need to make sure that every other neutrality disputed page has the requisite number of opposing experts. JQLibet 03:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, JPotter. The fact that some people disagree in good faith with the alleged "facts" on the global warming page is sufficient reason that the facts cannot be presented as undisputed, as they presently are. Is it really so hard to write: "Global warming supporters believe that" in front of a few sentences? CleanHarry29201 03:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually this comes straight from the undue weight provisions of NPOV. If proponents only make up a tiny minority of adherents to a theory (Global Warming Skepticism) then they should not be mentioned in the article. JPotter 03:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
JPotter, a few points. First, the burden of proof is on you. Read the policies. Second, I count 21 scientists on the skeptics page and a bit over 100 on the global warming main page. 20% is a tiny minority now? I'm sure the African-American population will love to hear that their voice shouldn't count because they're such a "tiny minority." JQLibet 04:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You are mixing concepts. The "undue weight" policy simply refers to the amount of space global warming skepticism should receive on the page. That has nothing to do with a POV sentence alleging something as factual that is not necessarily so. Views which are disputed should not be stated as truth, and the global warming page presents as truth (a) that global warming is happening and (b) that it is caused by people. Both of these are disputed, and as such cannot be referred to as truth. CleanHarry29201 04:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting piece of Original Research that 20% of climate researchers dispute Global Warming, but you'll need a more reliable source that says this is so. JPotter 04:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Undue weight applies because you are claiming that a statement is POV when it is not. It's a scientific issue and Wikipedia relies on scientists and the scientific community to determine what is said about scientific issues. You'll need to provide a citation that says the statement is false, from a reliable and verifiable source. JPotter 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
JPotter, undue weight applies only with respect to space on the page and similar concepts. It is inappropriate to present something as factual when there is an ongoing, good faith dispute within the scientific community regarding the alleged "fact." Respectfully, it seems you have a very poor understanding of the NPOV policy and associated concepts. I've already provided a citation from a reliable and verifiable source that many scientists disagree that it has been proved as fact that either (a) global warming is occurring or (b) if it is, humans are causing it. I'll do it again, because you apparently missed it before: Global warming skeptics.CleanHarry29201 04:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, for the third time, I don't need anything. "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." Bold letters are sure tough to read sometimes. You want to have the global warming material there, and I'm trying to remove the POV language, so YOU prove to ME that only a tiny minority of scientists oppose global warming. If you can't, then you have an obligation under the wiki policies to agree to disputation of the article. JQLibet 04:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you read Scientific opinion on climate change ? JPotter 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You won't win any arguments with me by pointing out another page that clearly has the same neutrality problems as Global warming. How about responding to my points? Besides, there's a whole freakin section entitled "Scientists opposing global warming," which links you to Global warming skeptics, which is damning to your case. JQLibet 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What I see at Global warming skeptics is that only one scientist listed says that warming is not occuring. JPotter 04:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The article if fully referenced. The scientific concensus statement is refereneced. So clearly the obligation to provide references has been met. If you wish to be taken seriously come back with some references of your own. --Michael Johnson 04:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is Global warming skeptics not a satisfactory reference? The claim is that some scientists dispute that global warming is happening or that it's caused by humans. The page Global warming skeptics indisputably establishes the correctness of the claim. Why do you continue to maintain it is insufficient, other than your obvious bias? CleanHarry29201 04:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

JPotter, you clearly have been paying zero attention to anything said by somebody besides yourself. I'm not arguing that global warming doesn't exist. I'm not even arguing that global warming isn't man-made. I'm arguing that there clearly are scientists who agree with both sides of both questions. An article about global warming that doesn't acknowledge the scientific community who disagrees with it, whether it total or in part, is de facto biased and needs to be fixed. I apologize if this is so difficult to understand, but it's frustrating when people assign positions to me that I didn't take and do not share. JQLibet 04:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Because Global warming skeptics does not support your POV. It references only one scientist that claims the warming is not occuring. Most of the so called skeptics accept the observational data regarding the warming, but do not fully accept the anthropogenic element that others claim. JPotter 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then, JPotter, you agree that the statement on this page that humans cause global warming is POV? CleanHarry29201 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
JPotter, your comment is false and misleading. From the global warming article: "The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities...." The article treats as fact not only that global warming exists, but that it is likely attributable to humans. There are several scientists who disagree, but no mention is made of them in the article. Clear bias and a clear lack of understanding of the issues. The same "facts" are also raised in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change.JQLibet 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a link on the article to that article. Given the small number of scientists involved it would be undue weight to give them greater emphisis. I personally would not be against giving them slighly more emphisis, but given the weight of scientific support for the global warming I really don't think this article contravines the POV guidelines. This article discusses the scientific consensus. As I said what you need to do to prove POV is to prove this is not the scientific concensus. --Michael Johnson 04:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what the word "consensus" means? Is there a consensus if there is a group of people who disagree? CleanHarry29201 04:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure I do - and it does not mean everybody has to agree. Anyway as I keep saying your argument is with the references not me. --Michael Johnson 04:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe your wish is to characterize in the article that there are large elements in the scientific community that either 1) Dispute global warming is happening and/or 2)Disput the anthropogenic element to it? If that is not your wish, then I apologize. JPotter 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That is indeed my wish and the whole point of contesting the neutrality of the article. To respond to Michael Johnson, while I don't have to provide sources as per the Wiki policies (which I've quoted again and again), there are academics who directly dispute the consensus. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm from Dr. Benny Peiser and http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf from Dennis Bray. Yes, I know that neither of these gentlemen are climatologists and neither of these were published in peer-reviewed journals, but those are not prerequisites to making logical points. Both of them find serious fault with the methodologies and conclusions of the Oreskes study that established the consensus in the first place. JQLibet 04:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you make of this: "In 2001, over 17,000 scientists signed a petition asking the United States government to not agree to the Kyoto treaty. These distinguished researchers said: 'There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.'" (From Dana Rohrabacher's website.) That's a reference to: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm. I think 17,000 scientists is a sufficient number to constitute a "sizable minority" if not an outright majority. Sorry JPotter and Michael Johnson, your argument is destroyed. CleanHarry29201 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean the infamous Oregon Petition? Please... --Michael Johnson 04:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, you have yet to explain how there can be a scientific consensus on a point that scientists disagree about. Please explain that. If you don't, you concede that you do not have a reasonable argument (which is obvious anyway). CleanHarry29201 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What I make of it is that you should read the archives. the Oregon Petition as been discussed and refuted has a credible source. I think that Scientific opinion on climate change speaks for it self. JPotter 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
JPotter, I am not bound by a previous determination on the Wikipedia's talk page on global warming. There is no stare decisis on Wikipedia, much though you'd like there to be. CleanHarry29201 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Another round of hand waving isn't going to give the Oregon Petition any more credibility. JPotter 05:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming" would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming," any scientist's agreement will do." Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html. JQLibet 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this not sufficient to establish a legitimate controversy: http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/statment.html. "Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree. A survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880." This is signed by a variety of scientists: David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center; Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, M.l.T.; Robert C. Balling, Ph.D., Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University; Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; Roger Pielke, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University; Michael Garstang, Ph.D., Professor of Meteorology, University of Virginia; Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory; Lev S. Gandin, Ph.D., UCAR Scientist, National Meteorological Center; John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA; H. Jean Thiebaux, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Meteorological Center, National Weather Service, NOM; Kenneth V. Beard, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois; Paul W. Mielke, Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado State University; Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute; Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director; Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service; Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D., Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University; Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services. The list continues. Explain why this does not establish a scientific controversy over the statements previously discussed. CleanHarry29201 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from it being 14 years old? --Michael Johnson 05:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
And for attacking strawmen: They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action is *not* what the GW page says, nor is it the scientific position William M. Connolley 09:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • From today's news (January 19, 2007): Joe D'Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, a group of scientists, doesn't think greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming and climate change. "Greenhouse warming is real, but I think it is a relatively minor player," D'Aleo said. He claims other factors like solar activity and other natural causes are probably playing a greater role in rising temperatures -- a position that gets a mostly chilly reception from the crowd. D'Aleo said there was an element of peer pressure to toe the party line. "A lot of them are not willing to speak up because it might endanger grants and jobs," he said. Arvin Sloane 09:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
But who is this shadowy group? Google doesn't know [59]. Do you? William M. Connolley 09:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well there's a Joe D'Aleo works for intellicast as their website editor and is pretty much only famous for getting media coverage from apparently contraversial statements which are a bit more mainstream when you unpick them. [[60]] I guess the two other ones listed here [[61]] probably constitute this "panel" but I cannot find it mentioned anywhere. --BozMo talk 10:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
To give that even more context, here's the actual news report: Global warming dissenters few at U.S. weather meeting. Sounds like the real story isn't the fact that there is dissent, but rather that there is so little dissent. Joe D'Aleo can make of that whatever he will, but that's just Joe D'Aleo's take. The scientific community is largely in agreement on this issue, with little dissent. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "The scientific community is largely in agreement on this issue, with little dissent" — this is not science, it's politics. This kind of argument shouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia. And my posts are not "unsigned", Mr. Connolley, my Hughes satellite Internet service assigns random roaming IP addresses (as I have explained to you before, haven't I?). All in all, nothing can hide the fact that this "Global Warming" article is extremely biased, and being aggressively protected by a group of self-appointed censors with a huge ax to grind. Shame on you. Arvin Sloane 19:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is neither science nor politics, but just an atute observation by another editor. As for being biased, just present your sources to the contrary. They just need to be of the same quality as the cites used on the article already. --Michael Johnson 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Now, it would seem, three people disagree that the article is neutral. That's certainly sufficient to justify the placement of a POV tag indicating a neutrality dispute. (Actually, one person engaging in a good faith dispute over neutrality is sufficient, but three certainly is.) Removing a neutrality dispute tag when there is an ongoing neutrality dispute is plain vandalism, pure and simple, so I would counsel those who want to remove the tag to think long and hard before removing a factual tag from an article. CleanHarry29201 05:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Note also this language from the NPOV policy: "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." That definitely applies here, and the POV tag is perfectly proper. CleanHarry29201 05:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
In this case, however, the POV tags gets reverted as soon it is put up by you and there is no prolonged edit war where the POV tag is put up by spomeone removed by someone else, put back by someone else etc. etc. all day long. That suggests to me that there is a strong consensus against the POV tag. You and maybve one or two other editors are the dissenters.
B.t.w. maybe you use a different definition for "consensus" than the commonly accepted definition, both in this dispute about the POV tag and whether there exists a consensus about CO_2 induuced global warming.  :) Count Iblis 14:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Attempting some focus

JQL makes essentially 2 points: one about the consensus (which is tediously familiar and will probably have the usual result) and the second about doom+catastrophe. HE also says, why will no-one discuss my arguments. Which is ironic, since he hasn't answered my:

I disagree. The GW article should *not* speak about D+C. If if does, that needs to be fixed & I will be happy to help. The intro sez Other consequences include higher or lower agricultural yields, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. Warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events; however, it is difficult to connect particular events to global warming (my emphasis on the higher). Do you think that list is unreasonable? glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows is definitely reasonable. And I notice you omit the para immeadiately following your quote: The extent and probability of these consequences is a matter of considerable uncertainty - doesn't that answer much of your problem? I've weakened the THC bit.
As to the controversy: there is a link to it in the intro: Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and especially how changes will vary from region to region across the globe. A hotly contested political and public debate has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming, or to deal with the expected consequences. - and there is a whole section on alternative hypotheses. I don't really see what more you could ask for William M. Connolley 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

above. Perhaps because he no longer has complaints about the D+C side? Anyway, perhaps this smaller aspect could be worked on William M. Connolley 09:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think that I'm apparently bound by whatever previous discussions you've had on the matter. The fact that you have been able to browbeat and overwhelm previous discussion is of no import to someone who did not take part in it. The fact remains that there is a verifiable scientific dispute, proven by other articles on this very wikipedia, as to the existence, causes, and ramifications of global warming. Doom and catastrophe was an argument that you raised in response to my providing of evidence in support of the scientific dispute. That quote came from a letter written by 60 scientists. 60. I undertook to respond to your points by pointing out the varied and dramatic consequences listed on the global warming page and expounded upon in the effects of global warming article. All of it goes to the singular issue and my singular argument: there is a dispute as to the neutrality of this article as defined by the Wikipedia policies. Arguing about the existence of the dispute won't change that. Ignoring it won't change that. Stifling discussion won't change that. This article deserves, nay requires, a POV tag. Failing to put it up or removing it is in violation of the Wikipedia policies and the whole spirit of scentific debate. Reasonable minds certainly differ on the myriad issues raised by global warming, and it is frankly insulting that you make no room for any other point of view besides your own. That is the definition of bias. JQLibet 18:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I just checked out William M. Connolley's page. On it, he states: "I've mostly edited climate related pages, which is where most of my wiki-relevant expertise is. I - the long-haired sandal-wearing weirdo-non-conformist - have been doing my best to staunchly defend (with logic, facts and reasoned arguments mostly) the orthodox line." Even reading this as charitably as possible, Mr. Connolley, a self-described "climate modeller," publicly states that his goal is to "defend . . . the orthodox line" with respect to climate change. That this is highly inappropriate is self-evident. A Wikipedia editor with an axe to grind on a particular topic is nothing more than a cheap propaganda artist, and that appears to be Mr. Connolley's function in this debate. I have no axe to grind and have no idea whether (a) global warming exists or (b) people are causing it. I do know that there are plenty of experts and regular people on both sides of both questions, but Mr. Connolley doesn't want anyone to know that, because it conflicts with the "orthodox line" that he's self-describedly sworn to defend. I expect more from a Wikipedia admin.CleanHarry29201 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Self described my ass... --Stephan Schulz 09:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for using profanity. Does wonders for convincing other people that you're correct. William M. Connolley does describe himself as I have indicated, so I don't know what your problem could be other than that you don't seem to know what the English language means. This does not surprise me, as lately I've been told by opposing Wikipedians that (1) a "consensus" doesn't require agreement by everyone and (2) there's no "dispute" even if some people disagree.
But by refusing to address my primary point, I gather that you concede it. The primary point is that Mr. Connolley is an introducer of bias on this page, as his personal page indicates that his goal is to defend a certain point of view. That's no more than propaganda-spreading, and it's inappropriate for the Wikipedia. I still await a substantive response from either Mr. Connolley or his defenders on this point. CleanHarry29201 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I take a hint from User:Raymond arritt. --Stephan Schulz 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Your last sentence is a bit unclear, but it is worth pointing out that "consensus" does most certainly not require agreement by everyone. That there is broad consensus on global climate change is undeniable. bikeable (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

JQL - you are evading the issue. I'm trying to talk about your complaints that this GW page promotes doom+catastrophe. I think thats a straw man, and I don't think you've demonstrated it William M. Connolley 12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Pause for reflection?

After a period of relative stability this article is now undergoing lots of changes. It's great that people are trying to improve the article but not all of the changes hang together. The intro, in particular, has become very disjointed. So after making individual edits please take a step back and look at how your material affects the material around it. If you see that things aren't flowing smoothly from one idea to the next, try to adjust sentence and paragraph structure so they do. I'll do some copyedit over the next few days. Raymond Arritt 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I just add that this idea of stare decisis on Wikipedia runs against everything the site stands for. Remember this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages ? I've now seen in several places, not just in the global warming context, the argument raised that "well, we've done this before a few times, and since we didn't change anything then, why change anything now." Are the other editors so out of touch that I actually need to provide the historical examples showing how dangerous this line of thinking has proven to be? Discussion and debate is something that needs to be encouraged in all its forms and for all time. If an issue is raised by a new voice, simply responding that "we already argued about this" is unfair to the person with no opportunity to be heard in the discussion. If he raises points that you've already heard and responded to, either copy and paste your response or direct him to it. Then allow him the chance to counter your points. If he raises new points, respond to them. But just because an idea has languished on a page for months or years, does not make one whit of difference in whether or not to keep it if someone has a logical foundation for its removal. JQLibet 18:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you actually read what Ray wrote? He did not say "don't update", he said "if you update, make sure that your changes fit into the context somehow". And his suggested remedy is not to refrain from editing, but to "try to adjust sentence and paragraph structure so they do", i.e. to edit some more... --Stephan Schulz 19:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, how about I'll go make some changes as per the things I have discussed. They will be well-written and insightful and footnoted and all that good stuff. Then they'll be deleted within 30 seconds. Thanks, but no thanks. JQLibet 19:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Try. It would be a first... --Stephan Schulz 21:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
JQLibet doesn't seem to be around, so I've rewritten the intro to remove some POV language. Let's see how long it stays up. CleanHarry29201 23:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We were talking about "well-written and insightful and footnoted". Your edit did not even come close. As an example: "If there is a human-induced component of global warming, many scientists agree that it is likely caused primarily by an" ...nope, they just agree. And the rest is neither better not more NPOV. --Stephan Schulz 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
So you waited 11 minutes before reverting rather than 30 seconds. Good show. The POV tag is going right back up. CleanHarry29201 00:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the POV tag. Only if discussions lead to differences between a substancial fraction of the editors is such a tag justified. A few editors cannot decide for themselves that they don't like the article and that they are just going to put a POV tag on it. Count Iblis 01:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Count, that analysis is wholly unsupported by the Wikipedia NPOV policy. The only condition precedent to posting a POV tag is that there be a POV dispute. There is a POV dispute, and that justifies a tag. The fact that I edited the page to remove the POV language and the edit was reverted 11 minutes later further demonstrates the problem. Removal of a POV tag when there is an ongoing POV dispute is vandalism, and I'd appreciate it if you commit no further vandalism. CleanHarry29201 05:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If you believe the article is being vandalized, Wikipedia has mechanisms to deal with the problem. See Category:Wikipedia_vandalism and choose the appropriate venue. Raymond Arritt 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If we count all the editors in good faith that the religious clique WP:OWNing this article have driven away over the past two years, a huge majority would be on your side. However after his initial bannings (for good cause) WMC has become a rather consumate wikilawyer/politician. I frankly don't think you have a chance in hades of being able to improve the article, as I've said above. And beyond that I don't believe I agree with or want to be associated with all the edits you would like, either. However, for the very narrow and limited purposes of establishing that there is a dispute over the neutrality of this page, I will be happy to substantiate if you do wish to escalate this to another level. I'm sure you would lose, but I happen to believe that it's important sometimes to tell the truth even when that means losing, and I'll do it.
You may also, if you wish, simply continue to add the tag two times per day, and encourage everyone you know to do the same. If you choose this tack instead, I will not join you. I believe it reduces wikipedia to a farce, and it smells disgustingly of mob rule. However, this would be the WmC way, and he certainly has proven he knows how to game the system at wikipedia, so it might well be more effective. Arker 07:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you can't go on reverting the article two times every day forever. WP:3RR recognizes that this is "gaming the system" and allows the blocking of an editor who uses this tactic. Also, a "content dispute" is never vandalism, so reversions can't be made on that basis nor the disputees reported as "vandals", although content disputes often cross the line into WP:3RR, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, or WP:NPA violations. Finally, I'll point out that casting aspersions about folks "owning" the article might end up being construed as a personal attack. (Please consider each of these points as friendly advice from an administrator.)
Atlant 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Atlant,
The meaning of "you can't" is ambiguous. If you mean I, personally, can't, you're probably right - I don't have that flair for politics needed to successfully play games like that. However, in that case, there seems to be no point in your reply at all - I made it clear it's not a tactic I will use.
If you mean no one can, you're simply wrong, because it's a strategy that's been practiced with great success in front of my eyes, particularly on this page.
Your penultimate sentence is also puzzling. Are you seriously claiming that the rules prohibit anyone from mentioning the fact that some editors break the rules? That pointing an editor to WP:OWN violates WP:CIV? That's certainly a novel theory. Would that rule apply equally to everyone or merely to those who question the "Orthodox" on this particular page? Hmmmm? Arker 06:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Arker, thank you for your constructive comments. I have not taken the dispute "higher" for two reasons. First, I don't know how. I'm a relatively new Wikipedian and have never even considered "reporting" someone before. Second, I had thought that reasoned debate would eventually result in people doing the right thing. I am not a tattle-tale. But I appreciate your comments, they are extraordinarily valuable food for thought. CleanHarry29201 16:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of a POV tag when there is an ongoing POV dispute is vandalism, and I'd appreciate it if you commit no further vandalism - you're sounding like a broken record. Threats like this are meaningless, and you know it. If you believe your own words, read WP:VAND#Dealing_with_vandalism. It even has a nice section on Improper use of dispute tags for you William M. Connolley 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, perhaps you should read what you just posted. It says that improper removal of a POV tag is not "simple vandalism." It doesn't say it's not vandalism, just that it's not the category of vandalism that is "simple." And note that I have not violated 3RR with respect to placing a POV tag on this article. I have conspicuously limited my placement of the tag well outside 3RR to avoid violating policy. I, unlike many folks around here (including you) care very much about abiding by the policies of the Wikipedia. And I reiterate, there is a good faith POV dispute ongoing with respect to global warming, and removing the POV tag under such circumstances is vandalism. POV tags may only be removed when a dispute is settled (according to the link you JUST POSTED!), and this POV dispute is most assuredly not settled. Every recent attempt by an editor to remove POV language has been instantly reverted by one of the clique that is, as a previous poster noted, attempting to improperly "own" this page in violation of Wikipedia policy. CleanHarry29201 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with CleanHarry29201. I'm new to Wiki, but this ridiculous clique that is attempting to exercise control of the page is acting disgracefully. When I first read the page I was amazed that there wasn't a 'This article is disputed' tag at the top of the page. Global Warming is a hugely controversial topic. To claim that this article is 'finished' and can't be improved upon, is ludicrous. Either allow contributors to produce a balanced article giving both sides of the debate on Global Warming, or split the article into two separate articles (see my earlier comment). Grimerking 22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Atlant has now threatened to block me if I restore the vandalized POV tag. I have thus restored the vandalized POV tag. CleanHarry29201 03:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You can find discussion in the global warming controversy article which is devoted specifically to, well, the global warming controversy. Raymond Arritt 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah we've raised this point before. There are a few articles that talk about the controversy and the scientists who disagree with the global warming "consensus," and yet we can't even mention this stuff in the main article. I'm still repulsed by the people who continually delete POV tags even though there is a legitimate neutrality dispute. I hope they are lawyers; I'd love to seem try that same kind of logic with a judge. Can anyone say contempt? JQLibet 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope you understand the position that contentious topics are frequently disputed. In some cases, people try to place tags on articles simply to make them less credible or disrupt Wikipedia. You would be better advised to suggest specific changes and the merits can be discussed. --TeaDrinker 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Temperature comparison.PNG

I've listed Image:Temperature comparison.PNG for deletion, since it seems either totally pointless, or perhaps because its intended to make some obscure point. But since the graphs are all anomalies anyway, adding a pile of extra whitespace is not useful William M. Connolley 12:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitigation

I think the section on mitigation should include a link to geothermal power. Recent evidence indicates that this source might have great promise and the Wikipedia entry has some good information. Jacqueslacansan 16:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

State of the Union

Bush mentioned climate change in the SOTU last night. Think it's worth mentioning in the article?


"America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment – and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

JPotter 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with science though. And in fact really just political fluff. Admitting that GW is a serious challenge is vaguely new. How about politics of global warming? William M. Connolley 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look. JPotter 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Credibility of Article

As a long established Wiki, I find the article is biased by the way some contributors abuse the concept of objectivity by blocking reasonable attempts to improve the quality of entries. The article concentrates for example on CO2 and doesn't mention other more important warming gases especally H2O, but also CH4 and NOx. Ths lowers the objectivity of the entry, and introduces a political bias into what should be a neutral entry.

Peterrhyslewis 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But CO2 IS the most important global warming gas. It is more important than H2O because it is anthropogenic, and it is more important than CH4, at least for now, because it lasts much longer in the atmosphere, ditto NOx. regards sbandrews 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I suggest you read beyond the first paragraph: Global warming#Greenhouse_gases_in_the_atmosphere has NH4 and NOX. Water vapour is in a dynamic equilibrium in the athmosphere, and hence is not a climate forcing, but only acts as an amplifier and is discussed in Greenhouse gas#The_role_of_water_vapor. The uncertainty about the effect of clouds is in Global warming#Climate_models and in Global climate model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming. --Stephan Schulz 21:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It's puzzling that you missed all twelve (12) mentions of methane in the article. Raymond Arritt 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
CO2 is not the most important warming gas: water vapour is much more efficient, as you will observe on an FTIR spectrum taken in air. It is immedately perceived when clouds gather over a cold surface and when the humdity increases in a dry atmosphere. It shpould thus be put up front in any article which claims to neutrality, and lack of plitical bias. Peterrhyslewis 10:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
i said 'But CO2 IS the most important global warming gas', you said, 'CO2 is not the most important warming gas' , is it just me, or did you miss the word global out? Was this a mistake, because this is an article about 'global warming', not 'warming'. If you want warming, I suggest a blanket :) sbandrews 10:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an old argument; see greenhouse gas for why WV doesn't dominate. Incidentally, you missed the obvious error in water vapour is much more efficient... It is immedately perceived when clouds gather over a cold surface... William M. Connolley 11:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Also see Talk:Global warming/FAQ#Water_vapour_is_the_most_important_greenhouse_gas.21. --Stephan Schulz 11:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

allegedly

Several editors today have inserted the word allegedly into the first sentence. It reads something like Global warming is the allegedly observed and theorized increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation into the future. It seems to me that such words are giving undue weight to a very small minority who do not believe global warming is observed. There is only one person listed on the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. It would be a bit like say "hiv is alledgedly the virus that some have theorized causes aids." It simply does not reflect what the vast majorities of professionals believe. --TeaDrinker 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The definition was in fact in contradiction with the remain of the article. the goal of wikipedia is to provide information based on the best available data, not to criticize this data. If in the future this consensus of scientists proves to be wrong, so be it: the encyclopaedias (including wikipedia) will be changed. Until them, I stick with the closest thing to scientific consensus.--Ninarosa 04:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Global warming another viewpoint

I suggest that every one that is talking about global warming today would realize that the term, “warming” changes the topic from just talk to a discussion of energy.

The energy guru of all times was Sir Isaac Newton who lived in the seventeenth century. His work was and still is the authority on questions of energy of all kinds. Any one talking global warning should do a google search on energy forms and learn what they are talking about.

In his work he stated that almost all energy on earth is or was furnished by the sun. He also stated that energy is conserved meaning that it does not dissipate or diminish. It has been stacking up for at least four million years and our scientific community should answer the question, “where did it go?” before we buy the story that something that we are doing is having a negative effect on the ozone and causing global warming.

I believe that this daily layer of energy is absorbed as heat and has been radiating to the center of the earth for four million years and melting rock. There is no other place with that much stored energy on earth.

I also believe that the coefficient of expansion of the crust of the earth being warmed from below causes pressure that causes upheavals that they call "mountains caused by earth quakes." These mountains even look like the upheavals in our roadways caused by summer heat and the coefficient of expansion of the road material but on a larger scale.

When there is a fault such as a break the pressure that caused the break sets the broken piece of the crust in motion away from the break floating on the magma. The kinetic energy or energy of motion initiated by the momentary impulse caused by the break is equal to the weight of the land mass times it’s velocity squared. I believe also that the magma gets bigger and the crust gets thinner with time and the earth tends to swell as the suns heat builds up because of it‘s coefficient of expansion.

Thus I believe that global warming is a non man made fact that we can’t do a thing about. However, it has been happening for four million plus years and I have no real reason to run and hide yet.

I have been in the engineering field all of my working career and would welcome discussion as to the possible feasibility of these statements from the scientific field.

Retired8903 05:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Newton was a great scientist, but not a great expert on energy. Thermodynamics as a field was in its very infancy during his lifetime. You suggestion is not compatible with current physics. The Earth, as any body not at absolute zero, is radiating energy as per the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Intake and outflow very nearly match, or it would have melted long ago. The Second law of thermodynamics makes it impossible that there is a net energy flow from the relatively cool surface to the molten interior of the earth. Sorry. --Stephan Schulz 08:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, You surprise me. I thought that Rutherford established that the Earth would have cooled completely in about 10 million years without an internal energy source and that it was background radiation in the rock which keeps the Earth's core hot and means outflow is slightly more than inflow... --BozMo talk 10:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Read carefully: "Intake and outflow very nearly match..."--Stephan Schulz 11:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice try! "Very nearly" was said in the context of net balance implied over geological timescales, which isn't correct. By the way did you know there was a Flanders and Swann song on the Second Law of Thermodynamics? ("Heat won't flow from the cooler to the hotter, You can try it if you like but you'd far better notter"). Out of interest any idea how does the net outflow compare to the solar energy falling per square meter? --BozMo talk 11:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was in the context of inflow and outflow of radiation. I don't have the exact numbers handy, but the net difference is so small that it is normally ignored in most models. Solar inflow (averaged over all earth surface) is about 342 Watts per m^2), and I seem to remember that radioactive decay is at least 3 orders of magnitude smaller.--Stephan Schulz 12:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to Gauge Consensus

The Global Warming page has clearly been undergoing a bit of edit warring recently pertaining to whether the page is presenting a neutral point of view. Because of this contention, I've just spent about six hours reading through these Talk:Global Warming pages to try to determine what the overall views of Global Warming contributors are.

The contributors seem to fall fairly cleanly into two camps: those who seem like they probably agree with most or all of the following statements, and those who seem like they probably disagree with most or all of the following statements:

1) The average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans has increased in the last half century.

2) The majority of the recent temperature increase is attributable to human activities.

3) The Global Warming page is adequately neutral as is, and doesn't warrant a POV tag.

4) The Global Warming page would be better off without making changes that give even more credence to the minority viewpoint, such as replacing the initial "Global warming is the observed increase in ..." with "Global warming is the allegedly observed and theorized increase in ...."

Among the 47 contributors who have made changes to this talk page between January 1 and this post, inclusive, I think the 36 following users would agree with most or all of the the above statements: 67.176.43.144, Amatulic, AstroHurricane001, Atlant, bikeable, BozMo, Calibas, Candy, Chris Gonzalez, Chrisnumbers2000, Count Iblis, Dan Pangburn, David.atwell, Eric, h2g2bob, HughGRex, Jacqueslacansan, Jcc1, j e r s y k o, JPotter, KarlBunker, Kamope, Lesikar, Mac Davis, Michael Johnson, MrRedact, Narssarssuaq, Ninarosa, Raymond Arritt, RyGuy, sbandrews, Sm8900, Specusci, Stephan Schulz, TeaDrinker, William M. Connolley.

I think the 11 following contributors who have made changes to this talk page in the same time range would disagree with most or all of the above statements: 200.121.111.113, 2404, Arker, Arvin Sloane, CleanHarry29201, Gabeh, Grimerking, JQLibet, Peterrhyslewis, Philcha, Retired8903.

My apologies to any of the above users that I've incorrectly categorized.

You're tying unrelated opinions together and, intentionally or unintentionally, distracting from the actual issue. It doesn't matter at all which of us or how many agree with 1, for instance. (For the record, I rate it as probably (>90% chance) true, and I'd suspect anyone that flat out says it's not true doesn't know what they're talking about. So yes, you misrepresented me badly above, but more importantly you erred in your choice of categories to begin with.) The point is having an NPOV article. That doesn't mean the editors vote about what the truth is, and then the article tells the reader what the truth is. That means that the article should, in a neutral tone and scrupulously avoiding emotive language and rhetorical tricks, describe the work that has been done, the data that has been recorded, the interpretations of that data that have been proposed, the arguments that have been advanced for and against those interpretations. And that is what it fails to do, and what many of the editors here will never willingly allow it to do. That's why it violates WP:NPOV Arker 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to make it very clear what I'm getting at - the point is that it doesn't matter if you can show a supermajority of editors in favour of a POV article - policy *still* requires it to be NPOV. Arker 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is reasonably close to NPOV. The only significant problem is that it devotes excessive attention to fringe views such as those of Svensmark. Raymond Arritt 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, try to be serious. One study is mentioned in passing, in a single sentence in a 57 kilobyte article, and you say that's giving undue weight to minority views? (Of course you actually, pointedly, used a loaded term - "fringe views" - which is not appropriate and suggests a serious lack of interest in NPOV on this issue.) Arker 03:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
My copy of the Oxford English Dictionary defines "fringe" as "not part of the mainstream; unconventional." That's an accurate and NPOV assessment of Svensmark's findings. Arguing by inverse, there is no evidence that his attribution of global warming to cosmic rays is "mainstream"; quite to the contrary, his whole point is that his work refutes the mainstream view. Raymond Arritt 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It's also a word that carries a pejorative connotation. Selective presentation of facts, minimising references to dissent and spinning those references with carefully chosen terms that, even if denotatively accurate, carry pejorative connotations, is NOT NPOV. Your last sentence appears to be nothing more than a red herring. Arker 22:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the majority viewpoint is held by about 77% of the current set of editors on this page (36/47). That's well into the 60%-80% range that is typically used to establish a supermajority on Wikipedia, when a supermajority is used instead of a consensus.

I'm hesitant to do an actual poll, in part because I think it'd be hard to do a poll that didn't suffer from problems such as sock puppetry and vote stacking, and in part because we're officially supposed to try to find a consensus through discussion rather than voting.

Hopefully this little analysis will be useful somehow, instead of just contributing to divisiveness. For one thing, it seems like it should at least help dispel any notion that the reason that the "global warming isn't real" idea isn't given more weight is just because the Global Warming article is being controlled by a little clique. It may be true that some editors here are a lot more active than others, but it looks like the more active editors here are in general more or less just reflecting the opinions of the large majority.

Another interesting observation is that even though there apparently only currently exists one scientist who thinks that the Earth isn't even getting warmer, there seem to be several current editors here who hold that opinion, even though there are vastly more scientists than there are current editors on this page. Assuming that scientists are on average more likely to have an accurate viewpoint about global warming than the average editor here is, it seems like these anomalous ratios just might be a clue that this global warming stuff is for real.

MrRedact 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a pretty good summary. I might add "in all probability" into (2) but otherwise I think it reflects the debate. --BozMo talk 13:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate what you are saying, but I think there is a slight flaw in your statements. Many people may agree with points 1 and 2. However, they may not agree with points 3 and 4. I am sceptical regarding 'man made global warming'. I have absolutely no problem with this page presenting the arguments in favour of the 'man made' theory. I do object to the way the page has been locked by a clique to prevent the counter arguments being made. As far as I'm aware, nobody is advocating an article that does nothing but rubbish the 'man made' theory, they just want a balanced article that presents both sides of the scientific debate. Science is not democracy. People that hold the minority view may be right - Pasteur proved that bacteria cause decay, rather than 'spontaneously appearing' in decaying matter (which was the consensus at the time).
Personally, I still think the article should be split into at least 2 separate articles:
1) Observed measurements (and the methodology used) showing climate change.
2) Theory of 'manmade global warming'. Grimerking 13:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It is global warming that started as a theory proposed by a small minority of scientists, which has become more and more respectable despite the best efforts of the US Government and multinational corporations to discredit it. It is interesting how the skeptics always claim to be the Davids, when they have had the Goliaths on their side. Just produce the scientific data to support your positions,and I'll support your changes. It is simple. Currently the scientific concensus, including the latest UN report, is reflected in the article, as it should be. --Michael Johnson 13:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you are attempting to cloud the issue by bringing politics into the debate. You sneer at those that hold a different view, because they do not disagree with the 'US Government and multinational corporations'. I have never claimed to have been a 'David' versus your 'Goliarth'. I have simply said that the clique that have locked/reverted the page are behaving badly. If the best argument that you can produce is 'consensus' and 'Amerikkka' then you must know how weak your position really is.
You have asked for 'scientific data'. This article was printed in the UK's largest selling broadsheet newspaper. It is well respected for its factual output within the UK. The editorial slant is 'centre right'. Please note that there are 77 pages of opinion. Many of those commenting are academics. The author also includes his calculations and references.
Original article is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml
Second 'follow up' article is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=MX0JWL0K4AFSTQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml&page=1
Reader comments and author's replies are here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/12/warm-response3.pdf
Original paper including calculations and references is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf
I'd be very grateful if you would read the above articles (maybe not all of the 77 pages of comments, but at least the main articles and the research paper, and then let me know what you think. Grimerking 14:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have had a browse this morning of the warm-refs.pdf, and unfortunately am less than impressed. It is written in a jounalistic style, and almost immediately I came across a significant error of fact. On page 5, he writes that in Greenland The Viking agricultural settlements remain under permafrost to this day. This is not correct. Also a claim that a Chinese fleet circled an ice-free Artic Ocean, entirely unsourced. Further investigation of his background finds that he was a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. I'll try and get back to this paper later, but so far it is hard to see it as other than another skeptical apology using distortions and selective figures to prove it's point. And I do not sneer at those who agree with the US government. I am disappointed with those who use rheteric such as David & Golith arguments, rather than doing the hard work of actually finding the original science they claim supports their POV. --Michael Johnson 21:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I grow very weary of the "Greenland used to be green!" arguments, and I'm surpised that they, and the variations on them (such as this "the Norse settlements are now under permafrost") are still being trotted out. Here's a map of the Eastern Settlement [62], and here's a satellite image of the area today [63], likewise, here's a map of the Western Settlement [64], and here's a satellite image of that area today [65]. Just to be clear, here's a zoom in on the general area where the Brattahlid and Gardar farms were located [66], and here's a zoom in on the general area of the Sandnes farm [67]. Perhaps I should add this to Talk:Global warming/FAQ. -- Leland McInnes 00:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Further comments: Monkton relies on Soon & Baliunas (2003), and on McIntyre et al. (2003, 2005), amongst others. Yet he fails to disclose these authors have been rebutted by later work. For instance see the Australian Greenhouse Office, for an analysis of these two authors by an Australian government body. And before you claim bias, it is worth remembering that the Australian Government is one of the most greenhouse-skeptical governments anywhere. I could go on, but even this short review of Monkton points to selective use of the evidence to support a POV. Hardly a reliable source. --Michael Johnson 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The Australian Greenhouse office blurb is a nice summary. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here are a few comments. (1) As a regular reader of the daily telegraph (I had already read these articles) I would not agree that it is "well respected for its factual output within the UK", or at least it commands no particular respect for "factual output" (try reading the health food sections). In addition, it is very well recognised by all its readers (as for many papers) that when it deliberately invites a "leader" by a named author it does so to try to stir up contraversy not to express its own view. (2) A popular newspaper with some respondents who state they are scientists does not amount to any kind of review or survey of scientific opinion (3) The article itself isn't written in a serious or considered matter, it is a superficial tirade; there are plenty of personal attacks and mis-quotes. That's ok for the Telegraph but not for Wikipedia. IF there is a serious scientific view along the lines of the ones expressed in this article then the author should attempt to publish it in a serious scientific forum. Then, I would be inclined to include it. --BozMo talk 14:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
BozMo, I accept that the comments are not to be taken as any kind of 'proof' (your points regarding the Telegraph are also fair - this isn't really the place for an in-depth discussion regarding the UK Press). I asked people to note the 77 pages to comments (of which, I have only read a tiny minority) because they run contrary to the 'consensus' and 'there is no debate' arguments.
As far as I'm aware the final article I link to, wasn't featured in the print edition of the Telegraph. It contains the calculations and scientific arguments, I suggest you read it. Everything is referenced and it sets out in a logical way, just what is wrong with the 'consensus' regarding climate change.
For the record, I have no particular 'dog in this fight'. I simply want the Wiki page to reflect the truth - i.e. there is a debate. Nothing has been 'proved' and certainly nothing approaching a scientific proof has been put forward. Grimerking 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I only get the print edition on Sat, otherwise I read online. But I had looked at the long screed. Monckton's views are mentioned here: Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley of course but it does look more about him than about science... As I have said I also do not regard myself as having an extreme view: I am afraid some rather low quality attacks on the article might have made everyone a bit trigger happy: if you can improve it take a section and propose a re-write here on the talk page. --BozMo talk 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Peak Oil

I was reading the article on peak oil when I wondered how peak oil and global warming fit together. Afterall, if the global economy is going to strink due to reducing oil supply, it surely must reduce the contribution to global warming.

Where is the analysis? Where does this article make any reference to peak oil?

88.110.199.102 13:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Peak Oil like Global Warming means different things to different people, and like global warming suffers from changes in consensus view over the last decade being lagged by people and publications catching up. Personally, I don't think the Wikipedia article on Peak Oil is nearly as up to date as the Global Warming one (and its SO long I haven't got the energy to work on it). I would suggest you read the Stern Review which concludes that oil is not going to run out soon enough to save major effects from global warming either directly (can't burn what you don't have) or indirectly (can't burn what you are too poor to afford). --BozMo talk 13:53, 26 January 2007MWP and LIA in IPCC reports]]

I took out:

Fossil fuels are created over millions of years and for all practical purposes there is a limited store of every fossil fuel. One of the major contributors to global warming is believed to be CO2 from burning fossil fuel and therefore the ultimate quantity of CO2 capable of being released into the atmosphere is capped by the total quantity of fossil fuel.
Just as there is considerable debate about global warming, there are a number of predictions of fossil fuel availibility and therefore a great uncertainty over the rate at which CO2 from fossil fuels will be released into the atmosphere. However, the timescales for global warming and fossil fuel depletion are similar with both being modelled over a period of several decades or centuries and as such models on global warming use various scenarios:
  • Global warming is constrained mainly by inter-government agreement to cut fossil fuel use.
  • Global warming is not constrained and fossil fuels continue to be freely burnt.
  • Global warming is constrained by the limited availability of fossil fuel.

As far as I'm aware, no-one in the mainstream expects GW to be significantly constrained by lack of things to burn, so peak oil is of limited relevance to this article. It currently has a link from the intro and that seems sufficient (remember article bloat) William M. Connolley 15:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the only certainty that exists with global warming is that if as most people believe the main contributor is CO2 then it is quite obviously self limited by the quantity of fossil fuel. I know many in the Global warming lobby would like to bury this fact, but in the interests of balance the article should cover this very basic issue. If you would like to add to the issue your comments then it will only improve the article but to remove them altogether strikes me of the worst kind of deceit!
This section is needed to make sure that those reading the article are aware that there is an upper limit to CO2 output which under some models will be the limiting factor (in fact given the way politicians treat the subject - it is more than likely this is the only limit!)
Mike 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I believe this to be completely technically false. There is a vast amount of carbon producing material around including huge quantities of Natural Gas, Methane_clathrate and so on which will not run out in the foreseeable future. As above "no-one in the mainstream expects GW to be significantly constrained by lack of things to burn". There is so much Natural Gas that it isn't even added to reserves until it is commercialised (i.e. effectively sold) because of the presumption that most of it won't be needed (=economically viable) --BozMo talk 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
To give a number to this, the Carbon content of remaining fossil fuels including clathrates is about ten times the Carbon content of the entire atmosphere at present. See Wikipedia e.g. Methane_clathrate --BozMo talk 16:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This needs to be based on the available science. If you look through IPCC/SRES, I don't think you'll find anything about running out of carbon, only substituting. There is plenty of coal to burn if the oil ends, and tar sands. The text you have added is sourceless, vague and totally non-numeric. Just as there is considerable debate about global warming - what does this mean? If you mean "over the science", then no - see the intro, etc., there are a number of predictions of fossil fuel availibility - a number? yes: there is the mainstream view that there is quite enough C; and there is the "peak oil" enthusiasts - and that only applies to oil and therefore a great uncertainty over the rate at which CO2 from fossil fuels will be released into the atmosphere - there is indeed uncertainty, but the mainstream view is that the uncertainty comes from economic scenarios of growth, not peak oil. Although most predictions for global assume unlimited availability of fossil fuel, in reality - not acceptable: you seem to be implying that although the predictions are X, in your reality Y is true - there is also great concern over the future availability of key fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and even coal - no; AFAIK coal is nearly unlimited, at least for the purposes of filling the atmos with CO2 - ; some experts even suggesting that fossil fuel availability is already in decline. - may be true for oil, but coal availability is clearly not declining - As the timescales for global warming and fossil fuel depletion are similar, it is impossible to discount fossil fuel availability as a potential limit on global warming. - if this article is to list all the things that are "impossible to discount" we'll be here forever. Ironically, declining oil resources could also potentially result in a temporary increase in CO2 output, if as is expected, oil is derived from coal in processes which themselves liberate CO2 in addition to that derived from burning the oil. true, but already built into the SRES I should expect William M. Connolley 16:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear M.Connolley, unless CO2 does not cause global warming, it is a no brainer that all global warming models are eventually limited by the availability of fossil fuel. I don't know why you are trying to hide this fact - but I can guess from the comments about lack of neutrality of the article.
Peak oil is an article covering not only oil but coal and it refers to other limited sources. I know it is not liked by the global warming lobby because they don't like the idea that global warming may be self-limiting. However, I could see your point if I were replacing the whole article with one on peak oil - but otherwise you must include something on peak oil to retain the balance otherwise it is clearly biased with the assumption that "fossil fuel will increase exponentially" .... which to be blunt is a stupid assumption.
I'll accept your point in the unlikely event that you can show that the worst peak oil prediction does not constrain global warming - in which case there is no need, but otherwise I think you'll find that all global warming scenarious if run long enough will find that they end when fossil fuels are fully depleted.
Mike 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not think the lowest competant forecasts of fossil fuel (as opposed odd articles by journalists who do not know what reserve means) offer any real limits to greenhouse gas production until CO2 levels have risen to at least several times todays level: say to 2000 ppm for sake of argument versus 375 (or whatever it now is). The climatic implications by then are so serious everyone assumes or hopes this won't happen. There is a limit but its not going to help. --BozMo talk 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore... anytime you are down to asserting that your argument is a "no brainer" then its probably time to stop and wonder if you're talking about the same things. In this case, we're not. *Eventually* we will run out of fossil fuels if we keep burning them - but thats not the point. The timespan covered in the page and most GW debates is "to 2100". It is far from a "no brainer" that we will run out by then; indeed it is very unlikely. If you think that all the SRES scenarios are implausible, then I thik you're wrong, but the palce to start such a discussionwould be on SRES not here. If you can find credible sources that analyse the SRES and demonstrate they are impossible due to C lack then good. But until then, no William M. Connolley 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Yep. The highest high scenario releases 1800 GtC CO2 by 2100 versus average estimates of available fossil fuel of 7500 GtC. --BozMo talk 17:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Mr Connonlly - you have just proved my point: "The timespan covered in the page and most GW debates is "to 2100". The timescale being considered for peak oil is 2007 at the lastest 2010. Peak coal is from memory around 40 years after peak oil which puts both well within your self set timescale of 2100. I really don't know why you are being so rediculous. The world's oil reserves are nearing empty, I don't think anyone is seriously saying that global warming will not be limited by fossil fuel depletion. If you have a serious analysis of the subject then lets see it otherwise I think you don't have a leg to stand on! Mike 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Mr BozMo, are you trying to tell me that CO2 output will be unaffected by peak oil? I used to have some respect for the global warming lobby - afterall it is a serious problem, but this encounter seems to show a lot of biggotry and unwillingless to listen to other views (ironic isn't it) I've personally realised that governments don't have the willpower to consider the kind of cuts that would be necessary for a 50% reduction in CO2. However, when I look at the peak oil argument I see potential reduction of CO2 by possibly more than 50% by 2050. Readers of wikipedia ought to have at least an introduction in global warming to this issue which is more fully developed in peak oil. The peak oil argument is clearly one based on a model of economically available fossil fuel. Clearly very different from your own figures which include every possible fossil fuel reserve irrespective of whether it is energy efficient to take it out. E.g. Oil shales are only economically viable if you employ natural gas and the energy taken out is probably less than that put in. Mike 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
POV following the very clear attempt to squash the section I put in to give some balance and mention peak oil, I've read the NPOV guidelines. Following these I have labelled the article as POV since it is clearly in dispute, and following the guidelines I urge others to think on the subject a while and then come back with something a little better than the present "peak oil denyist" views. Mike 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy requires that material be supported by reliable sources. Analyses and interpretations not specifically citeable by reference to reliable soruces are considered original research and are apt to be summarily deleted. Raymond Arritt 17:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou Raymond - however I believe the article is under dispute, I believe the procedure is for those involved to step back and think about it. I think I'm following procedure .... are you? If peak oil is not a reliable source, then why is it in Wikipedia?Mike 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Mike, it's not the concept of peak oil per se that's in question, but it's the relationship between peak oil and global warming. The material you've added so far includes only your own interpretation of this relationship, and thus runs afoul of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research. Cite a reliable source that explicitly makes this connection between peak oil and global warming, and then we can discuss it further. Raymond Arritt 18:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, you haven't been listening to Mike, and although he did not make the point very well, it is a perfectly valid point that peak oil, gas and coal must have an impact on global warming. I've taken it upon myself to take from the peak oil article the various predictions which as Mike pointed out are well within the global warming timescale. The section is now properly sourced, and as far as I can see has addressed every point which has been raised. LordsReform 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If it's "a perfectly valid point that peak oil, gas and coal must have an impact on global warming" then it should be simple enough to cite reliable sources that discuss the impact of peak oil, gas and coal on global warming. That's all I'm asking. Raymond Arritt 20:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur, for this to be included in the article there must be notable, reliable advocate of the viewpoint. The article is not the place to evaluate or advocate new research. --TeaDrinker 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
File:Peak-coal-nonsense.JPG

This would be funny if it weren't such a waste of time, and junk in the wiki. The peak coal people seem to be even worse than the peak oilers. The prediction of a US peak in 2030-60 is laughable: just look at the curve-fitting its based on: see [68] figure 6. I'll add it here, just to give everyone a (bitter) laugh. William M. Connolley 21:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we just have some common sense. Would you have an article on obesity that completely failed to mention the fact that if you stopped eating so much you'd get thinner? So how can you have an article on global warming that completely fails to mention at all that fossil fuels are limited and therefore as you all agree CO2 output is necessarily limited. The peak oil, gas and coal are all within the 2100 timescale that one of your gang put forward as a criteria for inclusions. You have had it explained more often than is necessary that without this section the article clearly fails NPOV because it wrongly implies that fossil fuels are unlimited. What more can be said - the inclusion is properly sourced, it is factual it is necessary under wikipedia policy for NPOV. AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS AFTERALL ONLY A LINK TO A RELATED ARTICLE ON ENERGY AND THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY OVER-CONSUMPTION! You know it has to stay so stop grumbling!88.110.38.52 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Common sense would be nice. How about addressing one of my points: that the fit on which the coal peak is based is obviously hopelessly bad? AND DONT SHOUT you'll just look like an anon William M. Connolley 22:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflicts galore) I've taken it out again. I could remotely unserstand adding it to the "related issues" section, but, given that the article always tends to get bigger, the current link in "see also" and the link in the introduction should suffice. As long as there is no reliable external source on the link (not on peak oil), everything more would violate WP:OR. And rightly, I'd say. If the peak theories are correct (and they are not mainstream), we still have no good predictions on the amount and shape of overall emissions. And the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios that we link to already include scenarios with decreasing emissions, i.e. they neither assume unlimited exponential increase not unlimited growth.--Stephan Schulz 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Connolley, I will try not to shout, but you are making me very irate. There are two articles, both dealing with the problems caused by energy supply. It still is a no brainer that this article must link to the other (and vica versa) I didn't write the peak oil aricle, I'm not trying to defend it as such I just created a quick summary using the facts there and put a link to it. If the facts I've written are wrong then you clearly ought first to make changes to the peak oil article where there are some who can argue the toss with you. If however you dispute the facts, then again you ought to check the peak oil article and make sure that it adequately notes contrary points of view (if you can source them) - but that does not in itself negate the need for the link. But on your specific point - its a bit rich having someone complain about peak oil which has a proven record of making at least some verifiable predictions within a few years when Global warming is still at the stage of a 3:1 range between lowest and highest predictions! 88.110.38.52 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you? LR or H? I've pointed out that the graph on which the peak coal prediction is based is clearly useless - the fit is so bad as to be laughable. But if you want to quote the peak oil article, then Hubbert had recoverable coal reserves worldwide at 2500 × 109 metric tons and peaking around 2150 depending on how the usage graph is drawn. Or use the second fig from [69] - again found on the hubbert page - which says 2200 (again from a dodgy fit). William M. Connolley 22:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to forget, as I have pointed out, we do link, twice, in fact. And Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, just because verifiability is easy to establish, while absolute truth has escaped humanity up to now. And WP:V states: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. As long as there is no reliable source making the link between peak oil and global warming, it should not be in this article.--Stephan Schulz 22:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The other point to consider is that while we may very well run out of oil to fuel our cars, it is unlikely that we will turn around, hang our keys on a hook, and say that was great while it lasted. Every effort will be (is being?) made to provide alternative fuel sources, or provide alternative modes of transport. We really have no way of knowing what effect these alternatives will have on global warming. Therefore to try and tie peak oil into global warming is at best a crystal ball. --Michael Johnson 03:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
A couple of corrections to the above comment about me by Mike. (1) I am not a member of the Global Warming lobby (or any other lobby). I have spent the better part of my career (15 years) working as a senior manager for an oil company. I can understand the differences between different types of oil reserve and given that for the last three decades the real terms cost (corrected for steel cost) of extracting fossil fuel from any given location/geology has fallen about 3% a year, I think there is a very high likelihood that much of what is currently marginal will become economic well before 2100. I believe this view to be mainstream for people who work in high tech oil. I took the reserve figure from wikipedia (not mine). Mine are higher. More to the point the peak oil article in WP needs a huge amount of work... --BozMo talk 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that this has been spammed onto Global dimming too. I've removed it from there William M. Connolley 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gloat, thanks to the help on Peak Oil - I've found a couple of references that show I'm not alone in linking peak oil as a limit to global warming: New Scientist and Energy and climate change : discussing two opposite evolutions Article published in Journal de Physique - proceedings, volume 121, January 2005. I would like to quote from above:

The unlikely aspect of the extreme scenarios does not dismiss the climate change problem, as some possible "modified medium scenarios", with an energy consumption or population that would not rise as quickly as assumed, but that would call massively on coal after oil becomes expensive, still bear a very significant menace, in the sense that they still lead to a couple degrees increase in the known simulations

I think I have a right to gloat. I said I thought global warming would be limited to "about 2-3degrees", nice to see above is saying "couple degrees". Great minds think alike! 88.111.187.31 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

Following my own inability to get restore a bit of balance and at least get a brief description of peak oil in the article, and some quite clear disputes on other points, I think it is time to mark this article as under dispute. A pity! Mike 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has clearly been hijacked by a very narrow group of people who are not even willing to see perfectly sensible links to other related articles. I've wasted enough time on this bunch - if wikipedia wants any integrity it should come down on them like a tonne of bricksLordsReform 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with these comments. After attempting for several days to point out and fix POV language and add POV tags until such language has been fixed, and having faced a variety of threats and now an administrator who tells me other administrators are looking my way (probably in the hopes that I'll be scared and shut up), I can no longer assume the good faith of the clique of users and administrators dominating this page. CleanHarry29201 03:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has established mechanisms for dealing with vandalism, dispute resolution, and the like where you can have your case heard by independent admins. Raymond Arritt 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Can you be a bit more specific in your POV claim? What's biased and what needs to be improved? From my quick read through, it seems to accurately reflect the current scientific consensus. --h2g2bob 01:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
My sole interest was to have a link to the article on peak oil. As a scientist and engineer with many years experience in renewables, the article is not only very interesting but clearly relevant to anyone involved in global warming. My own personal view is that resource scarcity will have a much larger impact than any government action (primarily because government's aren't really proposing to do very much). At the very least the phrase "if we do nothing", which premises most global warming predictions must itself be limited by the availability of fossil fuel. From reflecting on the comments, it seems to be there are two fundamentally opposed ways of viewing fossil fuel resource: 1. That every resource can potentially add to global warming (runaway global warming). 2. That economical supply of fossil fuel is close to exhaustion (peak oil). These are two very different views of the same problem. What I find almost incredible is the hostility from certain individuals who will not even entertain the possibility that fossil fuel is practically limited - a bit ironic since that is quite clearly the attitude that got us into this problem in the first place. LordsReform 14:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The current fuss seems to be over some peak oil enthusiasts (or they may be one person; its unclear) who have decided that peak oil *must* be linked. They insist that we will obviously run out of fossil fuels by 2100. However, they persistently refuse to address the obvious points that: (a) the peak oil page itself says 2150 or 2200 (b) the graph they are working from (I've inlined it above) is clearly a wild over-exptrapolation and very poor fit to the data (c) in all the mainstream discussion of GW< peak oil/coal doesn't get a look-in (obviously a vast conspiracy to exclude it, of course) William M. Connolley 11:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh for the days when those talking about global warming were spoken of in the same disparaging tones. Why do you persist with the absurd idea that fossil fuel supply is limitless? Do you believe any of the world's resources are practically limited - do you even believe that the ability of the earth's atmosphere to soak up CO2 is limited - I seriously doubt it! At the end of the day, it really matters little whether you do or do not believe - government action is incapable of the level of CO2 reduction necessary to put any real limit on CO2 emissions. Therefore whatever you want to believe fossil fuels will run out manmade control has any substantial effect and therefore fossil fuel supply will be the only substantial curb on global warming. If you believe it is 2200 - then so much the worse for the world. Based on the best evidence I can find I estimate a substantial reduction in CO2 starting as early as 2030. My only interest is reading this article was to find out what this would mean for the peak temperature rise. Instead, this debate has only led me to seriously question the motives behind those who label as "heretics" those who question whether there will be a natural limit to global warming. LordsReform 14:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"...b) the graph they are working from (I've inlined it above) is clearly a wild over-exptrapolation and very poor fit to the data"
I recognise this language - I heard it at school from a bunch of kids who had got religious. Nothing you could say or do would sway them from their view that "they were right" and the rest of us were wrong. I've learnt there's no point trying to change the views of people who see the world as "them" and "us". No number of well argued discussions or facts will ever change a view such as this that is not argued by reason but by faith!
Burning of two sodomites at the stake outside Zürich, 1482 (Spiezer Schilling)
OK I'VE GOT TO ADMIT IT - I'M A HERETIC - YES I'M A HERETIC! - I DON'T BELIEVE MANKIND IS AT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE I DON'T BELIEVE THE WORLD IS FLAT - I THINK IT IS ROUND - PLEASE DON'T LAUGH AT ME, LET ME OFF THIS STAKE AND I'LL SHOW YOU - NO, I'VE NOT WALKED AROUNDIT, ... NO I HAVEN'T FLOWN IN THE SKY, ... BUT THE EVIDENCE SEEMS CLEAR TO ME IT NOT YOU ... FOSSIL FUELS ARE LIMITED AND BASED ON THE BEST MODEL THEY'RE RUNNING OUT SOON ---- ARGHH THE FLAMES, THEY'RE AT MY FEET - NO I WON'T CHANGE MY MIND - I WON'T BELIEVE THAT OIL WILL LAST FOR EVER ---- ARGGGHHHHHHHHHH THE PAIN ------- ARGHHHHHHHHH --- LordsReform 14:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I recognise this language - I heard it at school from a bunch of kids who didn't get their way and.... seriously though there is no cabal. If you make a case properly, the widely ranging views of editors here (who admittedly share a cynicism that someone will walk off the street and spot a big flaw no one had thought of) will consider it. --BozMo talk 14:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
BozMo - What do I do, but open the post and open up the January addition of Focus and on page 70 is a big article on peak oil "is oil really running out?" I originally became interested in the subject after National Geographic ran another article on the subject. The idea that "peak oil" is "fringe" is about as lunatic as saying fossil fuel cannot cause global warming. What is incredible is that as far as has been reported here, not a single global warming scientist has bothered to bring together both models - indeed, if the comments above are correct (which I doubt), me and my friend are litterally the only people who have tried to reconcile the two models of global warming and peak oil. ---- It's a crazy world Wikighost 14:31, 30, January 2070 (UTC)
Why are you signing as wikighost, when you're "lordsreform"? And if you're the only people saying this, then fine: the view is Not Notable and doesn't belong in wiki. Oh, and of course this isn't about Peak Oil but Peak Carbon William M. Connolley 15:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
A bit like the 'hockey stick'? Grimerking 13:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason "Peak Oil" is uninteresting is that there's still a lot of coal, tar sands, oil shale, and the like, and when push comes to shove and the choice is pay more or start walking, people will decide that it is economically viable to exploit these resources. And these more-difficult-to-exploit resources will all produce even more carbon than today's petroleum habit. The end of oil does not herald the end of human-caused climate change.

Atlant 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the difference between those living in the real world and those who live in ivory towers. In the real world, energy costs energy to get out of the ground and if it takes more energy to get out of the ground than it holds, no matter how much there is out there it will never be used - much oil shales and coal tar fall into that category - But honestly your whole commentry is a side issue. No one is denying that CO2 output is not fundamentally limited by the quantity of fossil fuel in the ground QED, an article on Global warming must mention the limited stock of fossil fuels and the various estimates including, but not exclusively those of peak oil (why am I the only person who seems to have an open mind?) The difference relates to the fraction that is used as the basis for your global warming model. You appear to believe that there is no practical restriction - it is the same strange logic that anti-global warming lobby used to use to suggest that there is no practical limit to the amount of CO2 that can go into the atmosphere.
I've wasted too much of my life trying to convince skeptics that global warming is a real phenonoma to waste the rest of the fossil fuel that we have left, duelling words with the same type of luddites who once couldn't quite believe that CO2 output had a practical limit. LordsReform 17:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Curious. Our oil shale article claims that only 40% of the energy in the reservoir is wasted in the extraction process, and I note that there are patents for a variety of in-situ retorting methods that use the energy of the reserve itself. As I mentioned, of course, these are carbon-intensive methods (much more so than petroleum production).
Perhaps you need to re-evaluate which of us is "living in the real world" versus the "ivory towers" (to use your words). Also, suggesting that some of us have closed minds (by suggesting that you are the only person with an open mind) is definitely a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV.
Atlant 00:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What can I say? I placed a well sourced (new scientist & prestigious French Journal) - it meets every criteria for inclusion - I can only laugh at this debacle! As a scientist having studied global warming, economics and working having worked in the UK renewables industry, I know my stuff - I can read the evidence, and what's more I now know other experts back me up! I've even submitted reports to the House of Lords, talked to chief civil servants on this very issue - oh and I've had questions asked in parliament. It is highly amusing to see the the deniers I think you call them simply refusing to even consider that fossil fuels are limited - moreso because this is exactly how I was treated when I was telling people about global warming about a decade ago. Luckily, I can laugh, because it doesn't really matter whether or not anyone agrees with fossil fuel starvation as a limit to global warming, because most of the actions to reduce global warming involve the creation of alternative power sources which will be necessary when we run out of fossil fuels. It does however lighten the day - and it makes me laugh at the way I'm being treated by those who ought to know better - a laugh all the greater because I'm fairly confident I'll be proved right and I'm sure those small-minded people who keep pulling the section on fossil fuel will wonder why they were so gullible! **** - I can't stop laughing, I've got to go!LordsReform 11:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You contributions here don't match the status you assert for yourself. The peak oil article asserts coal peak in 2150, in contradiction to the early peak of 2030 you inserted. I've pointed out several times that the 2030 peak is based on a very dubious fit and you've never responded. You persist in concentrating on peak oil, when other C is probably more important William M. Connolley 12:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Connolley, it matters not at all what you think, it matters whether the article fairly represents all views even if you don't personally like them. Let me quote: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial."
"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."
I don't have to prove anything except that some experts maintain these views, that these views have been published in reputable sources and I have repeatedly done both. Unless I am very much mistaken this article is clearly breaking WP:NPOV by not including contrary views, and those who repeatedly delete these contrary views should think carefully about the behaviour!LordsReform 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to quote the bit from WP:NPOV where it says "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." Raymond Arritt 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Did you read what you just wrote? That pretty much sums up the leftist bias here: "...regardless of whether it is true or not"
Are you liberals out of your minds? Since when is a false consensus more accurate than the truth? You're saying that it doesn't matter if somethign is true or not, it's a majority viewpont that matters. This place is pathetic. You libs are really showing your true colors now.

Yeah, you're right, it was the liberal majority that just KNEW there were WMDs in Iraq... Go play with Ann Coulter you neo-nazi finger pointer!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change/Archive_18&oldid=1052879333"